View source for Creationism

{{Short description|Belief that nature originated through supernatural acts}}
{{other uses|Creation myth|Creationism (soul)|Creationism (literary movement)}}
{{protection padlock|small=yes}}
{{creationism2}}
{{Intelligent Design}}
'''Creationism''' is the [[faith|religious belief]] that [[nature]], and aspects such as the [[universe]], [[Earth]], [[life]], and [[human]]s, originated with [[supernatural]] acts of [[Creation myth|divine creation]], and is often [[Pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Greener |first=Mark |date=December 2007 |title=Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience? |url=https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2267227/ |journal=EMBO reports |volume=8 |issue=12 |pages=1107–1109 |doi=10.1038/sj.embor.7401131 |issn=1469-221X |pmc=2267227 |pmid=18059309}}</ref><ref name="Gunn2004">[[#Gunn 2004|Gunn 2004]], p. 9, "The ''Concise Oxford Dictionary'' says that creationism is 'the belief that the universe and living organisms originated from specific acts of divine creation.'"</ref><!--<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=46aUBQAAQBAJ&q=Handbook+of+Evolutionary+Thinking+in+the+Sciences&pg=PA789|title=Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences|last1=Brosseau|first1=Olivier|last2=Silberstein|first2=Marc|publisher=Springer|year=2015|isbn=9789401790147|editor-last1=Heams|editor-first1=Thomas|place=Dordrecht|pages=881–96|contribution=Evolutionism(s) and Creationism(s)|editor-last2=Huneman|editor-first2=Philippe|editor-last3=Lecointre|editor-first3=Guillaume|editor-last4=Silberstein.|editor-first4=Marc}}</ref>--><ref name="Pseudoscience Albert">{{cite web |last=Albert |first=Leon H. |title="Scientific" Creationism as a Pseudoscience |website=National Center for Science Education |date=12 March 2025 |url=https://ncse.ngo/scientific-creationism-pseudoscience |access-date=17 May 2025}} originally published in Creation/Evolution Journal | Volume 6 | No. 2 | Summer 1986.</ref> In its broadest sense, creationism includes various religious views,<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=46aUBQAAQBAJ&q=Handbook+of+Evolutionary+Thinking+in+the+Sciences&pg=PA789|title=Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences|last1=Brosseau|first1=Olivier|last2=Silberstein|first2=Marc|publisher=Springer|year=2015|isbn=9789401790147|editor-last1=Heams|editor-first1=Thomas|place=Dordrecht|pages=881, 884|contribution=Evolutionism(s) and Creationism(s)|editor-last2=Huneman|editor-first2=Philippe|editor-last3=Lecointre|editor-first3=Guillaume|editor-last4=Silberstein.|editor-first4=Marc|quote=Creationism is not a single homogenous doctrine ... Evolution, as a process, is a tool God uses to continually create the world. Here we have arrived at another sub-category of creationism called 'evolutionist creationism'}}</ref><ref name="Stewart2009">[[#Stewart 2010|Haarsma 2010]], p. 168, "Some Christians, often called 'Young Earth creationists,' reject evolution in order to maintain a semi-literal interpretation of certain biblical passages. Other Christians, called 'progressive creationists,' accept the scientific evidence for some evolution over a long history of the earth, but also insist that God must have performed some miracles during that history to create new life-forms. [[Intelligent design]], as it is promoted in North America is a form of progressive creation. Still other Christians, called theistic evolutionists' or 'evolutionary creationists,' assert that the scientific theory of evolution and the religious beliefs of Christianity can both be true."</ref> which differ in their acceptance or rejection of [[science|modern scientific concepts]], such as [[evolution]], that describe the origin and development of natural phenomena.<ref name="Scott1999" /><ref name="OD_creationism">{{cite web|url=http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/creationism?q=creationism|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140303163316/http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/creationism?q=creationism|url-status=dead|archive-date=March 3, 2014|title=creationism: definition of creationism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|website=Oxford Dictionaries|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|location=Oxford|type=Definition|oclc=656668849|access-date=2014-03-05|quote=The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.}}</ref>

The term ''creationism'' most often refers to belief in [[special creation]]: the claim that the universe and lifeforms were created as they exist today by divine action, and that the only true explanations are those which are compatible with a [[Christian fundamentalism|Christian fundamentalist]] [[Biblical literalism|literal]] interpretation of the [[creation myth]] found in the [[Bible]]'s [[Genesis creation narrative]].<ref>{{harv|Scott|2009|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=FAAlDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA57 57, 97–98]|quote=The term creationism to many people connotes the theological doctrine of special creationism: that God created the universe essentially as we see it today, and that this universe has not changed appreciably since that creation event. Special creationism includes the idea that God created living things in their present forms, and it reflects a literalist view of the Bible. It is most closely associated with the endeavour of "creation science," which includes the view that the universe is only 10,000 years old. But the most important aspect of special creation is the idea that things are created in their present forms.}}</ref> Since the 1970s, the most common form of this has been [[Young Earth creationism]] which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 years on the basis of [[flood geology]], and promotes pseudoscientific [[creation science]]. From the 18th century onward, [[Old Earth creationism]] accepted [[Geologic time scale|geological time]] harmonized with Genesis through [[gap creationism|gap]] or [[day-age creationism|day-age theory]], while supporting [[Objections to evolution|anti-evolution]]. Modern old-Earth creationists support [[progressive creationism]] and continue to reject evolutionary explanations.<ref name="Scott1999">{{cite web |author=Eugenie Scott | author-link=Eugenie Scott |title=The Creation/Evolution Continuum |website=[[National Center for Science Education|NCSE]] |date=12 March 2025 |url=https://ncse.ngo/creationevolution-continuum |access-date=14 May 2025|quote=creationism comes in many forms, and not all of them reject evolution .... From a scientific point of view, evolutionary creationism is hardly distinguishable from theistic evolution, which follows it on the continuum. The differences between EC and theistic evolution lie not in science but in theology, .... Theistic evolutionists (TEs) accept all the results of modern science, in anthropology and biology as well as in astronomy, physics, and geology.}}</ref> Following [[Rejection of evolution by religious groups|political controversy]], creation science was reformulated as [[intelligent design]] and [[neo-creationism]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ncse.com/creationism/general/what-is-intelligent-design-creationism|title=What is "Intelligent Design" Creationism?|date=2008-10-17|website=NCSE|access-date=2019-04-23}}</ref><ref name="Campbell_2006">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highereducation|title=Academics fight rise of creationism at universities|last=Campbell|first=Duncan|date=February 20, 2006|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|access-date=2010-04-07|location=London}}</ref>

[[Mainline Protestant]]s and the [[Catholic Church]] reconcile modern science with their faith in Creation through forms of [[theistic evolution]] which hold that God purposefully created through the [[Scientific law|laws of nature]], and accept evolution. Some groups call their belief [[evolutionary creation]]ism.<ref name="Scott1999" /> Less prominently, there are also members of the [[Islamic views on evolution|Islamic]],<ref name="nytimes.com">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/science/03islam.html?_r=0|title=Creationism, Without a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World|last1=Chang|first1=Kenneth|date=November 2, 2009|work=The New York Times}}</ref><ref name="Huffpo">{{cite web|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/usaama-alazami/muslims-and-evolution-in-the-21st-century-a-galileo-moment_b_2688895.html|title=Muslims and Evolution in the 21st Century: A Galileo Moment?|last=al-Azami|first=Usaama|date=2013-02-14|work=Huffington Post Religion Blog|access-date=19 February 2013}}</ref> [[Jewish]], and [[Hindu views on evolution|Hindu]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html|title=Creationism: The Hindu View|website=www.talkorigins.org|access-date=2019-04-23}}</ref> faiths, among others, who are creationists. Use of the term "creationist" in this context dates back to [[Charles Darwin]]'s unpublished 1842 sketch draft for what became ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'',<ref name="CD usage">{{harvnb|Numbers|1998|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=drk3zykoEy4C&pg=PA50 50]}} "Since at least the early 1840s Darwin had occasionally referred to 'creationists' in his unpublished writings, but the epithet acquired little public currency." – [http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=61&itemID=F1555&viewtype=text sketch written in 1842] – "if this had happened on an island, whence could the new forms have come,—here the geologist calls in creationists."</ref> and he used the term later in letters to colleagues.<ref name="Darwin_letters_1856_1863">{{cite web |url=https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-1919 |title=Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D. |last=Darwin |first=Charles |author-link=Charles Darwin |date=July 5, 1856 |website=[[Correspondence of Charles Darwin#Darwin Correspondence Project website|Darwin Correspondence Project]] |publisher=[[Cambridge University Library]] |location=Cambridge, UK |id=Letter 1919 |access-date=2010-08-11}}
*{{cite web |url=https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-4196 |title=Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa |last=Darwin |first=Charles |date=May 31, 1863 |website=Darwin Correspondence Project |publisher=Cambridge University Library |location=Cambridge, UK |id=Letter 4196 |access-date=2010-08-11}}</ref> In 1873, [[Asa Gray]] published an article in ''[[The Nation]]'' saying a "special creationist" who held that species "were supernaturally originated just as they are, by the very terms of his doctrine places them out of the reach of scientific explanation."<ref name="Asa usage">{{harvnb|Numbers|1998|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=drk3zykoEy4C&pg=PA50 50]}} "In 1873 Asa Gray described a 'special creationist' (a phrase he placed in quotation marks) as one who maintained that species 'were supernaturally originated just as they are'," – {{cite book|title=The Nation|url=https://archive.org/details/nation04compgoog|date=October 16, 1873|publisher=J.H. Richards|page=[https://archive.org/details/nation04compgoog/page/n240 260]}}</ref>

==Biblical basis==
The basis for many creationists' beliefs is a [[Biblical literalism|literal]] or quasi-literal interpretation of the [[Book of Genesis]]. The [[Genesis creation narrative]]s (Genesis 1–2) describe how [[God]] brings the Universe into being in a series of creative acts over six days and places the first man and woman ([[Adam and Eve]]) in the [[Garden of Eden]]. This story is the basis of creationist cosmology and biology. The [[Genesis flood narrative]] (Genesis 6–9) tells how God destroys the world and all life through a great flood, saving representatives of each form of life by means of [[Noah's Ark]]. This forms the basis of creationist geology, better known as [[flood geology]].

Recent decades have seen attempts to de-link creationism from the Bible and recast it as science; these include [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]].<ref>Richard F. Carlson, Tremper Longman III, Science, Creation and the Bible: Reconciling Rival Theories of Origins, p.25</ref>

==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.
|rowspan="4"|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.
|-
! [[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.
|-
! [[Theistic evolution]] ([[evolutionary creation]]ism)
|Evolution from primates.
|Evolution from single common ancestor.
|Scientifically accepted age. No global flood.
|}

===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.{{citation needed|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=https://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>{{Bibleverse|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}}</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]]{{efn|Attributed to multiple sources:<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 | issn=1469-221X}}</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>}} 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= https://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=https://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=https://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://web.archive.org/web/20070422235718/http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf |archive-date=2007-04-22 |url-status=usurped |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,{{efn|Attributed to multiple sources:<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 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>}} 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>

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=https://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=https://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.

