Creationism Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! ==Types== To counter the common misunderstanding that the [[creation–evolution controversy]] was a simple [[dichotomy]] of views, with "creationists" set against "evolutionists", [[Eugenie Scott]] of the [[National Center for Science Education]] produced a diagram and description of a [[wikt:continuum|continuum]] of religious views as a spectrum ranging from extreme literal biblical creationism to materialist evolution, grouped under main headings. This was used in public presentations, then published in 1999 in ''Reports of the NCSE''.<ref name="Scott orig. continuum">{{cite journal|last=Scott|first=Eugenie C.|author-link=Eugenie Scott|date=7 December 2000|title=The Creation/Evolution Continuum|url=http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080509170526/http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp|journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education, July–August 1999|volume=19|issue=4|pages=16–17, 23–25|issn=2158-818X|archive-date=2008-05-09}} (original online version, with link to ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20070708193630/http://www.natcenscied.org/graphics/Continu.jpg the Creation/Evolution Continuum graphic]''</ref> Other versions of a [[Taxonomy (general)|taxonomy]] of creationists were produced,<ref name="Wise-p30">{{cite journal |last=Wise |first=Donald U. |date=January 2001 |title=Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution |url=http://nagt.org/nagt/jge/abstracts/jan01.html |journal=Journal of Geoscience Education |volume=49 |issue=1 |pages=30–35 |issn=1089-9995 |access-date=2014-03-09|bibcode=2001JGeEd..49...30W |doi=10.5408/1089-9995-49.1.30 |s2cid=152260926 }}</ref> and comparisons made between the different groupings.<ref name="nagt-pdf-Ross">{{cite journal |last=Ross |first=Marcus R. |author-link=Marcus R. Ross |date=May 2005 |title=Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism |url=http://nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Ross_v53n3p319.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Ross_v53n3p319.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |journal=Journal of Geoscience Education |volume=53 |issue=3 |pages=319–323 |issn=1089-9995 |access-date=2014-03-09|bibcode=2005JGeEd..53..319R |doi=10.5408/1089-9995-53.3.319 |citeseerx=10.1.1.404.1340 |s2cid=14208021 }}</ref> In 2009 Scott produced a revised continuum taking account of these issues, emphasizing that intelligent design creationism overlaps other types, and each type is a grouping of various beliefs and positions. The revised diagram is labelled to shows a spectrum relating to positions on the [[age of the Earth]], and the part played by [[special creation]] as against evolution. This was published in the book ''Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction'',{{sfn|Scott|2009|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=FAAlDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA63 63–75]}} and the NCSE website rewritten on the basis of the book version.<ref name="Scott1999" /> The main general types are listed below. {| class="wikitable" |+ Comparison of major creationist views |- ! !Humanity !Biological species !Earth !Age of Universe |- ! [[Young Earth creationism]] |rowspan="2"| Directly created by God. |rowspan="2"| Directly created by God. [[Macroevolution]] does not occur. |Less than 10,000 years old. Reshaped by global flood. |Less than 10,000 years old, but some hold this view only for the Solar System. |- ! [[Gap creationism]] |Scientifically accepted age. Reshaped by global flood. |Scientifically accepted age. |- ! [[Progressive creationism]] |Directly created by God, based on [[primate]] anatomy. |Direct creation + evolution. No single common ancestor. |Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. |Scientifically accepted age. |- ! [[Intelligent design]] |Proponents hold various beliefs. (For example, [[Michael Behe]] accepts evolution from primates.) |[[Miracle|Divine intervention]] at some point in the past, as evidenced by what intelligent-design creationists call "[[irreducible complexity]]." Some adherents accept [[common descent]], others do not. |Some claim the existence of Earth is the result of divine intervention. |Scientifically accepted age. |- ! [[Theistic evolution]] ([[evolutionary creation]]ism) |Evolution from primates. |Evolution from single common ancestor. |Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. |Scientifically accepted age. |} ===Young Earth creationism=== {{Main|Young Earth creationism}} [[File:AIG museum.jpg|thumb|right|The [[Creation Museum]] is a young Earth creationism museum run by [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG) in [[Petersburg, Boone County, Kentucky|Petersburg, Kentucky]], United States.]] [[File:ICR Discovery Center - Exterior.jpg|thumb|right|The [[ICR Discovery Center for Science & Earth History]] is a young Earth creationist museum run by [[Institute for Creation Research]] (ICR) in Dallas, Texas, United States.]] Young Earth creationists such as [[Ken Ham]] and [[Doug Phillips (speaker)|Doug Phillips]] believe that God created the Earth within the last ten thousand years, with a [[Biblical literalism|literalist]] interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative, within the approximate time-frame of biblical genealogies. Most young Earth creationists believe that the universe has a similar age as the Earth. A few assign a much older age to the universe than to Earth. Young Earth creationism gives the universe an age consistent with the [[Ussher chronology]] and other young Earth time frames. Other young Earth creationists believe that the Earth and the universe were [[Omphalos hypothesis|created with the appearance of age]], so that the world appears to be much older than it is, and that this appearance is what gives the geological findings and other methods of dating the Earth and the universe their much longer [[timeline]]s.