CreationismCreationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated withsupernatural acts of divine creation.[1][2] In its broadest sense, creationism includes a continuum of religious views,[3][4] whichvary in their acceptance or rejection of scientific explanations such as evolution that describe the origin and development ofnatural phenomena.[5][6]

The term creationism most often refers to belief in special creation; the claim that the universe and lifeforms were created as theyexist today by divine action, and that the only true explanations are those which are compatible with a Christian fundamentalistliteral interpretation of the creation myths found in the Bible's Genesis creation narrative.[7] Since the 1970s, the commonest formof this has been young Earth creationism which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 yearson the basis of Flood geology, and promotes pseudoscientific creation science. From the 18th century onwards, old Earthcreationism accepted geological time harmonized with Genesis through gap or day-age theory, while supporting anti-evolution.Modern old-Earth creationists support progressive creationism and continue to reject evolutionary explanations.[8] Followingpolitical controversy, creation science was reformulated as intelligent design and neo-creationism.[9][10]

Mainline Protestants and the Catholic Church reconcile modern science with their faith in Creation through forms of theisticevolution which hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature, and accept evolution. Some groups call theirbelief evolutionary creationism.[5]

Less prominently, there are also members of the Islamic[11][12] and Hindu[13] faiths who are creationists.

Use of the term "creationist" in this context dates back to Charles Darwin's unpublished 1842 sketch draft for what became Onthe Origin of Species,[14] and he used the term later in letters to colleagues.[15] Asa Gray published a 1873 article in The Nationsaying a "special creationist" maintaining that species "were supernaturally originated just as they are, by the very terms of hisdoctrine places them out of the reach of scientific explanation."[16]

Biblical basis

TypesYoung Earth creationismOld Earth creationism

Gap creationismDay-age creationismProgressive creationism

Philosophic and scientific creationismCreation scienceNeo-creationismIntelligent design

GeocentrismOmphalos hypothesis

Theistic evolution

Religious viewsBahá'í FaithChristianity

Contents

HinduismIslam

Ahmadiyya

Judaism

PrevalenceAustraliaCanadaEuropeUnited States

Education controversies

CriticismChristian criticismTeaching of creationismScientific criticism

Organizations

See also

Footnotes

Notes

References

Further reading

External links

The basis for many creationists' beliefs is a literal or quasi-literal interpretation of the Old Testament, especially from stories fromthe book of Genesis:

The Genesis creation narrative (Genesis 1–2) describes how God brings the Universe into being in a series ofcreative acts over six days and places the first man and woman (Adam and Eve) in a divine garden (the Gardenof 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.

A further important element is the interpretation of the Biblical chronology, the elaborate system of life-spans, "generations," andother means by which the Bible measures the passage of events from the creation (Genesis 1:1) to the Book of Daniel, the lastbiblical book in which it appears. Recent decades have seen attempts to de-link creationism from the Bible and recast it asscience; these include creation science and intelligent design.[17] There are also non-Christian forms of creationism,[18] notablyIslamic creationism[19] and Hindu creationism.[20]

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 anddescription of a continuum of religious views as a spectrum ranging from extreme literal Biblical creationism to materialistevolution, grouped under main headings. This was used in public presentations, then published in 1999 in Reports of theNCSE.[21] Other versions of a "taxonomy" of creationists were produced,[22] and comparisons made betewenthe differentgroupings.[23] In 2009 Scott produced a revised continuum taking account of these issues, emphasising that intelligent designcreationism overlaps other types, and each type is a grouping of various beliefs and positions. The revised diagram is labelled to

Biblical basis

Types

shows a spectrum relating to positions on the age of the Earth, and the part played by special creation as against evolution. Thiswas published in the book Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction,[24] and the NCSE website rewritten on the basis of thebook version.[8]

The main general types are listed below.

Comparison of major creationist views

Humanity Biological species Earth Age ofUniverse

Young Earthcreationism

Directly created byGod.

Directly created by God.Macroevolution does notoccur.

Less than 10,000 yearsold. Reshaped by globalflood.

Less than10,000 yearsold, but somehold this viewonly for ourSolar System.

Gapcreationism

Scientifically acceptedage. Reshaped by globalflood.

Scientificallyaccepted age.

Progressivecreationism

Directly created byGod, based onprimate anatomy.

Direct creation +evolution. No singlecommon ancestor.

Scientifically acceptedage. No global flood.

Scientificallyaccepted age.

Intelligentdesign

Proponents holdvarious beliefs.(For example,Michael Beheaccepts evolutionfrom primates.)

Divine intervention atsome point in the past, asevidenced by whatintelligent-designcreationists call"irreducible complexity."

Some adherents acceptcommon descent, othersnot. Some claim theexistence of Earth is theresult of divineintervention.

Scientificallyaccepted age.

Theisticevolution

(evolutionarycreationism)

Evolution fromprimates.

Evolution from singlecommon ancestor.