==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=https://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=https://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=https://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=https://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=https://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=https://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=https://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--->

==By religion==
There are also non-Christian forms of creationism,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/creationism_1.shtml |title=Creationism and intelligent design |date=2 June 2009 |access-date=2 October 2018 |work=[[BBC]]}}</ref> notably [[Islamic creationism]]<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/science/03islam.html |title=Creationism, Minus a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World |first=Kenneth |last=Chang |date=2 November 2009 |access-date=2 October 2018 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> and [[Hindu creationism]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/16/darwin-evolution-china-politics |title=Darwinism, through a Chinese lens |first=Riazat |last=Butt |date=16 November 2009 |access-date=2 October 2018 |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |publisher=[[Guardian News and Media Limited]]}}</ref>

===Bahá'í Faith===
{{main|Bahá'í Faith and science#Creation}}
In the creation myth taught by [[Bahá'u'lláh]], the [[Bahá'í Faith]] founder, the universe has "neither beginning nor ending," and that the component elements of the material world have always existed and will always exist.<ref>[[#`Abdu'l-Bahá 1982|`Abdu'l-Bahá 1982]], [https://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PUP/pup-79.html#gr8 p. 220]</ref> With regard to evolution and the origin of human beings, [['Abdu'l-Bahá]] gave extensive comments on the subject when he addressed western audiences in the beginning of the 20th century. Transcripts of these comments can be found in ''[[Some Answered Questions]]'', ''[[Paris Talks]]'' and ''The Promulgation of Universal Peace''. 'Abdu'l-Bahá described the human species as having evolved from a primitive form to modern man, but that the capacity to form human intelligence was always in existence.

===Buddhism===
{{See also|Creator in Buddhism}}
[[Buddhism]] denies a creator deity and posits that mundane deities such as [[Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school#Brahm.C4.81 Planes|Mahabrahma]] are sometimes misperceived to be a creator.<ref>Harvey, Peter (2013). An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pg. 36-8</ref> While Buddhism includes belief in divine beings called [[Deva (Buddhism)|devas]], it holds that they are mortal, limited in their power, and that none of them are creators of the universe.<ref name="Harvey, Peter 2019 p. 1">Harvey, Peter (2019). ''"Buddhism and Monotheism",'' p. 1. Cambridge University Press.</ref> In the [[Saṃyutta Nikāya]], the Buddha also states that the cycle of rebirths stretches back hundreds of thousands of eons, without discernible beginning.<ref>Keown, Damien (2013). ''"Encyclopedia of Buddhism."'' p. 162. Routledge.</ref>

Major Buddhist Indian philosophers such as [[Nagarjuna]], [[Vasubandhu]], [[Dharmakirti]] and [[Buddhaghosa]], consistently critiqued Creator God views put forth by Hindu thinkers.<ref>Hsueh-Li Cheng. "Nāgārjuna's Approach to the Problem of the Existence of God" in Religious Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Jun., 1976), pp. 207–216 (10 pages), Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref>Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 16:1 (1988:Mar.).</ref><ref name="Harvey, Peter 2019 p. 1"/>

===Christianity===
{{Further|Genesis creation narrative|creation–evolution controversy}}
{{As of|2006}}, most [[Christians]] around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and did not take a [[Biblical literalism|literal view]] of the Genesis creation narrative. The United States is an exception where belief in religious [[fundamentalism]] is much more likely to affect attitudes towards evolution than it is for believers elsewhere. Political partisanship affecting religious belief may be a factor because political partisanship in the US is highly correlated with fundamentalist thinking, unlike in Europe.<ref name="Science survey">{{cite journal |last1=Miller |first1=Jon D. |last2=Scott |first2=Eugenie C. |author-link2=Eugenie Scott |last3=Okamoto |first3=Shinji |date=August 2006 |title=Public acceptance of evolution |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume=313 |issue=5788 |pages=765–66 |doi=10.1126/science.1126746 |pmid=16902112 |s2cid=152990938}}</ref>

Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches,<ref name="Denominational Views">{{cite web |url=https://ncse.com/religion/denominational-views |title=Denominational Views |date=October 17, 2008 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |access-date=2010-05-17}}</ref> such as [[Anglicanism|Anglicans]]<ref name="Episcopal Church">{{cite web|url=https://ncse.com/media/voices/episcopal-church-general-convention-2006 |title=Episcopal Church, General Convention (2006) |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |access-date=2010-05-17|date=2008-09-09}}</ref> and [[Lutheranism|Lutherans]],<ref name="Lutheran">{{cite encyclopedia |last=Schick |first=Edwin A. |editor-last=Bodensieck |editor-first=Julius |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church |url=https://ncse.com/media/voices/lutheran-world-federation |access-date=2010-05-17 |title=Evolution |year=1965 |publisher=[[Augsburg Fortress|Augsburg Publishing House]] |volume=1 |location=Minneapolis, MN |lccn=64021500 |oclc=947120}} Edited for the [[Lutheran World Federation]].
*{{cite journal |last=Hollabaugh |first=Mark |date=October 2006 |title=God allows the universe to create itself and evolve |url=http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=6093 |journal=[[The Lutheran]] |issn=0024-743X |access-date=2014-03-16 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131231072935/http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=6093 |archive-date=2013-12-31}}</ref> consider that there is no conflict between the spiritual meaning of creation and the science of evolution. According to the former [[archbishop of Canterbury]], [[Rowan Williams]], "for most of the history of Christianity, and I think this is fair enough, most of the history of the Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time."<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 21, 2006 |title=Interview: Rowan Williams |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/21/religion.uk |newspaper=The Guardian |type=Transcript |location=London |access-date=2014-03-16}}</ref>

Leaders of the Anglican<ref>{{cite news |last=Williams |first=Christopher |date=March 21, 2006 |title=Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/21/archbishop_backs_evolution/ |work=[[The Register]] |location=London |publisher=Situation Publishing Limited |access-date=2011-03-10}}</ref> and Roman Catholic<ref>{{cite journal |last=McDonell |first=Keelin |date=July 12, 2005 |title=What Catholics Think of Evolution |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2122506/ |journal=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050716003211/http://www.slate.com/id/2122506/ |archive-date=2005-07-16 |access-date=2014-03-16}}</ref>{{efn|See also the article [[Catholic Church and evolution]].}} churches have made statements in favor of evolutionary theory, as have scholars such as the physicist [[John Polkinghorne]], who argues that evolution is one of the principles through which God created living beings. Earlier supporters of evolutionary theory include [[Frederick Temple]], Asa Gray and Charles Kingsley who were enthusiastic supporters of Darwin's theories upon their publication,<ref>[[#Polkinghorne 1998|Polkinghorne 1998]], pp. 7–8</ref> and the French Jesuit priest and geologist [[Pierre Teilhard de Chardin]] saw evolution as confirmation of his Christian beliefs, despite condemnation from Church authorities for his more speculative theories. Another example is that of [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal theology]], not providing any creation models, but instead focusing on the [[symbol]]ism in beliefs of the time of authoring Genesis and the cultural environment.

Many Christians and Jews had been considering the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of historical) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution. For example, [[Philo]], whose works were taken up by early Church writers, wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days, or in any set amount of time.<ref name="Philo_Chapter2">[[#Philo|Philo]]</ref><ref name="www.earlychurch.org.uk">{{cite web |url=https://www.earlychurch.org.uk/philo.php |title=Philo of Alexandria (c. 20&nbsp;BC{{snd}}c. AD&nbsp;50) |last=Bradshaw |first=Rob |website=Early Church.org.uk |publisher=Steve Bradshaw |location=West Wickham, England |access-date=December 21, 2011}}</ref> Augustine of the late fourth century who was also a former neoplatonist argued that everything in the universe was created by God at the same moment in time (and not in six days as a literal reading of the Book of Genesis would seem to require);<ref name="Augustine">{{cite journal |last=Young |first=Davis A. |date=March 1988 |title=The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation |url=https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Young.html |journal=[[American Scientific Affiliation|Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith]] |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=42–45 |issn=0892-2675 |access-date=2008-08-18}}</ref> It appears that both Philo and Augustine felt uncomfortable with the idea of a seven-day creation because it detracted from the notion of God's omnipotence. In 1950, [[Pope Pius XII]] stated limited support for the idea in his [[Encyclical#Catholic usage|encyclical]] {{lang|la|[[Humani generis]]}}.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html |author=Pope Pius XII |author-link=Pope Pius XII |title=Humani Generis |website=Vatican: the Holy See |publisher=[[Holy See]] |location=St. Peter's Basilica, Vatican City |type=[[Encyclical#Catholic usage|Papal encyclical]] |date=August 12, 1950 |access-date=2011-11-08 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120419021937/https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html |archive-date=April 19, 2012}}</ref> In 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] stated that "new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis," but, referring to previous papal writings, he concluded that "if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual [[soul]] is immediately created by God."<ref>{{cite news |author=Pope John Paul II |author-link=Pope John Paul II |date=October 30, 1996 |title=Magisterium is concerned with question of evolution, for it involves conception of man |url=http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/evolution.html |newspaper=[[L'Osservatore Romano]] |type=Message to the [[Pontifical Academy of Sciences]] |edition=Weekly English |location=Tipografia Vaticana, Vatican City |publisher=Holy See |number=44 |pages=3, 7 |access-date=2014-03-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160321064939/http://www.its.caltech.edu/%7Enmcenter/sci-cp/evolution.html |archive-date=March 21, 2016 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all}}</ref>

In the US, Evangelical Christians have continued to believe in a literal Genesis. {{As of|2008}}, members of evangelical Protestant (70%), [[Mormons|Mormon]] (76%) and [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] (90%) denominations were the most likely to reject the evolutionary interpretation of the origins of life.<ref>{{cite report |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |year=2008 |title=U.S. Religious Landscape Survey |chapter-url=http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |publisher=[[Pew Research Center]] |location=Washington, D.C. |chapter=Social and Political Views |page=95 |access-date=2014-03-19}} Report 2: Religious Beliefs & Practices, Chapter 2.</ref>

Jehovah's Witnesses assert that scientific evidence about the age of the universe is compatible with the Bible, but that the 'days' after Genesis 1:1 were each thousands of years in length. They view this belief as an alternative to Creationism rather than a variation of Creationism.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Chryssides|first1=George D.|title=Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses|date=2008|publisher=Scarecrow Press|isbn=9780810862692|page=37|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Xx6nUwZzeCsC&pg=PA37}}</ref>

The historic Christian literal interpretation of creation requires the harmonization of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1–2:3<ref>{{bibleverse|Genesis|1–2:3}}</ref> and Genesis 2:4–25,<ref>{{bibleverse|Genesis|2:4–25}}</ref> for there to be a consistent interpretation.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194 |title=Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis? |last=Jackson |first=Wayne |website=Apologetics Press |date=31 December 1990 |location=Montgomery, Al |access-date=2007-05-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/creationint.html |last=Tobin |first=Paul N. |year=2000 |title=The Creation Myths: Internal Difficulties |website=The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity |publisher=Paul Tobin |location=Singapore |access-date=2014-03-19 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141008175621/http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/creationint.html |archive-date=2014-10-08}}</ref> They sometimes seek to ensure that their belief is taught in science classes, mainly in American schools. Opponents reject the claim that the literalistic biblical view meets the criteria required to be considered scientific. Many religious groups teach that God created the Cosmos. From the days of the early Christian Church Fathers there were allegorical interpretations of the Book of Genesis as well as literal aspects.<ref name="rsf">[[#Forster & Marston 1999|Forster & Marston 1999]]</ref>