{{cn|date=October 2021}} The Christian organizations [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (ICR) and the [[Creation Research Society]] (CRS) promote young Earth creationism in the United States. [[Carl Baugh]]'s [[Creation Evidence Museum]] in [[Texas]], United States AiG's [[Creation Museum]] and [[Ark Encounter]] in [[Kentucky]], United States were opened to promote young Earth creationism. [[Creation Ministries International]] promotes young Earth views in Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Among [[Catholicism|Roman Catholics]], the [[List of Catholic creationist organisations|Kolbe Center]] for the Study of Creation promotes similar ideas. ===Old Earth creationism=== {{Main|Old Earth creationism}} Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event described in the Book of Genesis is to be taken figuratively. This group generally believes that the [[age of the universe]] and the age of the Earth are as described by [[astronomer]]s and [[geologist]]s, but that details of [[Neo-Darwinism|modern evolutionary theory]] are questionable.<ref name="Scott1999" /> Old Earth creationism itself comes in at least three types:<ref name="Scott1999" /> ====Gap creationism==== {{Main|Gap creationism}} Gap creationism (also known as ''ruin-restoration creationism'', ''restoration creationism'', or ''the Gap Theory'') is a form of old Earth creationism that posits that the six-''[[yom]]'' creation period, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]], involved six literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, which the theory states explains many scientific observations, including the [[age of the Earth]]. Thus, the six days of creation (verse 3 onwards) start sometime after the Earth was "without form and void." This allows an indefinite gap of time to be inserted after the original creation of the universe, but prior to the [[Genesis creation narrative]], (when present biological species and [[human]]ity were created). Gap theorists can therefore agree with the [[scientific consensus]] regarding the age of the Earth and universe, while maintaining a literal interpretation of the biblical text.<ref>''Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction'', [[Eugenie Scott]], pp61-62</ref><ref>''The Scientific Case Against Scientific Creationism'', Jon P. Alston, p24</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html|title=What is Creationism?}}</ref> Some{{which|date=November 2013}} gap creationists expand the basic version of creationism by proposing a "primordial creation" of biological life within the "gap" of time. This is thought to be "the world that then was" mentioned in [[2 Peter]] 3:3–6.<ref>{{Bibleref2|2 Peter|3:3-7|NRSV}}</ref> Discoveries of fossils and archaeological ruins older than 10,000 years are generally ascribed to this "world that then was," which may also be associated with [[War in Heaven|Lucifer's rebellion]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism {{!}} National Center for Science Education|url=https://ncse.ngo/formless-and-void-gap-theory-creationism|access-date=2021-10-30|website=ncse.ngo|language=en}}</ref> ====Day-age creationism==== {{Main|Day-age creationism}} Day-age creationism, a type of old Earth creationism, is a metaphorical [[Biblical exegesis|interpretation]] of the creation accounts in [[Book of Genesis|Genesis]]. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but are much longer periods (from thousands to billions of years). The Genesis account is then reconciled with the [[age of the Earth]]. Proponents of the day-age theory can be found among both theistic evolutionists, who accept the [[scientific consensus]] on [[evolution]], and [[Progressive creationism|progressive creationists]], who reject it. The theories are said to be built on the understanding that the Hebrew word ''[[yom]]'' is also used to refer to a time period, with a beginning and an end and not necessarily that of a 24-hour day. The day-age theory attempts to reconcile the [[Genesis creation narrative]] and modern science by asserting that the creation "days" were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actually lasted for long periods of time (as day-age implies, the "days" each lasted an age). According to this view, the sequence and duration of the creation "days" may be paralleled to the scientific consensus for the age of the [[age of the earth|earth]] and the [[age of the universe|universe]]. ====Progressive creationism==== {{Main|Progressive creationism}} Progressive creationism is the religious belief that [[God]] created new forms of life gradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream [[geological]] and [[cosmology|cosmological]] estimates for the [[age of the Earth]], some tenets of [[biology]] such as [[microevolution]] as well as [[archaeology]] to make its case. In this view creation occurred in rapid bursts in which all "kinds" of plants and animals appear in stages lasting millions of years. The bursts are followed by periods of stasis or equilibrium to accommodate new arrivals. These bursts represent instances of [[God]] creating new types of organisms by divine intervention. As viewed from the archaeological record, progressive creationism holds that "species do not gradually appear by the steady transformation of its ancestors; [but] appear all at once and "fully formed."