Scientifically acceptedage. No global flood.

Scientificallyaccepted age.

Young Earth creationists such as Ken Ham and Doug Phillips believe that Godcreated the Earth within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in theGenesis creation narrative, within the approximate time-frame of biblicalgenealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology). Most young Earthcreationists believe that the universe has a similar age as the Earth. A few assigna much older age to the universe than to Earth. Creationist cosmologies give theuniverse an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and other young Earthtime frames. Other young Earth creationists believe that the Earth and theuniverse were created with the appearance of age, so that the world appears to bemuch older than it is, and that this appearance is what gives the geologicalfindings and other methods of dating the Earth and the universe their much longer timelines.

The Christian organizations Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the Creation Research Society (CRS) both promote youngEarth creationism in the US. Another organization with similar views, Answers in Genesis (AiG)—based in both the U.S. and theUnited Kingdom—has opened the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, to promote young Earth creationism. CreationMinistries International promotes young Earth views in Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, the US, and the UK.Among Roman Catholics, the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation promotes similar ideas. In 2007, Ken Ham founded theCreation Museum and Ark Encounter in northern Kentucky.

Young Earth creationism

The Institute for Creation Research(ICR) is a young-Earth creationistorganization.

Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event described in the Book ofGenesis is to be taken figuratively. This group generally believes that the age of the universe and the age of the Earth are asdescribed by astronomers and geologists, but that details of modern evolutionary theory are questionable.[8]

Old Earth creationism itself comes in at least three types:[8]

Gap creationism, also called "restoration creationism," holds that life was recently created on a pre-existing old Earth. Thisversion of creationism relies on a particular interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2. It is considered that the words formless and void infact denote waste and ruin, taking into account the original Hebrew and other places these words are used in the Old Testament.Genesis 1:1–2 is consequently translated:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Original act of creation.)"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Thus, the six days of creation (verse 3 onwards) start sometime after the Earth was "without form and void." This allows anindefinite "gap" of time to be inserted after the original creation of the universe, but prior to the creation according to Genesis,(when present biological species and humanity were created). Gap theorists can therefore agree with the scientific consensusregarding the age of the Earth and universe, while maintaining a literal interpretation of the biblical text.

Some 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 3:3–7.[25] Discoveries of fossils andarchaeological ruins older than 10,000 years are generally ascribed to this "world that then was," which may also be associatedwith Lucifer's rebellion. These views became popular with publications of Hebrew Lexicons such as Strong's Concordance, andBible commentaries such as the Scofield Reference Bible and The Companion Bible.

Day-age creationism states that the "six days" of the Book of Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather much longerperiods (for instance, each "day" could be the equivalent of millions, or billions of years of human time). The physicist GeraldSchroeder is one such proponent of this view. This version of creationism often states that the Hebrew word "yôm," in the contextof Genesis 1, can be properly interpreted as "age."

Strictly speaking, day-age creationism is not so much a version of creationism as a hermeneutic option which may be combinedwith other versions of creationism such as progressive creationism.

Progressive creationism holds that species have changed or evolved in a process continuously guided by God, with various ideasas to how the process operated—though it is generally taken that God directly intervened in the natural order at key moments inEarth history. This view accepts most of modern physical science including the age of the Earth, but rejects much of modernevolutionary biology or looks to it for evidence that evolution by natural selection alone is incorrect. Organizations such asReasons To Believe, founded by Hugh Ross, promote this version of creationism.

Progressive creationism can be held in conjunction with hermeneutic approaches to the Genesis creation narrative such as theday-age creationism or framework/metaphoric/poetic views.

Old Earth creationism

Gap creationism

Day-age creationism

Progressive creationism

Creation science, or initially scientific creationism, is a pseudoscience[26][27][28][29][30] that emerged in the 1960s withproponents 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 ofthousands of years old, criticism of radiometric dating through a technical argument about radiohalos, explanations for the fossilrecord 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 genomes God placed in "created kinds" or"Baramin" (see creationist biology) due to mutations.

Neo-creationism is a pseudoscientific movement which aims to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by thepublic, by policy makers, by educators and by the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life innon-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the United States SupremeCourt in Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate inpublic-school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[31][32][33]

One of the principal claims of neo-creationism propounds that ostensibly objective orthodox science, with a foundation innaturalism, is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion.[34] Its proponents argue that the scientific method excludes certainexplanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements, thus effectively excluding religiousinsight 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 suchconcepts 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 creationismsuch as a young Earth, or in a dogmatically literal interpretation of the Bible.