[[Christian Science]], a system of thought and practice derived from the writings of [[Mary Baker Eddy]], interprets the Book of Genesis figuratively rather than literally. It holds that the material world is an illusion, and consequently not created by God: the only real creation is the spiritual realm, of which the material world is a distorted version. Christian Scientists regard the story of the creation in the Book of Genesis as having symbolic rather than literal meaning. According to Christian Science, both creationism and evolution are false from an absolute or "spiritual" point of view, as they both proceed from a (false) belief in the reality of a material universe. However, Christian Scientists do not oppose the teaching of evolution in schools, nor do they demand that alternative accounts be taught: they believe that both material science and literalist theology are concerned with the illusory, mortal and material, rather than the real, immortal and spiritual. With regard to material theories of creation, Eddy showed a preference for Darwin's theory of evolution over others.<ref name=S&Hp547>[[#Eddy 1934|Eddy 1934]], p. 547</ref>

===Hinduism===
{{Main|Hindu views on evolution}}
Hindu creationists claim that species of [[plants]] and [[animals]] are material forms adopted by pure consciousness which live an endless cycle of births and rebirths.<ref>[[#McGrath 2010|McGrath 2010]], p. 140</ref> [[Ronald Numbers]] says that: "Hindu Creationists have insisted on the antiquity of humans, who they believe appeared fully formed as long, perhaps, as trillions of years ago."<ref>[[#Numbers 2006|Numbers 2006]], p. 420</ref> Hindu creationism is a form of old Earth creationism, according to Hindu creationists the universe may even be older than billions of years. These views are based on the [[Vedas]], the creation myths of which depict an extreme antiquity of the universe and history of the Earth.<ref>[[#Carper & Hunt 2009|Carper & Hunt 2009]], p. 167</ref><ref>[[#Dasgupta 1922|Dasgupta 1922]], p. 10</ref>

In [[Hindu cosmology]], time cyclically repeats general events of creation and destruction, with many "first man", each known as [[Manu (Hinduism)|Manu]], the progenitor of mankind. Each Manu successively reigns over a 306.72 million year period known as a {{transliteration|sa|[[manvantara]]}}, each ending with the destruction of mankind followed by a {{transliteration|sa|sandhya}} (period of non-activity) before the next {{transliteration|sa|manvantara}}. 120.53{{nbsp}}million years have elapsed in the current {{transliteration|sa|manvantara}} (current mankind) according to calculations on [[Hindu units of time]].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |editor-last1=Doniger |editor-first1=Wendy |editor-link1=Wendy Doniger |editor-last2=Hawley |editor-first2=John Stratton |year=1999 |title=Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780877790440 |url-access=registration |encyclopedia=[[Merriam-Webster]] |publisher=[[Merriam-Webster|Merriam-Webster, Incorporated]] |page=691 (Manu) |isbn=0877790442 |quote=a day in the life of Brahma is divided into 14 periods called manvantaras ("Manu intervals"), each of which lasts for 306,720,000 years. In every second cycle [(new kalpa after pralaya)] the world is recreated, and a new Manu appears to become the father of the next human race. The present age is considered to be the seventh Manu cycle.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author-last=Krishnamurthy |author-first=V. |date=2019 |chapter=Ch. 20: The Cosmic Flow of Time as per Scriptures |title=Meet the Ancient Scriptures of Hinduism |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HF2NDwAAQBAJ&q=%227th+manvantara%22+%2228th%22&pg=PT407 |publisher=Notion Press |isbn=9781684669387 |quote=Each manvantara is preceded and followed by a period of 1,728,000 (= 4K) years when the entire earthly universe (bhu-loka) will submerge under water. The period of this deluge is known as manvantara-sandhya (sandhya meaning, twilight).{{nbsp}}[...] According to the traditional time-keeping{{nbsp}}[...] Thus in Brahma's calendar the present time may be coded as his 51st year – first month – first day – 7th manvantara – 28th maha-yuga – 4th yuga or kaliyuga.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author-last=Gupta |author-first=S. V. |year=2010 |chapter=Ch. 1.2.4 Time Measurements |editor-last1=Hull |editor-first1=Robert |editor-last2=Osgood |editor-first2=Richard M. Jr. |editor-link2=Richard M. Osgood Jr. |editor-last3=Parisi |editor-first3=Jurgen |editor-last4=Warlimont |editor-first4=Hans |title=Units of Measurement: Past, Present and Future. International System of Units |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pHiKycrLmEQC&pg=PA7 |series=Springer Series in Materials Science: 122 |publisher=[[Springer Publishing|Springer]] |pages=7 |isbn=9783642007378}}</ref> The universe is cyclically created at the start and destroyed at the end of a {{transliteration|sa|[[Kalpa (aeon)|kalpa]]}} (day of [[Brahma]]), lasting for 4.32{{nbsp}}billion years, which is followed by a {{transliteration|sa|[[pralaya]]}} (period of dissolution) of equal length. 1.97{{nbsp}}billion years have elapsed in the current {{transliteration|sa|kalpa}} (current universe). The universal elements or building blocks (unmanifest matter) exists for a period known as a {{transliteration|sa|maha-kalpa}}, lasting for 311.04{{nbsp}}trillion years, which is followed by a {{transliteration|sa|maha-pralaya}} (period of great dissolution) of equal length. 155.52{{nbsp}}trillion years have elapsed in the current {{transliteration|sa|maha-kalpa}}.{{sfn|Gupta|2010|pages=7-8}}<ref>{{cite book |author-last=Penprase |author-first=Bryan E. |year=2017 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pQHNDgAAQBAJ |title=The Power of Stars |edition=2nd |publisher=[[Springer Science+Business Media|Springer]] |page=182 |isbn=9783319525976}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Johnson|first=W.J.|title=A Dictionary of Hinduism|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2009|isbn=978-0-19-861025-0|page=165}}</ref>

===Islam===
{{Main|Islamic views on evolution|}}
{{Further|Predestination in Islam}}
The creation myths in the Quran are more vague and allow for a wider range of interpretations similar to those in other Abrahamic religions.<ref name="nytimes.com"/>

Islam also has its own school of theistic evolutionism, which holds that mainstream scientific analysis of the origin of the universe is supported by the Quran. Some [[Muslims]] believe in evolutionary creation, especially among [[liberal movements within Islam]].<ref name="Huffpo"/>

Writing for ''[[The Boston Globe]]'', Drake Bennett noted: "Without a Book of Genesis to account for{{nbsp}}[...] Muslim creationists have little interest in proving that the age of the Earth is measured in the thousands rather than the billions of years, nor do they show much interest in the problem of the dinosaurs. And the idea that animals might evolve into other animals also tends to be less controversial, in part because there are passages of the Koran that seem to support it. But the issue of whether human beings are the product of evolution is just as fraught among Muslims."<ref name="Bennett 4">{{cite news |last=Bennett |first=Drake |date=October 25, 2009 |title=Islam's Darwin problem |url=http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/25/in_the_muslim_world_creationism_is_on_the_rise/?page=full |newspaper=[[The Boston Globe]] |location=Boston, MA |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091030044754/http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/25/in_the_muslim_world_creationism_is_on_the_rise/?page=full |archive-date=2009-10-30 |access-date=2014-03-21}}</ref> Khalid Anees, president of the [[Islamic Society of Britain]], states that Muslims do not agree that one species can develop from another.<ref name="PrizeforFossil">{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3102103/Creationist-Adnan-Oktar-offers-trillion-pound-prize-for-fossil-proof-of-evolution.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3102103/Creationist-Adnan-Oktar-offers-trillion-pound-prize-for-fossil-proof-of-evolution.html |archive-date=2022-01-12 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |last=Irvine |first=Chris |date=September 29, 2008 |title=Creationist Adnan Oktar offers trillion-pound prize for fossil proof of evolution |newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |location=London |access-date=2014-03-21}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref name=guardian0104>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=January 7, 2004 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/conferences/story/0,,1117752,00.html |title=Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools |newspaper=The Guardian |type=Conferences |location=London |access-date=2008-07-18}}</ref>

Ottoman-Lebanese Sunni scholar Hussein al-Jisr, declared that there is no contradiction between evolution and the Islamic scriptures. He stated that "there is no evidence in the Quran to suggest whether all species, each of which exists by the grace of God, were created all at once or gradually", and referred to the aforementioned story of creation in Sūrat al-Anbiyā.<ref>{{cite web |last=Adra |first=Jawad |title=Political inheritance-Absent entirely within the Shia'a community, dwindling within the Maronite and Sunni communities and omnipresent within the Druze |url=https://monthlymagazine.com/article-desc_1812_ |access-date=20 July 2020 |website=Monthly Magazine |archive-date=20 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200720052715/https://monthlymagazine.com/article-desc_1812_ |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Iqbāl |first=Muẓaffar |title=Science and Islam |date=2007 |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |isbn=978-0-313-33576-1 |page=157}}</ref><ref>Majid, Abdul. "The Muslim responses to evolution." Science-Religion Dialogue (2002).</ref><ref>Varisco, Daniel. "Darwin and Dunya: Muslim Responses to Darwinian Evolution." Journal of International & Global Studies 9.2 (2018).</ref> In [[One-party period of the Republic of Turkey|Kemalist Turkey]], important scholars strove to accommodate the theory of evolution in Islamic scripture during the first decades of the Turkish Republic; their approach to the theory defended Islamic belief in the face of scientific theories of their times.<ref name="Vkaya">{{cite journal |last=Kaya |first=Veysel |date=April 2012 |title=Can the Quran Support Darwin? An Evolutionist Approach by Two Turkish Scholars after the Foundation of the Turkish Republic |journal=The Muslim World |volume=102 |issue=2 |page=357 |doi=10.1111/j.1478-1913.2011.01362.x}}</ref>

The Saudi Arabian government, on the other hand, began funding and promoting denial of evolution in the 1970s in accordance to its [[Salafi movement|Salafi]]-[[Wahhabism|Wahhabi]] interpretation of Islam.<ref name="BurtonIRNKSA2">{{cite journal |last=Burton |first=Elise K. |date=May–June 2010 |title=Teaching Evolution in Muslim States:Iran and Saudi Arabia Compared |url=http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/19234639/1613108208/name/Iran%20and%20Saudi%20Arabia%20Compared.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |volume=30 |issue=3 |pages=25–29 |issn=2158-818X |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180219014741/http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/19234639/1613108208/name/Iran%20and%20Saudi%20Arabia%20Compared.pdf |archive-date=2018-02-19 |access-date=2014-01-13}}</ref> This stance garnered criticism from the governments and academics of mainline Muslim countries such as Turkey,<ref>{{Cite web |date=1 March 2017 |title=Turkish academics tell ministry that evolution theory excluded from curriculum 'only in Saudi Arabia' |url=http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-academics-tell-ministry-that-evolution-theory-excluded-from-curriculum-only-in-saudi-arabia.aspx?PageID=238&NID=110307&NewsCatID=341 |access-date=24 April 2017 |website=Hürriyet Daily News}}</ref> Pakistan,<ref>{{cite web |author=IAP Member Academies |date=June 21, 2006 |title=IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution |url=http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx |access-date=2014-06-20 |website=[[InterAcademy Panel|IAP]] |publisher=[[TWAS|The World Academy of Sciences]] |location=Trieste, Italy |archive-date=2011-07-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717190031/http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx |url-status=dead}}</ref> Lebanon,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Vlaardingerbroek |first1=Barend |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=grp_CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA161 |title=The Status of Evolutionary Theory in Undergraduate Biology |last2=Hachem-el-Masri |first2=Yasmine |date=23 October 2006 |journal=International Journal of Educational Reform |volume=15 |number=2 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=9781475816457 |pages=161–162|doi=10.1177/105678790601500202}}</ref> and Iran,<ref name="BurtonIRNKSA2" /> where evolution was initially taught and promoted. Since the 1980s, Turkey has been a site of strong advocacy for creationism, supported by American adherents.<ref name="NCSE Edis">{{cite journal |last=Edis |first=Taner |date=November–December 1999 |title=Cloning Creationism in Turkey |url=https://ncse.com/rncse/19/6/cloning-creationism-turkey |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |volume=19 |issue=6 |pages=30–35 |issn=2158-818X |access-date=2008-02-17}}</ref><ref name=WaPo2009>{{cite news |last=Kaufman |first=Marc |date=November 8, 2009 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/07/AR2009110702233.html |title=In Turkey, fertile ground for creationism |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=2014-03-21}}</ref>