<ref>Gould, Stephen J. ''The Panda's Thumb'' (New York: W.W. Norton & CO., 1982), page 182.</ref> The view rejects [[macroevolution]], claiming it is biologically untenable and not supported by the [[fossil record]],<ref>Bocchino, Peter; Geisler, Norman "Unshakable Foundations" (Minneapolis: Bethany House., 2001). Pages 141–188</ref> as well as rejects the concept of [[common descent]] from a [[last universal common ancestor]]. Thus the evidence for macroevolution is claimed to be false, but microevolution is accepted as a genetic parameter designed by the Creator into the fabric of genetics to allow for environmental adaptations and survival. Generally, it is viewed by proponents as a middle ground between literal creationism and evolution. Organizations such as [[Reasons To Believe]], founded by [[Hugh Ross (creationist)|Hugh Ross]], promote this version of creationism. Progressive creationism can be held in conjunction with [[hermeneutic]] approaches to the Genesis creation narrative such as the [[day-age creationism]] or [[Framework interpretation (Genesis)|framework]]/metaphoric/poetic views. ===Philosophic and scientific creationism=== ====Creation science==== {{Main|Creation science}} Creation science, or initially scientific creationism, is a [[pseudoscience]]<ref>{{cite journal| pmc=2267227 | pmid=18059309 | doi=10.1038/sj.embor.7401131 | volume=8 | issue=12 | title=Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience? | date=December 2007 | journal=EMBO Rep. | pages=1107–9 | last1 = Greener | first1 = M}}</ref><ref>[[#NAS 1999|NAS 1999]], [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=R9 p. R9]</ref><ref name=amicus>{{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html |date=* |title=Amicus Curiae Brief Of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 State Academies Of Science, And 7 Other Scientific Organizations }}, ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]''</ref><ref name=philofscience>{{cite book|author1=Sahotra Sarkar|author2=Jessica Pfeifer|title=The Philosophy of science: an encyclopedia. A-M|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=od68ge7aF6wC|year=2006|publisher=Psychology Press|isbn=978-0-415-93927-0|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=od68ge7aF6wC&pg=PA194 194]}}</ref><ref>[[#Okasha 2002|Okasha 2002]], p. 127. Okasha's full statement is that "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham{{snd}}a dishonest and misguided attempt to promote religious beliefs under the guise of science, with extremely harmful educational consequences."</ref>{{Excessive citations inline|date=September 2021}} that emerged in the 1960s with proponents aiming to have young Earth creationist beliefs taught in school science classes as a counter to teaching of evolution. Common features of creation science argument include: creationist cosmologies which accommodate a universe on the order of thousands of years old, criticism of [[radiometric dating]] through a technical argument about [[radiohalo]]s, explanations for the [[Fossil#Dating|fossil record]] as a record of the [[Genesis flood narrative]] (see [[flood geology]]), and explanations for the present diversity as a result of pre-designed genetic variability and partially due to the rapid degradation of the perfect [[genome]]s God placed in "[[created kind]]s" or "[[Baraminology|baramins]]" due to [[mutation]]s. ====Neo-creationism==== {{Main|Neo-creationism}} Neo-creationism is a [[pseudoscientific]] movement which aims to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, by policy makers, by educators and by the [[scientific community]]. It aims to [[Framing (social sciences)|re-frame]] the debate over the [[origins of life]] in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the [[United States Supreme Court]] in ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'' that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public-school curricula violates the [[Establishment Clause]] of the First Amendment.