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! ==Criticism== ===Christian criticism=== Most Christians disagree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools.<ref>{{cite book |title=Exploring and Proclaiming the Apostles' Creed |first1=Roger |last1=van Harn |first2=David F. |last2=Ford |first3=Colin E. |last3=Gunton |publisher=A&C Black |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-8192-8116-6 |page=44 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GCXUAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA44}} [https://books.google.com/books?id=GCXUAwAAQBAJ Extract of page 44]</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism |first1=Aron |last1=Ra |publisher=Pitchstone Publishing |year=2016 |isbn=978-1-63431-079-6 |page=182 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=F-rvDAAAQBAJ}} [https://books.google.com/books?id=F-rvDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT182 Extract of page 182]</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Martin |first=Joel W. |date=September 2010 |title=Compatibility of Major U.S. Christian Denominations with Evolution |journal=Evolution: Education and Outreach |volume=3 |issue=3 |pages=420–431 |language=en |doi=10.1007/s12052-010-0221-5|s2cid=272665 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Several religious organizations, among them the [[Catholic Church]], hold that their faith does not conflict with the scientific consensus regarding evolution.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion |title=Statements from Religious Organizations |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |access-date=2011-03-10|date=2008-09-08 }}</ref> The [[Clergy Letter Project]], which has collected more than 13,000 signatures, is an "endeavor designed to demonstrate that religion and science can be compatible." In his 2002 article "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem", George Murphy argues against the view that life on Earth, in all its forms, is direct evidence of God's act of creation (Murphy quotes [[Phillip E. Johnson]]'s claim that he is speaking "of a God who acted openly and left his fingerprints on all the evidence."). Murphy argues that this view of God is incompatible with the Christian understanding of God as "the one revealed in the cross and resurrection of Christ." The basis of this theology is [[Isaiah]] 45:15, "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." Murphy observes that the execution of a Jewish carpenter by [[Roman Empire|Roman]] authorities is in and of itself an ordinary event and did not require [[Miracle|divine action]]. On the contrary, for the crucifixion to occur, God had to limit or "empty" himself. It was for this reason that [[Paul the Apostle]] wrote, in [[Epistle to the Philippians|Philippians]] 2:5-8: <blockquote>Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.</blockquote> Murphy concludes that,<blockquote>Just as the Son of God limited himself by taking human form and dying on a cross, God limits divine action in the world to be in accord with rational laws which God has chosen. This enables us to understand the world on its own terms, but it also means that natural processes hide God from scientific observation.</blockquote>For Murphy, a theology of the cross requires that Christians accept a [[Naturalism (philosophy)#Methodological naturalism|''methodological'' naturalism]], meaning that one cannot invoke God to explain natural phenomena, while recognizing that such acceptance does not require one to accept a [[Metaphysical naturalism|''metaphysical'' naturalism]], which proposes that nature is all that there is.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Murphy |first=George L. |year=2002 |title=Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem |url=http://puffin.creighton.edu/nrcse/IDTHG.html |journal=Covalence: The Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology |volume=IV |issue=2 |oclc=52753579 |access-date=2014-03-31 |archive-date=2016-04-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160411004103/http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/IDTHG.html |url-status=dead }} Reprinted with permission.</ref> The Jesuit priest [[George Coyne]] has stated that it is "unfortunate that, especially here in America, creationism has come to mean...some literal interpretation of Genesis." He argues that "...Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in belief that everything depends on God, or better, all is a gift from God."<ref>{{cite book|last1=Purcell|first1=Brendan|title=From Big Bang to Big Mystery: Human Origins in the Light of Creation and Evolution|date=2012|publisher=New City Press of the Focolare|isbn=978-1565484337|pages=94}}</ref> ===Teaching of creationism=== Other Christians have expressed qualms about teaching creationism. In March 2006, then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the leader of the world's Anglicans, stated his discomfort about teaching creationism, saying that creationism was "a kind of [[category mistake]], as if the Bible were a theory like other theories." He also said: "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." The views of the [[Episcopal Church (United States)|Episcopal Church]]{{snd}}a major American-based branch of the Anglican Communion{{snd}}on teaching creationism resemble those of Williams.<ref name="Archbishop_2006"/> The National Science Teachers Association is opposed to teaching creationism as a science,<ref>{{cite web |title=NSTA Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution |publisher=National Science Teachers Association | year=2013 |url=http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx}}</ref> as is the Association for Science Teacher Education,<ref>{{cite web |title= ASTE Position Statement on Teaching Biological Evolution |year=2015 |publisher=Association for Science Teacher Education |url=https://theaste.org/about/aste-position-statement-on-teaching-biological-evolution/}}</ref> the National Association of Biology Teachers,<ref>{{cite web |title=NABT Position Statement on Teaching Evolution |publisher=National Association of Biology Teachers |year=2011 |url=http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/?p=92 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150916020337/http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/?p=92 |archive-date=2015-09-16 }}</ref> the American Anthropological Association,<ref>{{cite web |title=Statement on Evolution and Creationism |publisher=American Anthropological Association |year=2000 |url=http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2599}}</ref> the American Geosciences Institute,<ref>{{cite web |title=American Geological Institute Position on Teaching Evolution |publisher=American Geoscience Institute |year=2000 |url=http://www.agiweb.org/gapac/evolution_statement.html}}</ref> the Geological Society of America,<ref>{{cite web |year=2012 |title=Position Statement: Teaching Evolution |publisher=Geological Society of America |url=https://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm |access-date=2019-08-29 |archive-date=2021-10-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211022084107/https://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref> the American Geophysical Union,<ref>{{cite web |title=AGU Position Statement on Teaching Creationism as Science |publisher=American Geophysical Institute |year=1998 |url=http://www.rbsp.info/rbs/CLONE/debate.html}}</ref> and numerous other professional teaching and scientific societies. In April 2010, the [[American Academy of Religion]] issued ''Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K‐12 Public Schools in the United States'', which included guidance that creation science or intelligent design should not be taught in science classes, as "Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." However, they, as well as other "worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/news/2010/07/american-academy-religion-teaching-creationism-005712 |title=American Academy of Religion on teaching creationism |date=July 23, 2010 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |access-date=2010-08-09}}</ref> Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner, from the biology program at the [[University of Minnesota]], reflect on the relevance of teaching creationism in the article "The Creationist Down the Hall: Does It Matter When Teachers Teach Creationism?", in which they write: "Despite decades of science education reform, numerous legal decisions declaring the teaching of creationism in public-school science classes to be unconstitutional, overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, and the many denunciations of creationism as nonscientific by professional scientific societies, creationism remains popular throughout the United States."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Moore |first1=Randy |last2=Cotner |first2=Sehoya |date=May 2009 |title=The Creationist Down the Hall: Does It Matter When Teachers Teach Creationism? |journal=[[BioScience]] |volume=59 |issue=5 |pages=429–35 |doi=10.1525/bio.2009.59.5.10 |issn=0006-3568 |jstor=25502451 |s2cid=86428123 }}</ref> ===Scientific criticism=== {{Main|Creation–evolution controversy}} Science is a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence, and the development of theories that yield testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena. By contrast, creationism is often based on literal interpretations of the narratives of particular religious texts.<ref>[[#NAS 2008|NAS 2008]], [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=12 p. 12]</ref> Creationist beliefs involve purported forces that lie outside of nature, such as supernatural intervention, and often do not allow predictions at all. Therefore, these can neither be confirmed nor disproved by scientists.<ref name="SEaC">[[#NAS 2008|NAS 2008]], [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=10 p. 10], "In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations."</ref> However, many creationist beliefs can be framed as testable predictions about phenomena such as the age of the Earth, its [[geological history of Earth|geological history]] and the origins, [[biogeography|distributions]] and [[Phylogenetics|relationships]] of living organisms found on it. [[History of science|Early science]] incorporated elements of these beliefs, but as science developed these beliefs were gradually [[Falsifiability|falsified]] and were replaced with understandings based on accumulated and reproducible evidence that often allows the accurate prediction of future results.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html |title=An Index to Creationist Claims |editor-last=Isaak |editor-first=Mark |year=2006 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=2012-12-09}}</ref><ref>[[#Futuyma 2005|Futuyma 2005]]</ref> Some scientists, such as [[Stephen Jay Gould]],<ref name="RoA">[[#Gould 1999|Gould 1999]]</ref> consider science and religion to be two compatible and complementary fields, with authorities in distinct areas of human experience, so-called [[non-overlapping magisteria]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Gould |first=Stephen Jay |date=March 1997 |title=Nonoverlapping Magisteria |url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html |journal=[[Natural History (magazine)|Natural History]] |volume=106 |pages=16–22 |issue=3 |issn=0028-0712 |access-date=2014-03-31 |archive-date=2017-01-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170104061453/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> This view is also held by many theologians, who believe that [[Unmoved mover|ultimate origins]] and [[meaning of life|meaning]] are addressed by religion, but favor verifiable scientific explanations of natural phenomena over those of creationist beliefs. Other scientists, such as [[Richard Dawkins]],<ref>[[#Dawkins 2006|Dawkins 2006]], p. 5</ref> reject the non-overlapping magisteria and argue that, in disproving literal interpretations of creationists, the scientific method also undermines religious texts as a source of truth. Irrespective of this diversity in viewpoints, since creationist beliefs are not supported by empirical evidence, the scientific consensus is that any attempt to teach creationism as science should be rejected.<ref name="RoyalSociety_2006">{{cite web|url=http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298|title=Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design|date=April 11, 2006|website=[[Royal Society]]|publisher=Royal Society|location=London|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080602213726/http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298|archive-date=2008-06-02|access-date=2014-03-09}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism |title=Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism |last1=Matsumura |first1=Molleen |last2=Mead |first2=Louise |date=February 14, 2001 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |access-date=2008-11-04}} Updated 2007-07-31.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php |title=Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution? |last=Myers |first=PZ |author-link=PZ Myers |date=June 18, 2006 |website=[[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] |publisher=[[ScienceBlogs|ScienceBlogs LLC]] |type=Blog |access-date=2007-09-12 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070809011055/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php |archive-date=August 9, 2007 }}</ref> 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