===Judaism===
{{Main|Jewish views on evolution}}
For [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]] who seek to reconcile discrepancies between science and the creation myths in the Bible, the notion that science and the Bible should even be reconciled through traditional scientific means is questioned. To these groups, science is as true as the [[Torah]] and if there seems to be a problem, [[Epistemology|epistemological]] limits are to blame for apparently irreconcilable points. They point to discrepancies between what is expected and what actually is to demonstrate that things are not always as they appear.{{citation needed|date=November 2024}} They note that even the root word for 'world' in the [[Hebrew language]], {{langx|hbo|עולם|Olam|label=none}}, means 'hidden' ({{langx|hbo|נעלם|Neh-Eh-Lahm|label=none}}).{{citation needed|date=November 2024}} Just as they know from the Torah that God created man and trees and the light on its way from the stars in their observed state, so too can they know that the world was created in its over the six days of Creation that reflects progression to its currently-observed state, with the understanding that physical ways to verify this may eventually be identified.{{citation needed|date=November 2024}} This knowledge has been advanced by Rabbi [[Dovid Gottlieb]], former philosophy professor at [[Johns Hopkins University]].{{Citation needed|date=August 2015}}

[[Kabbalah|Kabbalistic]] sources from well before the scientifically apparent age of the universe was first determined are also in close concord with modern scientific estimates of the age of the universe, according to Rabbi [[Aryeh Kaplan]], and based on Sefer Temunah, an early kabbalistic work attributed to the first-century [[Tannaim|Tanna]] [[Nehunya ben HaKanah]].{{Citation needed|date=November 2024}} Many kabbalists accepted the teachings of the [[Sefer HaTemunah]], including the medieval Jewish scholar [[Nahmanides]], his close student [[Isaac ben Samuel of Acre]], and [[David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra]]. Other parallels are derived, among other sources, from Nahmanides, who expounds that there was a [[Neanderthal]]-like species with which Adam mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discovered scientifically).<ref>[[#Aviezer 1990|Aviezer 1990]]</ref><ref>[[#Carmell & Domb 1976|Carmell & Domb 1976]]</ref><ref>[[#Schroeder 1998|Schroeder 1998]]</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Tigay |first=Jeffrey H. |date=Winter 1987–1988 |title=Genesis, Science, and 'Scientific Creationism' |url=https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/sci.htm |journal=[[Conservative Judaism (journal)|Conservative Judaism]] |volume=40 |issue=2 |pages=20–27 |issn=0010-6542 |access-date=2014-03-21}}</ref> [[Reform Judaism]] does not take the Torah as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic or open-ended work.

Some contemporary writers such as Rabbi Gedalyah Nadel have sought to reconcile the discrepancy between the account in the Torah, and scientific findings by arguing that each day referred to in the Bible was not 24 hours, but billions of years long.<ref name=slifkin>The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, Natan Slifkin, Zoo Torah, 2006.</ref>{{rp|129}} Others claim that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago, but was deliberately made to look as if it was five billion years old, e.g. by being created with ready made fossils. The best known exponent of this approach being Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson.<ref name=slifkin/>{{rp|158}} Others state that although the world was physically created in six 24-hour days, the Torah accounts can be interpreted to mean that there was a period of billions of years before the six days of creation.<ref name=slifkin/>{{rp|169, 170}}

===Native American===
There have been multiple prominent cases of Native Americans rejecting the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and of the peopling of the Americas in favor of beliefs based on traditional Native American mythology, with the most famous example being [[Vine Deloria Jr.]] in his book ''[[Red Earth, White Lies]]''.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Whittaker |first=John C. |date=January–February 1997 |title=Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact |url=https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1997/01/22165024/p47.pdf |access-date=2025-11-01 |department=Review |magazine=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |volume=21 |issue=1}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Francis |first1=Norbert |title=). Bilingual and multicultural perspectives on poetry, music and narrative: The science of art |date=2017 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=9798216295556 |chapter=7 Creationist pseudoscience in the American university}}</ref>

==Prevalence==
{{Main|Level of support for evolution|Creationism by country}}
[[File:Views on Evolution.svg|thumb|right|440px|Views on human evolution in various countries 2008<ref>{{cite journal |last=Le Page |first=Michael |date=April 19, 2008 |title=Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826523.000-evolution-myths-it-doesnt-matter-if-people-dont-grasp-evolution.html |journal=[[New Scientist]] |volume=198 |issue=2652 |page=31 |doi=10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7 |issn=0262-4079 |access-date=2014-03-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Hecht |first=Jeff |date=August 19, 2006 |title=Why doesn't America believe in evolution? |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9786-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolution.html |journal=New Scientist |volume=191 |issue=2565 |page=11 |doi=10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X |issn=0262-4079 |access-date=2014-03-27}}</ref>]]
Most vocal literalist creationists are from the US, and strict creationist views are much less common in other developed countries. According to a study published in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', a survey of the US, Turkey, [[Japan]] and Europe showed that public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.<ref name="Science survey" /> There seems to be no significant correlation between believing in evolution and understanding evolutionary science.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/5/24/weekend-update-youd-have-to-be-science-illiterate-to-think-b.html |title=Weekend update: You'd have to be science illiterate to think 'belief in evolution' measures science literacy |last=Kahan |first=Dan |author-link=Dan Kahan |date=May 24, 2014 |website=[[Cultural cognition#Cultural cognition project at Yale Law School|Cultural Cognition Project]] |publisher=[[Yale Law School]] |location=New Haven, CT |type=Blog |access-date=2015-03-23 |archive-date=2021-02-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210217060100/http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/5/24/weekend-update-youd-have-to-be-science-illiterate-to-think-b.html |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Shtulman |first=Andrew |date=March 2006 |title=Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution |journal=Cognitive Psychology |volume=52 |issue=2 |pages=170–94 |doi=10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001 |pmid=16337619 |s2cid=20274446 |issn=0010-0285}}</ref>

===Australia===
A 2009 [[Nielsen Holdings|Nielsen]] poll showed that 23% of Australians believe "the biblical account of human origins," 42% believe in a "wholly scientific" explanation for the origins of life, while 32% believe in an evolutionary process "guided by God".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/faith-what-australians-believe-in-20091218-l5qy.html |title=Faith: What Australians believe in |last=Marr |first=David |date=December 19, 2009 |work=[[The Age]] |location=Melbourne, Australia |archive-url=https://archive.today/20181211051311/https://www.smh.com.au/national/faith-what-australians-believe-in-20091218-l5qy.html |archive-date=December 11, 2018 |url-status=live |access-date=December 11, 2018 |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Maley |first=Jacqueline |date=December 19, 2009 |title=God is still tops but angels rate well |url=http://www.theage.com.au/national/god-is-still-tops-but-angels-rate-well-20091218-l5v9.html |work=[[The Age]] |location=Melbourne, Australia |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120913234134/http://www.theage.com.au/national/god-is-still-tops-but-angels-rate-well-20091218-l5v9.html |archive-date=September 13, 2012 |access-date=December 18, 2009 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all}}</ref>

A 2013 survey conducted by Auspoll and the [[Australian Academy of Science]] found that 80% of Australians believe in evolution (70% believe it is currently occurring, 10% believe in evolution but do not think it is currently occurring), 12% were not sure and 9% stated they do not believe in evolution.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/learning/documents/ScienceLiteracyReport2013.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/learning/documents/ScienceLiteracyReport2013.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title=Science literacy in Australia |date=2013 |work=[[Australian Academy of Science]]}}</ref>

===Brazil===
A 2011 [[Ipsos]] survey found that 47% of responders in [[Brazil]] identified themselves as "creationists and believe that human beings were in fact created by a spiritual force such as the God they believe in and do not believe that the origin of man came from evolving from other species such as apes".<ref name="Ipsos 2011">{{cite web |title=Ipsos Global @dvisory: Supreme Being(s), the Afterlife and Evolution |url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/ipsos-global-dvisory-supreme-beings-afterlife-and-evolution |website=Ipsos |access-date=15 February 2020 |archive-date=17 August 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210817165805/https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/ipsos-global-dvisory-supreme-beings-afterlife-and-evolution |url-status=dead}}</ref>

In 2004, [[Brazilian Institute of Public Opinion and Statistics|IBOPE]] conducted a poll in Brazil that asked questions about creationism and the teaching of creationism in schools. When asked if creationism should be taught in schools, 89% of people said that creationism should be taught in schools. When asked if the teaching of creationism should replace the teaching of evolution in schools, 75% of people said that the teaching of creationism should replace the teaching of evolution in schools.<ref>{{cite web |title=PESQUISA DE OPINIÃO PÚBLICA SOBRE O CRIACIONISMO |url=https://www.ibopeinteligencia.com/arquivos/Opp992-Revista%20Época.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.ibopeinteligencia.com/arquivos/Opp992-Revista%20Época.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |access-date=28 February 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Massarani |first1=Luisa |title=Few in Brazil accept scientific view of human evolution |url=https://www.scidev.net/global/news/few-in-brazil-accept-scientific-view-of-human-evol/ |access-date=28 February 2020}}</ref>

===Canada===
[[File:Big Valley Creation Science Museum.jpg|thumb|right|[[Big Valley Creation Science Museum]] in Big Valley, Alberta, Canada]]
A 2012 survey, by [[Angus Reid Public Opinion]] revealed that 61 percent of Canadians believe in evolution. The poll asked "Where did human beings come from{{snd}}did we start as singular cells millions of year ago and evolve into our present form, or did God create us in his image 10,000 years ago?"<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Believe In Evolution: Canadians More Likely Than Americans To Endorse Evolution |url=https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/06/believe-in-evolution_n_1861373.html |date=September 6, 2012 |work=[[The Huffington Post#International editions|HuffPost Canada]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |access-date=2012-04-28}}
* {{cite press release |last=Canseco |first=Mario |date=September 5, 2012 |title=Britons and Canadians More Likely to Endorse than Americans |url=http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012.09.05_CreEvo.pdf |location=New York |publisher=[[Angus Reid Public Opinion]] |access-date=2014-05-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140429224428/http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012.09.05_CreEvo.pdf |archive-date=April 29, 2014 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

In 2019, a Research Co. poll asked people in Canada if creationism "should be part of the school curriculum in their province". 38% of Canadians said that creationism should be part of the school curriculum, 39% of Canadians said that it should not be part of the school curriculum, and 23% of Canadians were undecided.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Canseco |first1=Mario |title=Most Canadians Believe Human Beings on Earth Evolved |date=4 December 2019 |url=https://researchco.ca/2019/12/04/creationism-evolution-canada/ |access-date=28 February 2020}}</ref>

In 2023, a Research Co. poll found that 21% of Canadians "believe God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years". The poll also found that "More than two-in-five Canadians (43%) think creationism should be part of the school curriculum in their province."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Canseco |first1=Mario |title=By a 3-to-1 Margin, Canadians Choose Evolution Over Creationism |url=https://researchco.ca/2023/04/14/evolution-2023/ |website=Research Co. |date=14 April 2023 |access-date=23 May 2023}}</ref>

===Europe===
In Europe, literalist creationism is more widely rejected, though regular opinion polls are not available. Most people accept that evolution is the most widely accepted scientific theory as taught in most schools. In countries with a Roman Catholic majority, [[Catholic Church and evolution|papal acceptance of evolutionary creationism]] as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people.