<ref name=morris_neo>{{cite web |url= http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=425 |title=Neocreationism |last=Morris |first=Henry M. |author-link=Henry M. Morris |website=icr.org |publisher=[[Institute for Creation Research]] |access-date=Sep 29, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Safire |first =William |date=August 21, 2005 |title=On Language: Neo-Creo |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21ONLANGUAGE.html?ref=onlanguage |journal= The New York Times |access-date=Sep 29, 2014}}</ref><ref name=Scott1996>{{cite conference |author=Scott, Eugenie C. |author-link=Eugenie Scott |conference=The Flight from Science and Reason |year=1996 |title=Creationism, ideology, and science |url= http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationism-ideology-science |access-date=2009-11-12 |book-title=Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences |volume=775 |pages=505–22 |doi= 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1996.tb23167.x |bibcode=1995NYASA.775..505S }}</ref> One of the principal claims of neo-creationism propounds that ostensibly [[Objectivity (science)|objective]] orthodox science, with a foundation in [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]], is actually a dogmatically [[atheism|atheistic]] [[religion]].<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.darwinreconsidered.org/media/MaterialistMythology.pdf |title= Darwinism is Materialist Mythology, Not Science |last= Johnson |first= Phillip E. |date= October 2004 |website= DarwinReconsidered.org |access-date= Sep 29, 2014 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110725220342/http://www.darwinreconsidered.org/media/MaterialistMythology.pdf |archive-date= July 25, 2011 |url-status= dead |df= mdy-all }}</ref> Its proponents argue that the [[scientific method]] excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards [[supernatural]] elements, thus effectively excluding religious insight from contributing to understanding the [[universe]]. This leads to an open and often hostile opposition to what neo-creationists term "[[Darwinism]]", which they generally mean to refer to [[evolution]], but which they may extend to include such concepts as [[abiogenesis]], [[stellar evolution]] and the [[Big Bang]] theory. Unlike their philosophical forebears, neo-creationists largely do not believe in many of the traditional cornerstones of creationism such as a young Earth, or in a dogmatically [[Biblical inerrancy|literal interpretation of the Bible]]. ====Intelligent design==== {{Main|Intelligent design}} Intelligent design (ID) is the [[pseudoscientific]] view<ref name="Boudry 2010">{{cite journal |last1=Boudry |first1=Maarten |author-link1=Maarten Boudry |last2=Blancke |first2=Stefaan |last3=Braeckman |first3=Johan |author-link3=Johan Braeckman |date=December 2010 |title=Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience |journal=[[The Quarterly Review of Biology]] |volume=85 |issue=4 |pages=473–82 |doi=10.1086/656904 |pmid=21243965|url=https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482/file/6828579.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482/file/6828579.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |hdl=1854/LU-952482 |s2cid=27218269 |hdl-access=free }} Article available from [https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482 Universiteit Gent]</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Pigliucci |first1=Massimo |author-link=Massimo Pigliucci |year=2010 |chapter=Science in the Courtroom: The Case against Intelligent Design |chapter-url=http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Nonsenseonstilts.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Nonsenseonstilts.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title=Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk |location=Chicago, Illinois |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-66786-7 |lccn=2009049778 |oclc=457149439 |pages=160–86 |ref=Pigliucci 2010}}</ref> that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."<ref name="DIposition">{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Top Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? |website=[[Center for Science and Culture]] |publisher=[[Discovery Institute]] |location=Seattle, WA |access-date=2007-05-13}}</ref> All of its leading proponents are associated with the [[Discovery Institute]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6pm.html |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=2014-03-13}}</ref> a think tank whose [[wedge strategy]] aims to replace the [[scientific method]] with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" which accepts supernatural explanations.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper">{{cite web|url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf |title=Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals |last=Forrest |first=Barbara |author-link=Barbara Forrest |date=May 2007 |website=[[Center for Inquiry]] |publisher=Center for Inquiry |location=Washington, D.C. |type=A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy |access-date=2014-03-13 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf |archive-date=2011-05-19 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title=The Wedge |year=1999 |publisher=[[Center for Science and Culture|Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture]] |location=Seattle, WA |access-date=2014-03-13}}</ref> It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,<ref name="Wise-p30" /><ref name="nagt-pdf-Ross" /><ref>{{cite journal |last=Mu |first=David |date=Fall 2005 |title=Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design |url=http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/wp-content/themes/hsr/pdf/fall2005/mu.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/wp-content/themes/hsr/pdf/fall2005/mu.