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[35][36] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are bestexplained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[37] All of its leading proponents areassociated with the Discovery Institute,[38] a think tank whose Wedge strategy aims to replace the scientific method with "ascience consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" which accepts supernatural explanations.[39][40] It is widely acceptedin the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,[22][23][41][42] and is sometimesreferred to as "intelligent design creationism."[8][39][43][44][45][46]

ID originated as a re-branding of creation science in an attempt to avoid a series of court decisions ruling out the teaching ofcreationism in American public schools, and the Discovery Institute has run a series of campaigns to change school curricula.[47]

In Australia, where curricula are under the control of state governments rather than local school boards, there was a public outcrywhen the notion of ID being taught in science classes was raised by the Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson; the ministerquickly conceded that the correct forum for ID, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.[48]

In the US, teaching of intelligent design in public schools has been decisively ruled by a federal district court to be in violation ofthe Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Kitzmiller v. Dover, the court found thatintelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,"[49] and hencecannot be taught as an alternative to evolution in public school science classrooms under the jurisdiction of that court. This sets a

Philosophic and scientific creationism

Creation science

Neo-creationism

Intelligent design

persuasive precedent, based on previous US Supreme Court decisions in Edwards v. Aguillard and Epperson v. Arkansas (1968),and by the application of the Lemon test, that creates a legal hurdle to teaching intelligent design in public school districts in otherfederal court jurisdictions.[39][50]

In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is a description of the Cosmos whereEarth is at the orbital center of all celestial bodies. This model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancientcivilizations such as ancient Greece. As such, they assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and 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 withthe Creation Research Society pointing to some passages in the Bible, which, when taken literally, indicate that the daily apparentmotions of the Sun and the Moon are due to their actual motions around the Earth rather than due to the rotation of the Earthabout its axis for example, Joshua 10:12 where the Sun and Moon are said to stop in the sky, and Psalms 93:1 where the world isdescribed as immobile.[51] Contemporary advocates for such religious beliefs include Robert Sungenis, co-author of the self-published Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right (2006).[52] These people subscribe to the view that a plain reading of theBible contains an accurate account of the manner in which the universe was created and requires a geocentric worldview. Mostcontemporary creationist organizations reject such perspectives.[note 1]

The Omphalos hypothesis argues that in order for the world to be functional, God must have created a mature Earth withmountains and canyons, rock strata, trees with growth rings, and so on; therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed ageof the Earth and age of the universe can be taken as reliable.[54] The idea has seen some revival in the 20th century by somemodern creationists, who have extended the argument to address the "starlight problem". The idea has been criticised as LastThursdayism, and on the grounds that it requires a deliberately deceptive creator.

Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creation, is a belief that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life throughevolutionary processes."[55] According to the American Scientific Affiliation:

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) – also called evolutionary creation – proposes that God's method of creationwas to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theisticevolution" means Total Evolution – astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geologicalevolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (forthe development of life) – but it can refer only to biological evolution.[56]

Through the 19th century the term creationism most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast totraducianism. Following the publication of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, there was interest in ideas of Creation bydivine law. In particular, the liberal theologian Baden Powell argued that this illustrated the Creator's power better than the idea ofmiraculous creation, which he thought ridiculous.[57] When On the Origin of Species was published, the cleric Charles Kingsleywrote of evolution as "just as noble a conception of Deity."[58][59] Darwin's view at the time was of God creating life through thelaws of nature,[60][61] and the book makes several references to "creation," though he later regretted using the term rather thancalling it an unknown process.[62] In America, Asa Gray argued that evolution is the secondary effect, or modus operandi, of thefirst cause, design,[63] and published a pamphlet defending the book in theistic terms, Natural Selection not inconsistent withNatural Theology.[58][64][65] Theistic evolution, also called, evolutionary creation, became a popular compromise, and St. George

Geocentrism

Omphalos hypothesis

Theistic evolution

Jackson Mivart was among those accepting evolution but attacking Darwin's naturalistic mechanism. Eventually it was realisedthat supernatural intervention could not be a scientific explanation, and naturalistic mechanisms such as neo-Lamarckism werefavoured as being more compatible with purpose than natural selection.[66]

Some theists took the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religiousteachings about Christian God and creation are compatible with some or all of modern scientific theory, including specificallyevolution; it is also known as "evolutionary creation." In Evolution versus Creationism, Eugenie Scott and Niles Eldredge statethat it is in fact a type of evolution.[67]

It generally views evolution as a tool used by God, who is both the first cause and immanent sustainer/upholder of the universe; itis therefore well accepted by people of strong theistic (as opposed to deistic) convictions. Theistic evolution can synthesize withthe day-age creationist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative; however most adherents consider that the first chapters ofthe Book of Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description, but rather as a 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 thecomplexity of the entire physical universe evolved from fundamental particles in processes such as stellar evolution, life formsdeveloped in biological evolution, and in the same way the origin of life by natural causes has resulted from these laws.[68]

In one form or another, theistic evolution is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries.[69] ForRoman Catholics, human evolution is not a matter of religious teaching, and must stand or fall on its own scientific merits.Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are not in conflict. The Catechism of the Catholic Church comments positively on thetheory of evolution, which is neither precluded nor required by the sources of faith, stating that scientific studies "have splendidlyenriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man."[70]