In the UK, a 2006 poll on the "origin and development of life", asked participants to choose between three different perspectives on the origin of life: 22% chose creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected evolutionary theory, and the rest did not know.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=January 26, 2006 |title=Britons unconvinced on evolution |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm |work=BBC News |location=London |publisher=BBC |access-date=2014-03-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=262 |title=BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=January 30, 2006 |website=[[Ipsos MORI]] |publisher=Ipsos MORI |location=London |access-date=2014-03-27}}</ref> A subsequent 2010 [[YouGov]] poll on the correct explanation for the origin of humans found that 9% opted for creationism, 12% intelligent design, 65% evolutionary theory and 13% didn't know.<ref name="YouGov">{{cite web |url=http://cdn.yougov.com/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-Pol-Prospect-Evolution-181110.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://cdn.yougov.com/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-Pol-Prospect-Evolution-181110.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title=The origin of humans |date=November 20, 2010 |website=YouGov Global |publisher=[[YouGov|YouGov Plc]] |location=London |type=Prospect Survey Results |access-date=2014-03-24}}</ref> The former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the worldwide [[Anglican Communion]], views the idea of teaching creationism in schools as a mistake.<ref name="Archbishop_2006">{{cite news |last=Bates |first=Stephen |date=March 20, 2006 |title=Archbishop: stop teaching creationism |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/mar/21/religion.topstories3 |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |access-date=2014-03-27}}</ref> In 2009, an Ipsos Mori survey in the United Kingdom found that 54% of Britons agreed with the view: "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Shepherd |first1=Jessica |title=Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons |website=[[TheGuardian.com]] |date=25 October 2009 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/oct/25/teach-evolution-creationism-britons |access-date=6 April 2020}}</ref>

In Italy, Education Minister [[Letizia Moratti]] wanted to retire evolution from the secondary school level; after one week of massive protests, she reversed her opinion.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=May 3, 2004 |title=Italy Keeps Darwin in its Classrooms |url=http://www.dw.de/italy-keeps-darwin-in-its-classrooms/a-1188423-1 |work=Deutsche Welle |location=Bonn, Germany |publisher=ARD |access-date=2014-03-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Lorenzi |first=Rossella |date=April 28, 2004 |title=No evolution for Italian teens |url=http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/22817/title/No-evolution-for-Italian-teens/ |journal=[[The Scientist (magazine)|The Scientist]] |access-date=2014-03-27}}</ref>

There continues to be scattered and possibly mounting efforts on the part of religious groups throughout Europe to introduce creationism into public education.<ref name="Economist_2007">{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=April 19, 2007 |title=In the beginning |url=https://www.economist.com/briefing/2007/04/19/in-the-beginning |newspaper=[[The Economist]] |location=London |publisher=[[Economist Group]] |issn=0013-0613 |access-date=2007-04-25}} This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.</ref> In response, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has released a draft report titled ''The dangers of creationism in education'' on June 8, 2007,<ref name="Doc11297">{{cite web|url=http://www.assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11678&Language=EN |title=The dangers of creationism in education |date=June 8, 2007 |work=Committee on Culture, Science and Education |publisher=Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe |type=Report |id=Doc. 11297 |access-date=2014-03-22 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130309011447/http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11678&Language=EN |archive-date=March 9, 2013}}</ref> reinforced by a further proposal of banning it in schools dated October 4, 2007.<ref name="R1580">{{cite web|url=http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta07/eres1580.htm |title=The dangers of creationism in education |date=October 4, 2007 |work=Committee on Culture, Science and Education |publisher=[[Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe]] |type=Resolution |id=Resolution 1580 |access-date=2014-03-22 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140307163155/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta07%2FERES1580.htm |archive-date=March 7, 2014}} Paras. 13, 18</ref>

Serbia suspended the teaching of evolution for one week in September 2004, under education minister [[Ljiljana Čolić]], only allowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism.<ref name="Serbian_schools">{{cite news |last=de Quetteville |first=Harry |date=September 9, 2004 |title=Darwin is off the curriculum for Serbian schools |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1471367/Darwin-is-off-the-curriculum-for-Serbian-schools.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1471367/Darwin-is-off-the-curriculum-for-Serbian-schools.html |archive-date=2022-01-12 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |newspaper=The Daily Telegraph |location=London |access-date=January 24, 2012}}{{cbignore}}</ref> "After a deluge of protest from scientists, teachers and opposition parties" says the BBC report, Čolić's deputy made the statement, "I have come here to confirm Charles Darwin is still alive" and announced that the decision was reversed.<ref name="Serbia_Darwin">{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 9, 2004 |title=Serbia reverses Darwin suspension |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3642460.stm |work=[[BBC News]] |location=London |publisher=[[BBC]] |access-date=2014-03-21}}</ref> Čolić resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government."<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 16, 2004 |title='Anti-Darwin' Serb minister quits |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3663196.stm |work=BBC News |location=London |publisher=BBC |access-date=2014-03-27}}</ref>

Poland saw a major controversy over creationism in 2006, when the Deputy Education Minister, [[Mirosław Orzechowski]], denounced evolution as "one of many lies" taught in Polish schools. His superior, Minister of Education [[Roman Giertych]], has stated that the theory of evolution would continue to be taught in Polish schools, "as long as most scientists in our country say that it is the right theory." Giertych's father, [[Member of the European Parliament]] [[Maciej Giertych]], has opposed the teaching of evolution and has claimed that [[dinosaur]]s and humans co-existed.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=December 18, 2006 |title=And finally... |url=http://www.wbj.pl/?command=article&id=35336&type=wbj |newspaper=[[Warsaw Business Journal]] |location=Warsaw, Poland |publisher=Valkea Media |access-date=2014-03-27 |archive-date=2020-01-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200112170259/https://wbj.pl/?command=article&id=35336&type=wbj |url-status=dead}}</ref>

A June 2015 – July 2016 Pew poll of Eastern European countries, found that 56% of people from [[Armenia]] say that humans and other living things have "Existed in present state since the beginning of time". Armenia is followed by 52% from [[Bosnia and Herzegovina|Bosnia]], 42% from [[Moldova]], 37% from [[Lithuania]], 34% from [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]] and [[Ukraine]], 33% from [[Croatia]] and [[Romania]], 31% from [[Bulgaria]], 29% from [[Greece]] and [[Serbia]], 26% from [[Russia]], 25% from [[Latvia]], 23% from [[Belarus]] and [[Poland]], 21% from [[Estonia]] and [[Hungary]], and 16% from the [[Czech Republic]].<ref>{{cite news |title=6. Science and religion |newspaper=Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project |date=10 May 2017 |url=https://www.pewforum.org/2017/05/10/science-and-religion/ |access-date=27 February 2020}}</ref>

===South Africa===
A 2011 Ipsos survey found that 56% of responders in [[South Africa]] identified themselves as "creationists and believe that human beings were in fact created by a spiritual force such as the God they believe in and do not believe that the origin of man came from evolving from other species such as apes".<ref name="Ipsos 2011"/>

===South Korea===
In 2009, an [[Educational Broadcasting System|EBS]] survey in South Korea found that 63% of people believed that creation and evolution should both be taught in schools simultaneously.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Science, state, and spirituality: Stories of four creationists in South Korea |year=2018 |doi=10.1177/0073275317740268 |last1=Park |first1=Hyung Wook |last2=Cho |first2=Kyuhoon |journal=History of Science |volume=56 |issue=1 |pages=35–71 |pmid=29241363 |hdl=10220/44270 |s2cid=206433157 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>

===United States===
[[File:Ark Encounter 006.jpg|thumb|right|The [[Ark Encounter]] theme park in Williamstown, Kentucky, United States]]
[[File:Glendive entrance.JPG|thumb|right|[[Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum]] in Glendive, Montana, United States]]
[[File:Creationist car.jpg|right|thumb|Anti-evolution car in [[Athens, Georgia]] ]]
A 2017 poll by [[Pew Research]] found that 62% of Americans believe humans have evolved over time and 34% of Americans believe humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Masci|first1=David|title=For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate|url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/|work=Pew Research Center|date=10 February 2017}}</ref> A 2019 [[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]] creationism survey found that 40% of adults in the United States inclined to the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx| date=July 26, 2019| title=40% of Americans Believe in Creationism}}</ref>

According to a 2014 Gallup poll,<ref name="Gallup2014">{{cite web |url=https://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx |title=In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins |last=Newport |first=Frank |date=November 19, 2004 |website=Gallup.com |publisher=Gallup, Inc. |location=Omaha, NE |access-date=2014-05-10}}</ref> about 42% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."<ref name="Gallup2014" /> Another 31% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,"and 19% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."<ref name="Gallup2014" />

Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with [[postgraduate degree]]s, 74% accept evolution.<ref>{{cite AV media |people=Newport, Frank (Host) |date=June 11, 2007 |title=Evolution Beliefs |url=http://www.gallup.com/video/27838/Evolution-Beliefs.aspx |series=The Gallup Poll Daily Briefing |access-date=2014-03-27 |location=Omaha, NE |publisher=Gallup, Inc. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140427004950/http://www.gallup.com/video/27838/Evolution-Beliefs.aspx |archive-date=April 27, 2014}}</ref><ref name="Robinson_BA">{{cite web |url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19991013140130/http://religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm |url-status=usurped |archive-date=October 13, 1999 |title=Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation |last=Robinson |first=Bruce A. |date=November 1995 |website=ReligiousTolerance.org |publisher=Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance |location=Kingston, Canada |access-date=2007-11-11}}</ref> In 1987, ''[[Newsweek]]'' reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'"<ref name="Robinson_BA" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Martz |first1=Larry |last2=McDaniel |first2=Ann |date=June 29, 1987 |title=Keeping God Out of the Classroom |url=http://kgov.com/files/docs/Newsweek-1987-God-Classroom.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://kgov.com/files/docs/Newsweek-1987-God-Classroom.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |journal=[[Newsweek]] |pages=23–24 |issn=0028-9604 |access-date=2015-09-25}}</ref>

A 2000 poll for [[People for the American Way]] found 70% of the US public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.<ref name="pfaw">{{cite web |url=http://media.pfaw.org/pdf/creationism/creationism-poll.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://media.pfaw.org/pdf/creationism/creationism-poll.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title=Evolution and Creationism In Public Education: An In-depth Reading Of Public Opinion |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 2000 |website=[[People For the American Way]] |publisher=People For the American Way |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=2014-03-28}}</ref>

According to a study published in ''Science'', between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult [[North America]]ns who accept evolution declined from 45% to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48% to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the US the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the US was Turkey (25%).<ref name="Science survey" />