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |journal=[[Harvard College#Publications and media|Harvard Science Review]] |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=22–25 |access-date=2014-03-13 |ref=Mu 2005 |quote=...for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.}} * {{cite journal |last=Klotzko |first=Arlene Judith |date=May 28, 2001 |title=Cynical Science and Stem Cells |url=http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/13410/title/Cynical-Science-and-Stem-Cells/ |journal=[[The Scientist (magazine)|The Scientist]] |volume=15 |issue=11 |page=35 |issn=0890-3670 |quote=Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudo-science of 'intelligent design theory.' |access-date=2014-03-13}} * {{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter=cv |opinion=2688 |date=December 20, 2005}}, [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#Page 136 of 139|Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136]].</ref><ref name="Numbers 2006">[[#Numbers 2006|Numbers 2006]]</ref>{{Excessive citations inline|date=September 2021}} and is sometimes referred to as "intelligent design creationism."<ref name="Scott1999" /><ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref>[[#Forrest & Gross 2004|Forrest & Gross 2004]]</ref><ref>[[#Pennock 2001|Pennock 2001]], "Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski," pp. 645–667, "Dembski chides me for never using the term 'intelligent design' without conjoining it to 'creationism'. He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to 'rally the troops'. (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability..." * [[#Pennock 1999|Pennock 1999]]</ref><ref>[[#Scott 2005|Scott 2005]]</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Young |first1=Matt |last2=Edis |first2=Taner | author-link2=Taner Edis |title=Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism |publisher=Rutgers University Press |year=2006 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hYLKdtlVeQgC&q=Why+Intelligent+Design+Fails:+A+Scientific+Critique+of+the+New+Creationism|isbn=9780813538723 }}</ref>{{Excessive citations inline|date=September 2021}} ID originated as a re-branding of creation science in an attempt to avoid a series of court decisions ruling out the teaching of creationism in American public schools, and the Discovery Institute has run [[Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns|a series of campaigns]] to change school curricula.<ref name="Flank_April2006">{{cite web|url=http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm |title=Creationism/ID: A Short Legal History |last=Flank |first=Lenny |website=Talk Reason |date=April 24, 2006 |access-date=2014-03-09 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140823063247/http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm |archive-date=August 23, 2014 }}</ref> In Australia, where curricula are under the control of state governments rather than local school boards, there was a public outcry when the notion of ID being taught in science classes was raised by the Federal Education Minister [[Brendan Nelson]]; the minister quickly conceded that the correct forum for ID, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.<ref>{{cite news |last=Smith |first=Deborah |date=October 21, 2005 |title=Intelligent design not science: experts |url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/intelligent-design-not-science-experts/2005/10/20/1129775902661.html |newspaper=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]] |location=Sydney |publisher=[[Fairfax Media]] |access-date=2007-07-13}}</ref> In the US, teaching of intelligent design in public schools has been decisively ruled by a [[United States district court|federal district court]] to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Kitzmiller v. Dover]], the court found that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,"<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter=cv |opinion=2688 |date=December 20, 2005}}, [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#Page 136 of 139|Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136]].</ref> and hence cannot be taught as an alternative to evolution in public school science classrooms under the jurisdiction of that court. This sets a [[Precedent#Persuasive precedent|persuasive precedent]], based on previous US [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] decisions in ''Edwards v. Aguillard'' and ''[[Epperson v. Arkansas]]'' (1968), and by the application of the [[Lemon v. Kurtzman|Lemon test]], that creates a legal hurdle to teaching intelligent design in public school districts in other federal court jurisdictions.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref name="kitz">[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al.|Full text of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III's ruling in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'', dated December 20, 2005.]]