Roman Catholic schools teach evolution without controversy on the basis that scientific knowledge does not extend beyond thephysical, and scientific truth and religious truth cannot be in conflict.[71] Theistic evolution can be described as "creationism" inholding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine laws govern formation of species, though manycreationists (in the strict sense) would deny that the position is creationism at all. In the creation–evolution controversy, itsproponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. This sentiment was expressed by Fr. George Coyne, (the Vatican's chiefastronomer between 1978 and 2006):

...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 everythingdepends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.[72]

While supporting the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject theimplication taken by some atheists that this gives credence to ontological materialism. In fact, many modern philosophers ofscience,[73] including atheists,[74] refer to the long-standing convention in the scientific method that observable events in natureshould be explained by natural causes, with the distinction that it does not assume the actual existence or non-existence of thesupernatural.

In the creation myth taught by Bahá'u'lláh, the Bahá'í Faith founder, the universe has "neither beginning nor ending," and that thecomponent elements of the material world have always existed and will always exist.[75] With regard to evolution and the originof human beings, `Abdu'l-Bahá gave extensive comments on the subject when he addressed western audiences in the beginning

Religious views

Bahá'í Faith

of the 20th century. Transcripts of these comments can be found in Some Answered Questions, Paris Talks and The Promulgationof Universal Peace. `Abdu'l-Bahá described the human species as having evolved from a primitive form to modern man, but thatthe capacity to form human intelligence was always in existence.

As of 2006, most Christians around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and didnot take a literal view of the Genesis creation myth. The United States is an exception where belief in religious fundamentalism ismuch more likely to affect attitudes towards evolution than it is for believers elsewhere. Political partisanship affecting religiousbelief may be a factor because political partisanship in the US is highly correlated with fundamentalist thinking, unlike inEurope.[76]

Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches,[77] such as Anglicans[78] and Lutherans,[79]

consider that there is no conflict between the spiritual meaning of creation and the science of evolution. According to the formerArchbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, "...for most of the history of Christianity, and I think this is fair enough, most of thehistory of the Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quitecompatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time."[80]

Leaders of the Anglican[81] and Roman Catholic[82][83] churches have made statements in favor of evolutionary theory, as havescholars such as the physicist John Polkinghorne, who argues that evolution is one of the principles through which God createdliving beings. Earlier supporters of evolutionary theory include Frederick Temple, Asa Gray and Charles Kingsley who wereenthusiastic supporters of Darwin's theories upon their publication,[84] and the French Jesuit priest and geologist Pierre Teilhardde Chardin saw evolution as confirmation of his Christian beliefs, despite condemnation from Church authorities for his morespeculative theories. Another example is that of Liberal theology, not providing any creation models, but instead focusing on thesymbolism 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 beforethe development of Darwin's theory of evolution. For example, Philo, whose works were taken up by early Church writers, wrotethat it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days, or in any set amount of time.[85][86] Augustine of the latefourth century who was also a former neoplatonist argued that everything in the universe was created by God at the same momentin time (and not in six days as a literal reading of the Book of Genesis would seem to require);[87] It appears that both Philo andAugustine felt uncomfortable with the idea of a seven-day creation because it detracted from the notion of God's omnipotence. In1950, Pope Pius XII stated limited support for the idea in his encyclical Humani generis.[88] In 1996, Pope John Paul II statedthat "new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis," but, referring to previouspapal writings, he concluded that "if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul isimmediately created by God."[89]

In the US, Evangelical Christians have continued to believe in a literal Genesis. Members of evangelical Protestant (70%),Mormon (76%) and Jehovah's Witnesses (90%) denominations are the most likely to reject the evolutionary interpretation of theorigins of life.[90]

Jehovah's Witnesses adhere to a combination of gap creationism and day-age creationism, asserting that scientific evidence aboutthe age of the universe is compatible with the Bible, but that the 'days' after Genesis 1:1 were each thousands of years inlength.[91]

The historic Christian literal interpretation of creation requires the harmonization of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1–2:3 andGenesis 2:4–25, for there to be a consistent interpretation.[92][93] They sometimes seek to ensure that their belief is taught inscience classes, mainly in American schools. Opponents reject the claim that the literalistic biblical view meets the criteriarequired to be considered scientific. Many religious groups teach that God created the Cosmos. From the days of the earlyChristian Church Fathers there were allegorical interpretations of the Book of Genesis as well as literal aspects.[94]

Christianity

Christian Science, a system of thought and practice derived from the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, interprets the Book ofGenesis figuratively rather than literally. It holds that the material world is an illusion, and consequently not created by God: theonly real creation is the spiritual realm, of which the material world is a distorted version. Christian Scientists regard the story ofthe creation in the Book of Genesis as having symbolic rather than literal meaning. According to Christian Science, bothcreationism and evolution are false from an absolute or "spiritual" point of view, as they both proceed from a (false) belief in thereality of a material universe. However, Christian Scientists do not oppose the teaching of evolution in schools, nor do theydemand that alternative accounts be taught: they believe that both material science and literalist theology are concerned with theillusory, mortal and material, rather than the real, immortal and spiritual. With regard to material theories of creation, Eddyshowed a preference for Darwin's theory of evolution over others.[95]