According to a 2011 Fox News poll, 45% of Americans believe in creationism, down from 50% in a similar poll in 1999.<ref name="Fox Creationism Poll">{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 7, 2011 |title=Fox News Poll: Creationism |url=https://www.foxnews.com/us/fox-news-poll-creationism/ |work=[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] |publisher=[[News Corporation (1980–2013)|News Corporation]] |access-date=2011-09-22}}</ref> 21% believe in 'the theory of evolution as outlined by Darwin and other scientists' (up from 15% in 1999), and 27% answered that both are true (up from 26% in 1999).<ref name="Fox Creationism Poll" />

In September 2012, educator and television personality Bill Nye spoke with the [[Associated Press]] and aired his fears about acceptance of creationism, believing that teaching children that creationism is the only true answer without letting them understand the way science works will prevent any future innovation in the world of science.<ref name="APNews-20120924">{{cite news |last=Luvan |first=Dylan |date=September 24, 2012 |title=Bill Nye Warns: Creation Views Threaten US Science |url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bill-nye-warns-creation-views-threaten-us-science |agency=[[Associated Press]] |access-date=2014-03-09 |archive-date=2013-10-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131014114115/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bill-nye-warns-creation-views-threaten-us-science |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="Youtube-20120823">{{cite web |last1=Fowler |first1=Jonathan |last2=Rodd |first2=Elizabeth |title=Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU | archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211030/gHbYJfwFgOU| archive-date=2021-10-30|date=August 23, 2012 |website=[[YouTube]] |publisher=[[Big Think]] |location=New York |access-date=2012-09-24}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref name="NYT-20141103-JD">{{cite news |last=Deiviscio |first=Jeffrey |title=A Fight for the Young Creationist Mind: In 'Undeniable,' Bill Nye Speaks Evolution Directly to Creationists |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/science/in-undeniable-bill-nye-speaks-evolution-directly-to-creationists.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220101/https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/science/in-undeniable-bill-nye-speaks-evolution-directly-to-creationists.html |archive-date=2022-01-01 |url-access=limited |date=November 3, 2014 |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=November 4, 2014}}{{cbignore}}</ref> In February 2014, Nye defended [[creation–evolution controversy|evolution in the classroom]] in a [[Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate|debate]] with creationist Ken Ham on the topic of whether creation is a viable model of origins in today's modern, [[History of science#Modern science|scientific era]].<ref name="NBC-20140204">{{cite news |last=Boyle |first=Alan |author-link=Alan Boyle |date=February 5, 2014 |title=Bill Nye Wins Over the Science Crowd at Evolution Debate |url=http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/bill-nye-wins-over-science-crowd-evolution-debate-n22836 |work=[[NBCNews.com]] |access-date=2014-02-06}}</ref><ref name="TG-20140204">{{cite news |last=Kopplin |first=Zack |author-link=Zack Kopplin |date=February 4, 2014 |title=Why Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to reason with America's creationists |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/04/bill-nye-science-guy-evolution-debate-creationists |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |access-date=2014-02-06}}</ref><ref name="Debate-20140204">{{Cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI | archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211030/z6kgvhG3AkI| archive-date=2021-10-30|title=Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham |last=Foreman |first=Tom (Moderator) |author-link=Tom Foreman |date=February 4, 2014 |website=YouTube |publisher=Answers in Genesis |location=Hebron, KY |access-date=2014-02-05}}{{cbignore}} (program begins at 13:14).</ref>

====Education controversies====
{{Main|Rejection of evolution by religious groups}}  <!-- should the latter redirect be used? Or a policy against redirects: [[Creation–evolution controversy]] -->
[[File:Truth fish.jpg|thumb|right|The Truth fish, one of the many creationist responses to the [[Parodies of the ichthys symbol|Darwin fish]] ]]
In the US, creationism has become centered in the political controversy over [[Creation and evolution in public education#United States|creation and evolution in public education]], and whether teaching creationism in science classes conflicts with the separation of church and state. Currently, the controversy comes in the form of whether advocates of the intelligent design movement who wish to "[[Teach the Controversy]]" in science classes have conflated [[Relationship between religion and science|science with religion]].<ref name="kitz" />

[[People for the American Way]] polled 1500 North Americans about the teaching of evolution and creationism in November and December 1999. They found that most North Americans were not familiar with creationism, and most North Americans had heard of evolution, but many did not fully understand the basics of the theory. The main findings were:
{{bar box
|title= Americans believe that:<ref name="pfaw" />
|barwidth=200px
|width=80%
|bars=
{{bar percent|
* Public schools should teach evolution only|silver|60|20%}}
{{bar percent|
* '''Only evolution should be taught in science classes, religious explanations <br />can be discussed in another class'''|gray|51|17%}}
{{bar percent|
* Creationism can be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory|silver|87|29%}}
{{bar percent|
* '''Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class'''|gray|39|13%}}
{{bar percent|
* Only Creationism should be taught|silver|48|16%}}
{{bar percent|
* '''Teach both evolution and Creationism, but unsure how to do so'''|gray|12|4%}}
{{bar percent|
* No opinion|silver|3|1%}}
}}

In such political contexts, creationists argue that their particular religiously based origin belief is superior to those of other [[belief system]]s, in particular those made through secular or scientific rationale. Political creationists are opposed by many individuals and organizations who have made detailed critiques and given testimony in various court cases that the [[objections to evolution|alternatives to scientific reasoning offered by creationists]] are opposed by the [[scientific consensus|consensus]] of the scientific community.<ref name="aaas">{{cite web|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf|title=Statement on the Teaching of Evolution|date=February 16, 2006|publisher=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]|location=Washington, D.C.|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf|archive-date=2006-02-21|access-date=2014-03-09}}
* {{cite press release|title=AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws as Hundreds of K-12 Teachers Convene for 'Front Line' Event|date=February 19, 2006|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science|location=St. Louis, MO|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml|last=Pinholster|first=Ginger|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060421193306/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml|archive-date=2006-04-21|access-date=2014-08-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Delgado |first=Cynthia |date=July 28, 2006 |title=Finding the Evolution in Medicine |url=http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm |journal=[[NIH Record]] |issn=1057-5871 |access-date=2014-03-31 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081122022815/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm |archive-date=November 22, 2008}} "...While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory."{{snd}}[[Brian Alters]]</ref>

==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 |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=https://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=https://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=https://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=https://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=https://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|Rejection of evolution by religious groups}}
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=https://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=https://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>

==Organizations==
{| style="width:100%;"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
|width=47%|
;Creationism (in general)
* [[American Scientific Affiliation]]
* [[Christians in Science]]

;Young Earth creationism
* [[Answers in Genesis]], a group promoting young Earth creationism
* [[Creation Ministries International]], an organisation promoting biblical creation
* [[Creation Research Society]]
* [[Institute for Creation Research]]
* [[The Way of the Master]]

;Old Earth creationism
* Old Earth Ministries (OEM), formerly Answers In Creation (AIC), led by Greg Neyman<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.oldearth.org/about_aic.htm |title=About Old Earth Ministries? |website=Old Earth Ministries |location=Springfield, OH |access-date=2014-03-09}}</ref>
* [[Reasons to Believe]], led by [[Hugh Ross (creationist)|Hugh Ross]]
|width=6%|
|width=47%|

;Intelligent design
* [[Access Research Network]]
* [[Centre for Intelligent Design]]
* [[Center for Science and Culture]], a subsidiary of the [[Discovery Institute]]

;Evolutionary creationism
* [[BioLogos Foundation]]
|}

==See also==
{{Div col}}
* [[Biblical inerrancy]]
* [[Biogenesis]]
* [[Cognitive dissonance]]
* [[Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1580 (2007)]]
* [[Evolution of complexity]]
* [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]]
* [[History of creationism]]
* [[Religious cosmology]]

{{div col end}}

==Notes==
{{Notelist}}
{{Reflist|group="note"|refs=
<!--<ref name="myth" group="note">[[#Patton & Doniger 1996|Patton & Doniger 1996]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=OgsTmeRHpeUC&pg=147 p. 147]. While the term ''[[myth]]'' is often used colloquially to refer to "a false story," this article uses the term in the academic meaning of "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form."</ref> -->}}