</ref> ===Geocentrism=== {{Main|Geocentric model}} In [[astronomy]], the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is a description of the [[cosmos]] where Earth is at the orbital center of all celestial bodies. This model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations such as [[ancient Greece]]. As such, they assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and [[Classical planet|naked eye planets]] circled Earth, including the noteworthy systems of [[Aristotle]] (see [[Aristotelian physics]]) and [[Ptolemy]]. Articles arguing that geocentrism was the biblical perspective appeared in some early creation science newsletters associated with the Creation Research Society pointing to some passages in the Bible, which, when taken literally, indicate that the daily apparent motions of the Sun and the Moon are due to their actual motions around the Earth rather than due to the rotation of the Earth about its axis. For example, {{bibleverse|Joshua|10:12-13|HE}} where the Sun and Moon are said to stop in the sky, and {{bibleverse|Psalms|93:1|HE}} where the world is described as immobile.<ref name="Numbers1993">{{cite book |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L. |year=1993 |orig-year=Originally published 1992; New York: [[Alfred A. Knopf]] |title=The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |page=[https://archive.org/details/creationistsevol0000numb/page/237 237] |isbn=978-0-5200-8393-6 |lccn=93015804 |oclc=810488078 |url=https://archive.org/details/creationistsevol0000numb/page/237 }}</ref> Contemporary advocates for such [[religious belief]]s include [[Robert Sungenis]], co-author of the self-published ''Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right'' (2006).<ref name="Sefton2006">{{cite news |first=Dru |last=Sefton |date=March 30, 2006 |title=In this world view, the sun revolves around the earth |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_1kaAAAAIBAJ&dq=robert-sungenis&pg=6714%2C4991566 |newspaper=[[Times-News (Hendersonville, North Carolina)|Times-News]] |location=Hendersonville, NC |publisher=Hendersonville Newspaper Corporation |agency=[[Religion News Service]] |page=5A |access-date=2014-03-14}}</ref> These people subscribe to the view that a plain reading of the Bible contains an accurate account of the manner in which the universe was created and requires a geocentric worldview. Most contemporary creationist organizations reject such perspectives.{{refn|group="note"|Donald B. DeYoung, for example, states that "Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the 'language of appearance,' just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1997/11/05/astronomy-bible |title=Astronomy and the Bible: Selected questions and answers excerpted from the book |last=DeYoung |first=Donald B. |date=November 5, 1997 |website=[[Answers in Genesis]] |publisher=Answers in Genesis Ministries International |location=Hebron, KY |access-date=2013-12-01}}</ref>}} === Omphalos hypothesis === {{Main|Omphalos hypothesis}} The Omphalos hypothesis is one attempt to reconcile the scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old with a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative, which implies that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|url=http://www.roizen.com/ron/omph.htm|title=The rejection of Omphalos: a note on shifts in the intellectual hierarchy of mid-nineteenth century Britain|last=Roizen|first=Ron|journal=Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion|year=1982|volume=21|issue=4|pages=365–369|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070219011828/http://www.roizen.com/ron/omph.htm|archive-date=2007-02-19|doi=10.2307/1385525|jstor=1385525}}</ref> It is based on the religious belief that the universe was created by a divine being, within the past six to ten thousand years (in keeping with [[flood geology]]), and that the presence of objective, verifiable evidence that the universe is older than approximately ten millennia is due to the creator introducing false evidence that makes the universe appear significantly older. The idea was named after the title of an 1857 book, ''[[Omphalos (book)|Omphalos]]'' by [[Philip Henry Gosse]], in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be functional [[God]] must have created the [[Earth]] with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with fully grown hair, fingernails, and [[navel]]s<ref name="Gardner2000">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=z1NdAgAAQBAJ|title=Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience|last=Gardner|first=Martin|publisher=W. W. Norton & Company|year=2000|isbn=9780393322385|place=New York|pages=7–14}}</ref> (ὀμφαλός ''[[omphalos]]'' is [[Greek language|Greek]] for "navel"), and all living creatures with fully formed evolutionary features, etc..., and that, therefore, ''no'' [[empirical evidence]] about the [[age of the Earth]] or [[age of the universe|universe]] can be taken as reliable. Various supporters of Young Earth creationism have given different explanations for their belief that the universe is filled with false evidence of the universe's age, including a belief that some things needed to be created at a certain age for the ecosystems to function, or their belief that the creator was deliberately planting deceptive evidence. The idea has seen some revival in the 20th century by some modern creationists, who have extended the argument to address the [[Creationist cosmologies#Starlight problem|"starlight problem"]]. The idea has been criticised as [[Last Thursdayism]], and on the grounds that it requires a deliberately deceptive creator. Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page