Hindu creationists claim that species of plants and animals are material forms adopted by pure consciousness which live anendless cycle of births and rebirths.[96] 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."[97] Hindu creationism is a form of old Earthcreationism, according to Hindu creationists the universe may even be older than billions of years. These views are based on theVedas, the creation myths of which depict an extreme antiquity of the universe and history of the Earth.[98][99]

Islamic creationism is the belief that the universe (including humanity) was directly created by God as explained in the Qur'an. Itusually views the Book of Genesis as a corrupted version of God's message. The creation myths in the Qur'an are vaguer andallow for a wider range of interpretations similar to those in other Abrahamic religions.[11]

Islam also has its own school of theistic evolutionism, which holds that mainstream scientific analysis of the origin of theuniverse is supported by the Qur'an. Some Muslims believe in evolutionary creation, especially among liberal movements withinIslam.[12]

Writing for The Boston Globe, Drake Bennett noted: "Without a Book of Genesis to account for ... Muslim creationists have littleinterest in proving that the age of the Earth is measured in the thousands rather than the billions of years, nor do they show muchinterest in the problem of the dinosaurs. And the idea that animals might evolve into other animals also tends to be lesscontroversial, in part because there are passages of the Koran that seem to support it. But the issue of whether human beings arethe product of evolution is just as fraught among Muslims."[100] However, some Muslims, such as Adnan Oktar (also known asHarun Yahya), do not agree that one species can develop from another.[101][102]

Since the 1980s, Turkey has been a site of strong advocacy for creationism, supported by American adherents.[103][104]

There are several verses in the Qur'an which some modern writers have interpreted as being compatible with the expansion of theuniverse, Big Bang and Big Crunch theories:[105][106][107]

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as oneunit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing.Will they not then believe?"[Quran 21:30 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atex

t%3A2002.02.0004%3Asura%3D21%3Averse%3D30) (Translated by Yusuf Ali)]

"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He saidto it and to the earth: 'Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We do come(together), in willing obedience.'"[Quran 41:11 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseu

s%3Atext%3A2002.02.0004%3Asura%3D41%3Averse%3D11) (Translated by Yusuf Ali)]

Hinduism

Islam

"With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create thevastness of space."[Quran 51:47 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A200

2.02.0004%3Asura%3D51%3Averse%3D47) (Translated by Yusuf Ali)]

"The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),- evenas

We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it."[Quran 21:104 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2002.02.0004%3Asura%3D21%3Averse%3D104) (Translated

by Yusuf Ali)]

The Ahmadiyya movement actively promotes evolutionary theory.[108] Ahmadis interpret scripture from the Qur'an to support theconcept of macroevolution and give precedence to scientific theories. Furthermore, unlike orthodox Muslims, Ahmadis believethat humans have gradually evolved from different species. Ahmadis regard Adam as being the first Prophet of God – as opposedto him being the first man on Earth.[108] Rather than wholly adopting the theory of natural selection, Ahmadis promote the ideaof a "guided evolution," viewing each stage of the evolutionary process as having been selectively woven by God.[109] MirzaTahir Ahmad, Fourth Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has stated in his magnum opus Revelation, Rationality,Knowledge & Truth (1998) that evolution did occur but only through God being the One who brings it about. It does not occuritself, according to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

For Orthodox Jews who seek to reconcile discrepancies between science and the creation myths in the Bible, the notion thatscience and the Bible should even be reconciled through traditional scientific means is questioned. To these groups, science is astrue as the Torah and if there seems to be a problem, 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 theyappear. They note that even the root word for "world" in the Hebrew language—עולם (Olam)—means hidden—נעלם (Neh-Eh-Lahm). Just as they know from the Torah that God created man and trees and the light on its way from the stars in their observedstate, 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. This knowledge has beenadvanced by Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb, former philosophy professor at Johns Hopkins University. Also, relatively old Kabbalisticsources from well before the scientifically apparent age of the universe was first determined are in close concord with modernscientific estimates of the age of the universe, according to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, and based on Sefer Temunah, an earlykabbalistic work attributed to the first-century Tanna Nehunya ben HaKanah. Many kabbalists accepted the teachings of the SeferHaTemunah, including the medieval Jewish scholar Nahmanides, his close student Isaac ben Samuel of Acre, and David benSolomon ibn Abi Zimra. Other parallels are derived, among other sources, from Nahmanides, who expounds that there was aNeanderthal-like species with which Adam mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discoveredscientifically).[110][111][112][113] Reform Judaism does not take the Torah as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic or open-endedwork.