==References==
===Citations===
{{Reflist|30em}}

===Works cited===
{{Refbegin|30em}}
* {{cite book |author=`Abdu'l-Bahá |author-link=`Abdu'l-Bahá |year=1982 |orig-year=Originally published 1922–1925 |title=The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Talks Delivered by 'Abdu'l-Bahá during His Visit to the United States and Canada in 1912 |others=Compiled by Howard MacNutt |edition=2nd |location=Wilmette, IL |publisher=Bahá'í Publishing Trust |isbn=978-0-8774-3172-5 |lccn=81021689 |oclc=853066452 |ref=`Abdu'l-Bahá 1982}}
* {{cite book |last=Aviezer |first=Nathan |author-link=Nathan Aviezer |year=1990 |title=In the Beginning—: Biblical Creation and Science |location=Hoboken, NJ |publisher=KTAV Publishing House |isbn=978-0-88125-328-3 |lccn=89049127 |oclc=20800545 |ref=Aviezer 1990}}
* {{cite journal |editor-last=Barlow |editor-first=Nora |editor-link=Nora Barlow |year=1963 |title=Darwin's Ornithological Notes |url=http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F1577&viewtype=side |journal=Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Historical Series |volume=2 |issue=7 |pages=201–278 |doi=10.5962/p.310422 |issn=0068-2306 |access-date=2009-06-10 |ref=Barlow 1963|doi-access=free}}
* {{cite book |last=Bowler |first=Peter J. |year=2003 |title=Evolution: The History of an Idea |edition=3rd |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |isbn=978-0-520-23693-6 |lccn=2002007569 |oclc=49824702 |ref=Bowler 2003 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/evolutionhistory0000bowl_n7y8}}
* {{cite book |last=Bucaille |first=Maurice |author-link=Maurice Bucaille |year=1977 |orig-year=Original French edition published 1976 |title=The Bible, The Qur'an and Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge |others=translated from the French by Alastair D. Pannell and the author |location=Paris |publisher=Seghers |lccn=76488005 |oclc=373529514 |ref=Bucaille 1977}}
* {{cite book |last=Bucaille |first=Maurice |year=1976 |title=The Qur'an and Modern Science |url=https://www.sultan.org/articles/QScience.html |type=Booklet |location=Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia |publisher=Cooperative Offices for Call & Guidance at Al-Badiah & Industrial Area |oclc=52246825 |access-date=2014-03-21 |ref=Bucaille 1976}}
* {{cite book |editor1-last=Carmell |editor1-first=Aryeh |editor2-last=Domb |editor2-first=Cyril |year=1976 |title=Challenge: Torah Views on Science and its Problems |location=Jerusalem; New York |publisher=[[Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists]]; [[Feldheim Publishers]] |isbn=978-0-87306-174-2 |lccn=77357516 |oclc=609518840 |ref=Carmell & Domb 1976}}
* {{cite book |editor1-last=Carper |editor1-first=James C. |editor2-last=Hunt |editor2-first=Thomas C. |year=2009 |title=The Praeger Handbook of Religion and Education in the United States |volume=1: A–L |location=Westport, CT |publisher=[[Greenwood Publishing Group|Praeger Publishers]] |isbn=978-0-275-99228-6 |lccn=2008041156 |oclc=246888936 |ref=Carper & Hunt 2009}}
* {{cite book |last=Collins |first=Francis S. |author-link=Francis Collins |year=2006 |title=The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief |location=New York |publisher=[[Free Press (publisher)|Free Press]] |isbn=978-0-7432-8639-8 |lccn=2006045316 |oclc=65978711 |ref=Collins 2006|title-link=The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief}}
* {{cite book |last=Dasgupta |first=Surendranath |author-link=Surendranath Dasgupta |year=1922 |title=A History of Indian Philosophy |volume=1 |location=Cambridge, England |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |lccn=22018463 |oclc=4235820 |ref=Dasgupta 1922}}
* {{cite book |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |author-link=Richard Dawkins |year=2006 |title=The God Delusion |location=London |publisher=[[Bantam Press]] |isbn=978-0-5930-5548-9 |lccn=2006015506 |oclc=70671839 |ref=Dawkins 2006}}
* {{cite book |last=Desmond |first=Adrian |author-link=Adrian Desmond |year=1989 |title=The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London |url=https://archive.org/details/politicsofevolut00adri |url-access=registration |series=Science and its Conceptual Foundations |location=Chicago, Illinois |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] |isbn=978-0-226-14346-0 |lccn=89005137 |oclc=828159401 |ref=Desmond 1989}}
* {{cite book |last1=Desmond |first1=Adrian |last2=Moore |first2=James |author2-link=James Moore (biographer) |year=1991 |title=Darwin |location=London; New York |publisher=[[Michael Joseph (publisher)|Michael Joseph]]; [[Viking Press|Viking Penguin]] |isbn=978-0-7181-3430-3 |lccn=92196964 |oclc=26502431}}
* {{cite book |last=Dewey |first=John |author-link=John Dewey |year=1994 |chapter=The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy |editor=Martin Gardner |editor-link=Martin Gardner |title=Great Essays in Science |location=Buffalo, NY |publisher=[[Prometheus Books]] |isbn=978-0-87975-853-0 |lccn=93035453 |oclc=28846489 |ref=Dewey 1994}}
* {{cite book |last=Draper |first=Paul R. |author-link=Paul Draper (philosopher) |year=2005 |chapter=God, Science, and Naturalism |editor-last=Wainwright |editor-first=William J. |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion |pages=272–303 |chapter-url=http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195138090.001.0001/acprof-9780195138092-chapter-12 |location=Oxford; New York |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |doi=10.1093/0195138090.003.0012 |isbn=978-0-1951-3809-2 |lccn=2004043890 |oclc=54542845 |access-date=2014-03-15 |ref=Draper 2005}}
* {{cite book |last=Dundes |first=Alan |author-link=Alan Dundes |year=1984 |chapter=Introduction |editor-last=Dundes |editor-first=Alan |title=Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=978-0-5200-5192-8 |lccn=83017921 |oclc=9944508 |ref=Dundes 1984 |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/sacrednarrativer00dund |url=https://archive.org/details/sacrednarrativer00dund}}
* {{cite book |last=Dundes |first=Alan |year=1996 |chapter=Madness in Method, Plus a Plea for Projective Inversion in Myth |editor1-last=Patton |editor1-first=Laurie L. |editor1-link=Laurie L. Patton |editor2-last=Doniger |editor2-first=Wendy |editor2-link=Wendy Doniger |title=Myth and Method |location=Charlottesville; London |publisher=[[University of Virginia Press]] |isbn=978-0-8139-1657-6 |lccn=96014672 |oclc=34516050 |ref=Patton & Doniger 1996}}
* {{cite book |last=Eddy |first=Mary Baker |author-link=Mary Baker Eddy |year=1934 |orig-year=Originally published 1875 as ''Science and Health''; Christian Scientist Publishing Company: Boston, MA |title=Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures |edition=Sunday school |location=Boston, MA |publisher=[[Christian Science Publishing Society]] for the Trustees under the will of Mary Baker G. Eddy |lccn=42044682 |oclc=4579118 |ref=Eddy 1934|title-link=Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures}}
* {{cite book |last1=Forrest |first1=Barbara |author-link1=Barbara Forrest |last2=Gross |first2=Paul R. |author-link2=Paul R. Gross |year=2004 |title=Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design |location=Oxford; New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-515742-0 |oclc=50913078 |lccn=2002192677 |ref=Forrest & Gross 2004|title-link=Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design}}
* {{cite book |last1=Forster |first1=Roger |author-link1=Roger T. Forster |last2=Marston |first2=V. Paul |year=1999 |chapter=Genesis Through History |title=Reason, Science, and Faith |location=Crowborough, East Sussex |publisher=Monarch Books |isbn=978-1-85424-441-3 |lccn=99488551 |oclc=41159110 |ref=Forster & Marston 1999}}
* {{cite book |last=Futuyma |first=Douglas J. |author-link=Douglas J. Futuyma |year=2005 |chapter=Evolutionary Science, Creationism, and Society |title=Evolution |location=Sunderland, MA |publisher=[[Sinauer Associates]] |isbn=978-0-87893-187-3 |lccn=2004029808 |oclc=57311264 |ref=Futuyma 2005 |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/evolution0000futu |url=https://archive.org/details/evolution0000futu}}
* {{cite book |last1=Giberson |first1=Karl W. |last2=Yerxa |first2=Donald A. |year=2002 |title=Species of Origins: America's Search for a Creation Story |location=Lanham, MD |publisher=[[Rowman & Littlefield]] |isbn=978-0-7425-0764-7 |lccn=2002002365 |oclc=49031109 |ref=Giberson & Yerxa 2002}}
* {{cite book |last=Gosse |first=Philip Henry |author-link=Philip Henry Gosse |year=1857 |title=Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot |location=London |publisher=[[John Van Voorst|J. Van Voorst]] |lccn=11004351 |oclc=7631539 |ref=Gosse 1857|title-link=Omphalos (book)}}
* {{cite book |last=Gould |first=Stephen Jay |author-link=Stephen Jay Gould |year=1999 |title=Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life |series=Library of Contemporary Thought |edition=1st |location=New York |publisher=[[Ballantine Books|Ballantine Publishing Group]] |isbn=978-0-345-43009-0 |lccn=98031335 |oclc=39886951 |ref=Gould 1999|title-link=Rocks of Ages}}
* {{cite book|last=Gunn |first=Angus M. |year=2004 |title=Evolution and Creationism in the Public Schools: A Handbook for Educators, Parents, and Community Leaders |location=Jefferson, NC |publisher=[[McFarland & Company]] |isbn=978-0-7864-2002-5 |lccn=2004018788 |oclc=56319812 |ref=Gunn 2004 |url=https://archive.org/details/evolutioncreatio0000gunn}}
* {{cite book |last=Hayward |first=James L. |year=1998 |title=The Creation/Evolution Controversy: An Annotated Bibliography |series=Magill Bibliographies |location=Lanham, MD; Pasadena, CA |publisher=Scarecrow Press; Salem Press |page=[https://archive.org/details/creationevolutio0000hayw/page/253 253] |isbn=978-0-8108-3386-9 |lccn=98003138 |oclc=38496519 |ref=Hayward 1998 |url=https://archive.org/details/creationevolutio0000hayw/page/253}}
* {{cite book |last=Lamoureux |first=Denis O. |author-link=Denis Lamoureux |year=1999 |chapter=Evangelicals Inheriting the Wind: The Phillip E. Johnson Phenomenon |title=Darwinism Defeated?: The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins |others=Foreword by [[J. I. Packer]] |location=Vancouver, B.C. |publisher=[[Regent College#Media|Regent College Publishing]] |isbn=978-1-57383-133-8 |oclc=40892139 |ref=Lamoureux 1999}}
* {{cite book |last=Masood |first=Steven |year=1994 |orig-year=Originally published 1986 |title=Jesus and the Indian Messiah |location=Oldham, England |publisher=Word of Life |isbn=978-1-898868-00-2 |lccn=94229476 |oclc=491161526 |ref=Masood 1994}}
* {{cite book |last=McComas |first=William F. |year=2002 |chapter=Science and Its Myths |editor-last=Shermer |editor-first=Michael |editor-link=Michael Shermer |title=The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience |volume=1 |location=Santa Barbara, CA |publisher=[[ABC-CLIO]] |isbn=978-1-57607-653-8 |lccn=2002009653 |oclc=50155642 |ref=Shermer 2002|title-link=The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience}}
* {{cite book |last=McGrath |first=Alister E. |author-link=Alister McGrath |year=2010 |title=Science and Religion: A New Introduction |edition=2nd |location=Malden, MA |publisher=[[Wiley-Blackwell]] |isbn=978-1-4051-8790-9 |lccn=2009020180 |oclc=366494307 |ref=McGrath 2010}}
* {{cite book |author=National Academy of Sciences |author-link=National Academy of Sciences |year=1999 |title=Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences |url=https://archive.org/details/sciencecreationi0000unse |edition=2nd |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[National Academies Press|National Academy Press]] |isbn=978-0-309-06406-4 |lccn=99006259 |oclc=43803228 |access-date=2014-11-22 |ref=NAS 1999 |url-access=registration}}
* {{cite book|author1=National Academy of Sciences |author2=Institute of Medicine |author-link2=Institute of Medicine |year=2008 |title=Science, Evolution, and Creationism |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=105 |issue=1 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780309105866/page/3 3–4] |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780309105866/page/3 |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=National Academy Press |isbn=978-0-309-10586-6 |lccn=2007015904 |oclc=123539346 |access-date=2014-11-22 |ref=NAS 2008 |bibcode=2008PNAS..105....3A |doi=10.1073/pnas.0711608105 |pmid=18178613 |pmc=2224205 |doi-access=free}}
* {{cite book |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L. |author-link=Ronald Numbers |year=1998 |title=Darwinism Comes to America |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |isbn=978-0-674-19312-3 |lccn=98016212 |oclc=38747194|url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/darwinismcomesto0000numb}}
* {{cite book |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L. |year=2006 |orig-year=Originally published 1992 as ''The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism''; New York: [[Alfred A. Knopf]] |title=The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design |edition=Expanded ed., 1st Harvard University Press pbk. |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |isbn=978-0-674-02339-0 |lccn=2006043675 |oclc=69734583 |ref=Numbers 2006|title-link=The Creationists}}
* {{cite book |last=Okasha |first=Samir |year=2002 |title=Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction |series=Very Short Introductions |volume=67 |location=Oxford; New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-280283-5 |lccn=2002510456 |oclc=48932644 |ref=Okasha 2002}}
* {{cite book|last=Pennock |first=Robert T. |author-link=Robert T. Pennock |year=1999 |title=Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |publisher=[[MIT Press]] |isbn=978-0-262-16180-0 |lccn=98027286 |oclc=44966044 |ref=Pennock 1999 |url=https://archive.org/details/towerofbabelevid00penn}}
* {{cite book |editor-last=Pennock |editor-first=Robert T |editor-link=Robert T. Pennock |year=2001 |title=Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives |url=https://archive.org/details/intelligentdesig00robe |url-access=registration |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |publisher=[[MIT Press]] |isbn=978-0-262-66124-9 |lccn=2001031276 |oclc=46729201 |ref=Pennock 2001}}<!--|access-date=2014-01-10 -->
* {{cite book |author=Philo, of Alexandria |author-link=Philo |year=1854–55 |chapter=The First Book of the Treatise on The Allegories of the Sacred Laws, after the Work of the Six Days of Creation |chapter-url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html |title=The Works of Philo Judaeus |url=https://archive.org/details/worksofphilojuda01yonguoft |series=Bohn's Classical Library |others=Translated from the Greek, by [[Charles Duke Yonge|C. D. Yonge]] |location=London |publisher=[[Henry George Bohn|H.G. Bohn]] |lccn=20007801 |oclc=1429769 |access-date=2014-03-09 |ref=Philo}}
* {{cite book |last=Plimer |first=Ian |author-link=Ian Plimer |year=1994 |title=Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism |location=Milsons Point, NSW |publisher=[[Random House|Random House Australia]] |isbn=978-0-09-182852-3 |lccn=94237744 |oclc=32608689 |ref=Plimer 1994}}
* {{cite book |last=Polkinghorne |first=John |author-link=John Polkinghorne |year=1998 |title=Science and Theology: An Introduction |location=Minneapolis, MN |publisher=[[Fortress Press]] |isbn=978-0-8006-3153-6 |lccn=98229115 |oclc=40117376 |ref=Polkinghorne 1998}}
* {{cite book|last=Quammen |first=David |author-link=David Quammen |year=2006 |title=The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution |series=Great Discoveries |location=New York |publisher=[[James Atlas|Atlas Books/W. W. Norton & Company]] |isbn=978-0-393-05981-6 |lccn=2006009864 |oclc=65400177 |ref=Quammen 2006 |url=https://archive.org/details/reluctantmrdarwi00quam}}
* {{cite book|last=Rainey |first=David |title=Faith Reads: A Selective Guide to Christian Nonfiction |year=2008 |location=Westport, CT |publisher=Libraries Unlimited |isbn=978-1-59158-602-9 |lccn=2008010352 |oclc=213599217 |ref=Rainey 2012 |url=https://archive.org/details/faithreadsselect0000rain}}
* {{cite book |last=Schroeder |first=Gerald L. |author-link=Gerald Schroeder |year=1998 |orig-year=Originally published 1997; New York: [[Free Press (publisher)|Free Press]] |title=The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom |edition=1st Broadway Books trade paperback |location=New York |publisher=[[Broadway Books]] |isbn=978-0-7679-0303-5 |lccn=97014978 |oclc=39162332 |ref=Schroeder 1998}}
* {{cite book |last=Scott |first=Eugenie C. |author-link=Eugenie Scott |year=1999 |chapter=Science, Religion, and Evolution |editor1-last=Springer |editor1-first=Dale A. |editor2-last=Scotchmoor |editor2-first=Judy |title=Evolution: Investigating the Evidence |chapter-url=http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/528_science_religion_and_evoluti_6_19_2001.asp |type=Reprint |series=The Paleontological Society Special Publications |volume=9 |location=Pittsburgh, PA |publisher=[[Paleontological Society]] |lccn=00274093 |oclc=42725350 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030628210954/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/528_science_religion_and_evoluti_6_19_2001.asp |archive-date=2003-06-28 |ref=Scott 1999}} "Presented as a Paleontological Society short course at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, Denver, Colorado, October 24, 1999."
* {{cite book|last=Scott |first=Eugenie C. |author-link=Eugenie Scott |year=2005 |orig-year=Originally published 2004; Westport, CT: [[Greenwood Publishing Group|Greenwood Press]] |title=Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction |others=Foreword by [[Niles Eldredge]] |edition=1st paperback |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=978-0-520-24650-8 |lccn=2005048649 |oclc=60420899 |ref=Scott 2005 |url=https://archive.org/details/evolutionvscreat00scot}}
* {{cite book|first=Eugenie C. |last=Scott|title=Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction|edition=2nd|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FAAlDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1|date=3 August 2009|publisher=Univ of California Press|isbn=978-0-520-26187-7|pages=i–331}}
* {{cite book|author-link=James A. Secord |last=Secord |first=James A. |title=Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation |location=Chicago, Illinois |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-226-74410-0 |lccn=00009124 |oclc=43864195 |ref=Secord 2000}}
* {{cite book |editor-last=Stewart |editor-first=Melville Y. |editor-link=Melville Y. Stewart |year=2010 |title=Science and Religion in Dialogue |location=Malden, MA |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |isbn=978-1-4051-8921-7 |lccn=2009032180 |oclc=430678957 |ref=Stewart 2010}}
* {{cite book |editor1-last=Sweet |editor1-first=William |editor1-link=William Sweet |editor2-last=Feist |editor2-first=Richard |year=2007 |title=Religion and the Challenges of Science |location=Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT |publisher=[[Ashgate Publishing|Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.]] |isbn=978-0-7546-5715-6 |lccn=2006030598 |oclc=71778930 |ref=Sweet & Feist 2007}}
* {{cite book |last=Wilder-Smith |first=A. E. |author-link=A. E. Wilder-Smith |year=1978 |title=Die Naturwissenschaften kennen keine Evolution: Empirische und theoretische Einwände gegen die Evolutionstheorie |trans-title=The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution |location=Basel, Switzerland |publisher=Schwabe Verlag |isbn=978-3-7965-0691-8 |lccn=80067425 |oclc=245955034 |ref=Wilder-Smith 1978}}
* {{cite book |last=Young |first=Davis A. |year=1995 |title=The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence |location=Grand Rapids, MI |publisher=[[William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company|Eerdmans]] |isbn=978-0-8028-0719-9 |lccn=95001899 |oclc=246813515 |ref=Young 1995}}
{{Refend}}

