Creationism

==Theistic evolution==
{{Main|Theistic evolution}}
Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creation, is a belief that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes."<ref>[[#Sweet & Feist 2007|Sweet & Feist 2007]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=qwaRUNj6S34C&dq=theistic+evolution+evolutionary+creation&pg=PA48 p. 48], "''Evolutionary Creation'' (or Theistic Evolution) asserts that the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes."</ref> According to the American Scientific Affiliation:

{{Blockquote|A theory of theistic evolution (TE){{snd}}also called evolutionary creation{{snd}}proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution{{snd}}astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life){{snd}}but it can refer only to biological evolution.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te2-cr.htm |title=Evolutionary Creation |last=Rusbult |first=Craig |year=1998 |publisher=American Scientific Affiliation |location=Ipswich, MA |access-date=2014-03-14 }}</ref>}}

Through the 19th century the term ''creationism'' most commonly referred to [[Creationism (soul)|direct creation of individual souls]], in contrast to [[traducianism]]. Following the publication of ''[[Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation]]'', there was interest in ideas of Creation by [[divine law]]. In particular, the [[liberal Christianity|liberal theologian]] [[Baden Powell (mathematician)|Baden Powell]] argued that this illustrated the Creator's power better than the idea of miraculous creation, which he thought ridiculous.<ref>[[#Bowler 2003|Bowler 2003]], p. 139</ref> When ''On the Origin of Species'' was published, the cleric [[Charles Kingsley]] wrote of evolution as "just as noble a conception of Deity."<ref name="Darwinanddesign">{{cite web|url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwin-and-design-article |title=Darwin and design: historical essay |year=2007 |website=Darwin Correspondence Project |publisher=Cambridge University Library |location=Cambridge, UK |access-date=2012-04-18 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141021101910/http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwin-and-design-article |archive-date=2014-10-21 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2534 |title=Kingsley, Charles to Darwin, C. R. |last=Kingsley |first=Charles |author-link=Charles Kingsley |date=November 18, 1859 |website=Darwin Correspondence Project |publisher=Cambridge University Library |location=Cambridge, UK |id=Letter 2534 |access-date=2010-08-11}}</ref> Darwin's view at the time was of God creating life through the laws of nature,<ref name="James_Moore">{{cite interview |last=Moore |first=James |author-link=James Moore (biographer) |interviewer=[[Krista Tippett]] |title=Evolution and Wonder: Understanding Charles Darwin |url=http://www.onbeing.org/program/evolution-and-wonder-understanding-charles-darwin/transcript/899 |via=[[NPR]] |work=[[On Being|Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett]] |date=September 20, 2007 |publisher=[[American Public Media]] |access-date=2014-03-09 |archive-date=2015-11-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151118040338/http://www.onbeing.org/program/evolution-and-wonder-understanding-charles-darwin/transcript/899 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>[[#Quammen 2006|Quammen 2006]], p. 119</ref> and the book makes several references to "creation," though he later regretted using the term rather than calling it an unknown process.<ref>[[#Barlow 1963|Barlow 1963]], [http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1577&pageseq=9 p. 207]</ref> In America, [[Asa Gray]] argued that evolution is the secondary effect, or ''modus operandi'', of the first cause, design,<ref>[[#Dewey 1994|Dewey 1994]], p. 27</ref> and published a pamphlet defending the book in theistic terms, ''Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology''.<ref name="Darwinanddesign" /><ref name="Miles_2001">{{cite journal |last=Miles |first=Sara Joan |date=September 2001 |title=Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design |url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html |journal=Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith |volume=53 |pages=196–201 |access-date=2008-11-22}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Gray |first=Asa |author-link=Asa Gray |year=1860 |title=Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/84/69/ |journal=[[The Atlantic|The Atlantic Monthly]] |type=Reprint |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090220124011/http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/84/69/ <!--Added by H3llBot--> |archive-date=2009-02-20 |access-date=2009-04-11}} "Atlantic Monthly for ''July'', ''August'', and ''October'', 1860, reprinted in 1861."</ref> Theistic evolution, also called, evolutionary creation, became a popular compromise, and [[St. George Jackson Mivart]] was among those accepting evolution but attacking Darwin's naturalistic mechanism. Eventually it was realised that supernatural intervention could not be a scientific explanation, and naturalistic mechanisms such as [[Lamarckism#Neo-Lamarckism|neo-Lamarckism]] were favoured as being more compatible with purpose than natural selection.<ref name="bowl202">[[#Bowler 2003|Bowler 2003]], pp. 202–08</ref>

Some theists took the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about [[God in Christianity|Christian God]] and creation are compatible with some or all of modern scientific theory, including specifically evolution; it is also known as "evolutionary creation." In ''Evolution versus Creationism'', [[Eugenie Scott]] and [[Niles Eldredge]] state that it is in fact a type of evolution.<ref>[[#Scott 2005|Scott 2005]], pp. 62–63</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.