Some contemporary writers such as Rabbi Gedalyah Nadel have sought to reconcile the discrepancy between the account in theTorah, and scientific findings by arguing that each day referred to in the Bible was not 24 hours, but billions of years long.[114]

Others claim that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago, but was deliberately made to look as if it was five billion yearsold, e.g. by being created with ready made fossils. The best known exponent of this approach being Rabbi Menachem MendelSchneerson[115] Others state that although the world was physically created in six 24 hour days, the Torah accounts can beinterpreted to mean that there was a period of billions of years before the six days of creation.[116]

Ahmadiyya

Judaism

Most vocal literalist creationists arefrom the US, and strict creationistviews are much less common in otherdeveloped countries. According to astudy published in Science, a survey ofthe US, Turkey, Japan and Europeshowed that public acceptance ofevolution is most prevalent in Iceland,Denmark and Sweden at 80% of thepopulation.[76] There seems to be nosignificant correlation betweenbelieving in evolution andunderstanding evolutionaryscience.[119][120]

A 2009 Nielsen poll showed that 23%of Australians believe "the biblicalaccount of human origins," 42% believe in a "wholly scientific" explanation for the origins of life, while 32% believe in anevolutionary process "guided by God".[121][122]

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 and9% stated they do not believe in evolution.[123]

A 2012 survey, by Angus Reid Public Opinion revealed that 61 percent of Canadians believe in evolution. The poll asked "Wheredid human beings come from – did we start as singular cells millions of year ago and evolve into our present form, or did Godcreate us in his image 10,000 years ago?"[124]

In Europe, literalist creationism is more widely rejected, though regular opinion polls are not available. Most people accept thatevolution is the most widely accepted scientific theory as taught in most schools. In countries with a Roman Catholic majority,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 perspectiveson the origin of life: 22% chose creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected evolutionary theory, and the rest didnot know.[125][126] A subsequent 2010 YouGov poll on the correct explanation for the origin of humans found that 9% opted forcreationism, 12% intelligent design, 65% evolutionary theory and 13% didn't know.[127] The former Archbishop of CanterburyRowan Williams, head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, views the idea of teaching creationism in schools as amistake.[128]

In Italy, Education Minister Letizia Moratti wanted to retire evolution from the secondary school level; after one week of massiveprotests, she reversed her opinion.[129][130]

Prevalence

Views on human evolution in various countries 2008[117][118]Australia

Canada

Europe

There continues to be scattered and possibly mounting efforts on the part of religious groups throughout Europe to introducecreationism into public education.[131] In response, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has released a draftreport titled The dangers of creationism in education on June 8, 2007,[132] reinforced by a further proposal of banning it inschools dated October 4, 2007.[133]

Serbia suspended the teaching of evolution for one week in September 2004, under education minister Ljiljana Čolić, onlyallowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism.[134] "After a deluge of protest fromscientists, teachers and opposition parties" says the BBC report, Čolić's deputy made the statement, "I have come here to confirmCharles Darwin is still alive" and announced that the decision was reversed.[135] Čolić resigned after the government said that shehad caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government."[136]

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, hasstated that the theory of evolution would continue to be taught in Polish schools, "as long as most scientists in our country saythat it is the right theory." Giertych's father, Member of the European Parliament Maciej Giertych, has opposed the teaching ofevolution and has claimed that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.[137]

A 2017 poll by Pew Research found that 62% of Americans believe humanshave evolved over time and 34% of Americans believe humans and otherliving things have existed in their present form since the beginning oftime.[138] Another 2017 Gallup creationism survey found that 38% of adults inthe United States inclined to the view that "God created humans in theirpresent form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for theirviews on the origin and development of human beings, which Gallup notedwas the lowest level in 35 years.[139]

According to a 2014 Gallup poll,[140] about 42% of Americans believe that"God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one timewithin the last 10,000 years or so."[140] Another 31% believe that "humanbeings 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."[140]

Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with postgraduate degrees, 74% accept evolution.[141][142] In1987, Newsweek reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did notevolve but appeared 'abruptly.'"[142][143]

A 2000 poll for People for the American Way found 70% of the US public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief inGod.[144]

According to a study published in Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult North Americans who accept evolutiondeclined from 45% to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48% to 39% and the number of people whowere unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the US the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey, andJapan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the US was Turkey (25%).[76]

According to a 2011 Fox News poll, 45% of Americans believe in Creationism, down from 50% in a similar poll in 1999.[145]

21% believe in 'the theory of evolution as outlined by Darwin and other scientists' (up from 15% in 1999), and 27% answered thatboth are true (up from 26% in 1999).[145]

United States

Anti-evolution car in Athens, Georgia

In September 2012, educator and television personality Bill Nye spoke with the Associated Press and aired his fears aboutacceptance of creationism, believing that teaching children that creationism is the only true answer without letting themunderstand the way science works will prevent any future innovation in the world of science.[146][147][148] In February 2014, Nyedefended evolution in the classroom in a debate with creationist Ken Ham on the topic of whether creation is a viable model oforigins in today's modern, scientific era.[149][150][151]