==Further reading==
{{refbegin|30em}}
* {{cite book |last=Anderson |first=Bernard W. |author-link=Bernhard Anderson |year=1967 |title=Creation versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible |location=New York |publisher=Association Press |lccn=67014578 |oclc=671184 |ref=Anderson 1967}}
* {{cite book |editor-last=Anderson |editor-first=Bernhard W. |year=1984 |title=Creation in the Old Testament |series=Issues in Religion and Theology |volume=6 |others=Introduction by Bernhard W. Anderson |location=Philadelphia; London |publisher=Fortress Press; [[Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge]] |isbn=978-0-8006-1768-4 |lccn=83048910 |oclc=10374840 |ref=Anderson 1984 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/creationinoldtes00unse}}
* {{cite book |last=Barbour |first=Ian G. |author-link=Ian Barbour |year=1997 |title=Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues |edition=1st HarperCollins revised |location=San Francisco, CA |publisher=[[HarperCollins|HarperSanFrancisco]] |isbn=978-0-06-060938-2 |lccn=97006294 |oclc=36417827 |ref=Barbour 1997}}
* {{cite book|last=Barbour |first=Ian G. |year=2000 |title=When Science Meets Religion |edition=1st |location=San Francisco, CA |publisher=HarperSanFrancisco |isbn=978-0-06-060381-6 |lccn=99055579 |oclc=42752713 |ref=Barbour 2000 |url=https://archive.org/details/whensciencemeets00barb}}
* {{cite book |last=Clark |first=Kelly James |year=2014 |title=Religion and the Sciences of Origins: Historical and Contemporary Discussions |edition=1st |location=Basingstoke, UK |publisher=[[Palgrave Macmillan]] |isbn=978-1-137-41483-0 |lccn=2014466739 |oclc=889777438 |ref=Clark 2014}}
* {{cite book |last=Darwin |first=Charles |author-link=Charles Darwin |year=1958 |editor-last=Barlow |editor-first=Nora |title=The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882: With original omissions restored; Edited and with Appendix and Notes by his grand-daughter, Nora Barlow |url=http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1497&viewtype=side&pageseq=1 |location=London |publisher=Collins |lccn=93017940 |oclc=869541868 |access-date=2009-01-09 |ref=Darwin 1958}}
* {{cite book |last=Kaplan |first=Aryeh |author-link=Aryeh Kaplan |year=1993 |title=Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View |others=With an appendix Derush Or ha-Hayyim by Israel Lipschitz; translated and annotated by Yaakov Elman |location=Hoboken, NJ |publisher=KTAV Publishing House in association with the [[Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists]] |isbn=978-0-88125-345-0 |lccn=92036917 |oclc=26800167 |ref=Kaplan 1993}}
* {{cite book|last=Kauffman |first=Stuart A. |author-link=Stuart Kauffman |year=2008 |title=Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason and Religion |location=New York |publisher=[[Basic Books]] |isbn=978-0-465-00300-6 |lccn=2007052263 |oclc=191023778 |ref=Kauffman 2008 |url=https://archive.org/details/reinventingsacre00kauf_0}}
* {{cite book|last1=Leeming |first1=David Adams |last2=Leeming |first2=Margaret |year=1995 |title=A Dictionary of Creation Myths |location=New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-510275-8 |lccn=95039961 |oclc=33160980 |ref=Leeming & Leeming 1995 |url=https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofcrea00leem}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Primack |first1=Joel R. |author-link1=Joel Primack |last2=Abrams |first2=Nancy Ellen |date=Jan–Feb 1995 |title=In a Beginning...: Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah |url=http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primack_abrams/InABeginningTikkun1995.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primack_abrams/InABeginningTikkun1995.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |journal=[[Tikkun (magazine)|Tikkun]] |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=66–73 |issn=0887-9982 |access-date=2014-04-24}}
* {{cite book |last=Roberts |first=Michael |year=2008 |title=Evangelicals and Science |series=Greenwood Guides to Science and Religion |location=Westport, CT |publisher=Greenwood Press |isbn=978-0-313-33113-8 |lccn=2007041059 |oclc=174138819 |ref=Roberts 2008}}
{{refend}}

==External links==
<!--======================== {{No more links}} ============================
    | PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS IN ADDING MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. Wikipedia  |
    | is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising. |
    |                                                                     |
    |           Excessive or inappropriate links WILL BE DELETED.   |
    | See [[Wikipedia:External links]] & [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details. |
    |                                                                     |
    | If there are already plentiful links, please propose additions or   |
    | replacements on this article's discussion page, or submit your link |
    | to the relevant category at the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org) |
    | and link back to that category using the {{dmoz}} template.   |
    ======================= {{No more links}} =============================-->
{{Commons}}{{Wikiquote}}
<!-- overviews of creationism, i.e. all these links are similar because they describe the variety of viewpoints that have been described as creationist. -->
* [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/ "Creationism"] at the [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] by [[Michael Ruse]]
* [https://www.howstuffworks.com/creationism.htm "How Creationism Works"] at [[HowStuffWorks]] by Julia Layton
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20160106153325/http://www.allviewpoints.org/RESOURCES/EVOLUTION/timeline.htm "TIMELINE: Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design"]{{snd}}Focuses on major historical and recent events in the scientific and political debate
* {{cite web|url= http://images.derstandard.at/20051012/Evolution-and-Creationism.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://images.derstandard.at/20051012/Evolution-and-Creationism.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title=Evolution and Creationism: A Guide for Museum Docents}}&nbsp;{{small|(204&nbsp;KB)}} by Warren D. Allmon, Director of the [[Museum of the Earth]]
* [https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html "What is creationism?"] at [[talk.origins]] by Mark Isaak
* [https://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum "The Creation/Evolution Continuum"] by [[Eugenie Scott]]
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/ "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"] by [[John Rennie (editor)|John Rennie]], editor in chief of ''[[Scientific American]]'' magazine
* "[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-evolution-and-the-science-of-human-origins/ Race, Evolution and the Science of Human Origins]" by Allison Hopper, ''[[Scientific American]]'' (July 5, 2021).
* [http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive Human Timeline (Interactive)]{{snd}}[[Smithsonian Institution|Smithsonian]], [[National Museum of Natural History]] (August 2016)

{{Creationism topics}}
{{Philosophy of religion}}
{{Genesis 1}}
{{Portal bar|Evolutionary biology|Science}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Creationism| ]]