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 Origin of Life">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/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 |access-date=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=http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp |journal=[[Catholic Answers|This Rock]] |volume=15 |issue=1 |issn=1049-4561 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070804102139/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp |archive-date=2007-08-04 |access-date=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=http://natcath.org/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 |access-date=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=http://www.catholic.org/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. |author-link=George Coyne |date=January 30, 2006 |publisher=Catholic Online, LLC |access-date=2011-03-10 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110606050849/http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504 |archive-date=June 6, 2011 }}</ref></blockquote>

While supporting the [[naturalism (philosophy)|methodological naturalism]] inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject the implication taken by some [[atheism|atheists]] that this gives credence to [[Ontology|ontological]] [[materialism]]. In fact, many modern philosophers of science,<ref>[[#Pennock 1999|Pennock 1999]]
* {{cite web |url=http://llanoestacado.org/freeinquiry/files/naturalism.html |title=Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry |last=Schafersman |first=Steven D. |author-link=Steven Schafersman |date=May 1997 |website=Free Inquiry: The Humanist and Skeptic Website of Steven Schafersman |publisher=Steven Schafersman |access-date=2014-03-15}}
* {{cite web |url=http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/04/on_methodologic.html |title=On Methodological Naturalism and Intelligent Design (or Why Can't Lawrence VanDyke Leave Well Enough Alone?) |last=Leiter |first=Brian |author-link=Brian Leiter |date=April 6, 2004 |website=Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog |publisher=Brian Leiter |type=Blog |access-date=2014-03-15}}
* {{cite journal |last=Burgeson |first=John W. |year=1997 |title=NTSE: An Intellectual Feast |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/ntse182.htm |journal=Origins & Design |volume=18 |issue=2 |access-date=2014-03-15}}
* [[#Draper 2005|Draper 2005]]
* {{cite journal |last1=Pigliucci |first1=Massimo |author-link=Massimo Pigliucci |last2=Banta |first2=Joshua |last3=Bossu |first3=Christen |last4=Crouse |first4=Paula |last5=Dexter |first5=Troy |last6=Hansknecht |first6=Kerry |last7=Muth |first7=Norris |display-authors=1 |date=May–June 2004 |title=The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory |url=http://philosophynow.org/issues/46/The_Alleged_Fallacies_of_Evolutionary_Theory |journal=[[Philosophy Now]] |issue=46 |issn=0961-5970 |access-date=2014-03-15}}
* {{cite web |url=http://www.biology.uiowa.edu/ID.html |title=Statement on Intelligent Design |year=2005 |website=The Department of Biology |publisher=[[University of Iowa]] |type=Petition |location=Iowa City, IA |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100901150357/http://www.biology.uiowa.edu/ID.html |archive-date=2010-09-01 |access-date=2014-03-15}}
* {{cite journal |last=Pigliucci |first=Massimo |date=December 2005 |title=Science and fundamentalism |journal=EMBO Reports |volume=6 |issue=12 |doi=10.1038/sj.embor.7400589 |issn=1469-3178 |pmc=1369219 |pmid=16319954 |pages=1106–1109}}
* {{cite web |url=http://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/naturalism.html |title=Justifying Methodological Naturalism |last=Martin |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Martin (philosopher) |year=2002 |website=The Secular Web |publisher=[[Internet Infidels|Internet Infidels, Inc.]] |location=Colorado Springs, CO |access-date=2014-03-15}}</ref> including atheists,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2005/intelligent-design-or-natural-design/ |title=Intelligent Design or Natural Design |last=Bradley |first=Raymond |date=November 23, 2005 |website=Butterflies and Wheels |publisher=[[Ophelia Benson]] |location=Seattle, WA |access-date=2014-03-16}}</ref> refer to the long-standing convention in the scientific method that [[observation|observable]] events in nature should be explained by natural causes, with the distinction that it does not assume the actual existence or non-existence of the supernatural. <!---Among other things, it means that science does not deal with the question of the existence of a Creator, and argues neither for nor against it.
"while on the other hand many scientists support such faiths which allow a voice to their spiritual side." Don't know how to include this, it anyway should talk about scientific positions (and not faiths) and spiritual side--->
Description	What you type	What you get
Italic	''Italic text''	Italic text
Bold	'''Bold text'''	Bold text
Bold & italic	'''''Bold & italic text'''''	*Bold & italic text*
Description	What you type	What you get
Reference	Page text.<ref>[https://www.example.org/ Link text], additional text.</ref>	Page text.^[1]
Named reference	Page text.<ref name="test">[https://www.example.org/ Link text]</ref>	Page text.^[2]
Additional use of the same reference	Page text.<ref name="test" />	Page text.^[2]
Display references	<references />	↑ Link text, additional text. ↑ Link text