In the US, creationism has become centered in the political controversy overcreation and evolution in public education, and whether teaching creationism inscience classes conflicts with the separation of church and state. Currently, thecontroversy comes in the form of whether advocates of the intelligent designmovement who wish to "Teach the Controversy" in science classes have conflatedscience with religion.[50]

People for the American Way polled 1500 North Americans about the teaching ofevolution and creationism in November and December 1999. They found that most North Americans were not familiar withCreationism, and most North Americans had heard of evolution, but many did not fully understand the basics of the theory. Themain findings were:

Americans believe that:[144]

Public schools should teach evolutiononly

20%

Only evolution should be taught inscience classes, religiousexplanations can be discussed in another class

17%

Creationism can be discussed in scienceclass as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory

29%

Creationism and evolution should betaught as 'scientific theories' inscience class

13%

Only Creationism should be taught 16%

Teach both evolution and Creationism,but unsure how to do so

4%

No opinion 1%

In such political contexts, creationists argue that their particular religiously based origin belief is superior to those of other beliefsystems, in particular those made through secular or scientific rationale. Political creationists are opposed by many individualsand organizations who have made detailed critiques and given testimony in various court cases that the alternatives to scientificreasoning offered by creationists are opposed by the consensus of the scientific community.[152][153]

Education controversies

The Truth fish, one of the manycreationist responses to theDarwin fish

Criticism

Christian criticism

Most Christians disagree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools.[154][155] Several religiousorganizations, among them the Catholic Church, hold that their faith does not conflict with the scientific consensus regardingevolution.[156] The Clergy Letter Project, which has collected more than 13,000 signatures, is an "endeavor designed todemonstrate 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 allits forms, is direct evidence of God's act of creation (Murphy quotes Phillip E. Johnson's claim that he is speaking "of a God whoacted openly and left his fingerprints on all the evidence."). Murphy argues that this view of God is incompatible with theChristian understanding of God as "the one revealed in the cross and resurrection of Christ." The basis of this theology is Isaiah45:15, "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 authorities is in and of itself an ordinary event and did notrequire divine action. On the contrary, for the crucifixion to occur, God had to limit or "empty" himself. It was for this reason thatPaul the Apostle wrote, in Philippians 2:5-8:

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery tobe equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made inthe 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.

Murphy concludes that,

Just as the Son of God limited himself by taking human form and dying on a cross, God limits divine action in theworld to be in accord with rational laws which God has chosen. This enables us to understand the world on itsown terms, but it also means that natural processes hide God from scientific observation.

For Murphy, a theology of the cross requires that Christians accept a methodological naturalism, meaning that one cannot invokeGod to explain natural phenomena, while recognizing that such acceptance does not require one to accept a metaphysicalnaturalism, which proposes that nature is all that there is.[157]

The Jesuit priest George Coyne has stated that is "unfortunate that, especially here in America, creationism has come tomean...some literal interpretation of Genesis." He argues that "...Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totallydifferent sense. It is rooted in belief that everything depends on God, or better, all is a gift from God."[158]

Other Christians have expressed qualms about teaching creationism. In March 2006, then Archbishop of Canterbury RowanWilliams, the leader of the world's Anglicans, stated his discomfort about teaching creationism, saying that creationism was "akind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories." He also said: "My worry is creationism can end upreducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." The views of the Episcopal Church – a major American-based branchof the Anglican Communion – on teaching creationism resemble those of Williams.[128]

The National Science Teachers Association is opposed to teaching creationism as a science,[159] as is the Association for ScienceTeacher Education,[160] the National Association of Biology Teachers,[161] the American Anthropological Association,[162] theAmerican Geosciences Institute,[163] the Geological Society of America,[164] the American Geophysical Union,[165] andnumerous other professional teaching and scientific societies.

Teaching of creationism

In April 2010, the American Academy of Religion issued Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K‐12 Public Schools in theUnited 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 (andlimited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles ofreasoning." However, they, as well as other "worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent anotherimportant 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 mustavoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others."[166]

Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner, from the biology program at the University of Minnesota, reflect on the relevance of teachingcreationism in the article "The Creationist Down the Hall: Does It Matter When Teachers Teach Creationism?" They concludethat "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 ofcreationism as nonscientific by professional scientific societies, creationism remains popular throughout the United States."[167]

Science is a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence, and the development of theories that yield testableexplanations and predictions of natural phenomena. By contrast, creationism is often based on literal interpretations of thenarratives of particular religious texts.[168] Creationist beliefs involve purported forces that lie outside of nature, such assupernatural intervention, and often do not allow predictions at all. Therefore, these can neither be confirmed nor disproved byscientists.[169] However, many creationist beliefs can be framed as testable predictions about phenomena such as the age of theEarth, its geological history and the origins, distributions and relationships of living organisms found on it. Early scienceincorporated elements of these beliefs, but as science developed these beliefs were gradually falsified and were replaced withunderstandings based on accumulated and reproducible evidence that often allows the accurate prediction of futureresults.[170][171]

Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould,[172] consider science and religion to be two compatible and complementary fields,with authorities in distinct areas of human experience, so-called non-overlapping magisteria.[173] This view is also held by manytheologians, who believe that ultimate origins and meaning are addressed by religion, but favor verifiable scientific explanationsof natural phenomena over those of creationist beliefs. Other scientists, such as Richard Dawkins,[174] reject the non-overlappingmagisteria and argue that, in disproving literal interpretations of creationists, the scientific method also undermines religious textsas 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.[175][176][177]

Creationism (in general)

American Scientific AffiliationChristians in Science

Young Earth creationism

Answers in Genesis, a group promotingyoung Earth creationismCreation Ministries International, anorganisation promoting biblical creation

Intelligent design

Access Research NetworkCentre for Intelligent DesignCenter for Science and Culture, asubsidiary of the Discovery Institute

Evolutionary creationism

BioLogos Foundation

Evolution

Scientific criticism

Organizations

Creation Research SocietyInstitute for Creation ResearchThe Way of the Master

Old Earth creationism

Old Earth Ministries (OEM), formerlyAnswers In Creation (AIC), led by GregNeyman[178]

Reasons to Believe, led by Hugh Ross

National Center for Science EducationTalkOrigins ArchiveThe Panda's Thumb (blog)ScienceBlogsWhy Evolution is True (Jerry Coyne'swebsite)

1. Donald B. DeYoung, for example, states that "Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun'srising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the 'language ofappearance,' just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best andprobably not understood clearly. When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate."[53]

Biblical inerrancyBiogenesisEvolution of complexityFlying Spaghetti MonsterHistory of creationismReligious cosmologyHuman timelineLife timelineNature timeline

1. Gunn 2004, p. 9, "The Concise Oxford Dictionary says that creationism is 'the belief that the universe and livingorganisms originated from specific acts of divine creation.'"

2. Brosseau, Olivier; Silberstein, Marc (2015). "Evolutionism(s) and Creationism(s)". In Heams, Thomas; Huneman,Philippe; Lecointre, Guillaume; Silberstein., Marc (eds.). Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences (https://books.google.com/?id=46aUBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA789&dq=Handbook+of+Evolutionary+Thinking+in+the+Sciences#v=onepage&q=881&f=false). Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 881–96. ISBN 9789401790147.

3. Brosseau, Olivier; Silberstein, Marc (2015). "Evolutionism(s) and Creationism(s)". In Heams, Thomas; Huneman,Philippe; Lecointre, Guillaume; Silberstein., Marc (eds.). Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences (https://books.google.com/?id=46aUBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA789&dq=Handbook+of+Evolutionary+Thinking+in+the+Sciences#v=onepage&q=881&f=false). Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 881, 884. ISBN 9789401790147. "Creationism is not asingle homogenous doctrine ... Evolution, as a process, is a tool God uses to continually create the world. Herewe have arrived at another sub-category of creationism called 'evolutionist creationism'"

4. Haarsma 2010, p. 168, "Some Christians, often called 'Young Earth creationists,' reject evolution in order tomaintain a semi-literal interpretation of certain biblical passages. Other Christians, called 'progressivecreationists,' accept the scientific evidence for some evolution over a long history of the earth, but also insist thatGod must have performed some miracles during that history to create new life-forms. Intelligent design, as it ispromoted 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 canboth be true."

See also

Footnotes

Notes

5. Eugenie Scott (13 February 2018). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum" (https://ncse.com/library-resource/creationevolution-continuum). NCSE. Retrieved 6 May 2019. "creationism comes in many forms, and not all of themreject evolution"

6. "creationism: definition of creationism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)" (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/creationism?q=creationism). Oxford Dictionaries (Definition). Oxford:Oxford University Press. OCLC 656668849 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/656668849). Retrieved 2014-03-05."The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblicalaccount, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

7. (Scott 2009, pp. 57, 97–98 (https://books.google.com/books?id=FAAlDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA57))

8. Eugenie Scott (13 February 2018). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum" (https://ncse.com/library-resource/creationevolution-continuum). NCSE. Retrieved 29 April 2019.

9. "What is "Intelligent Design" Creationism?" (https://ncse.com/creationism/general/what-is-intelligent-design-creationism). NCSE. 2008-10-17. Retrieved 2019-04-23.

10. Campbell, Duncan (February 20, 2006). "Academics fight rise of creationism at universities" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highereducation). The Guardian. London: Guardian Media Group. Retrieved2010-04-07.

11. Chang, Kenneth (November 2, 2009). "Creationism, Without a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World" (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/science/03islam.html?_r=0). The New York Times.

12. al-Azami, Usaama (2013-02-14). "Muslims and Evolution in the 21st Century: A Galileo Moment?" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/usaama-alazami/muslims-and-evolution-in-the-21st-century-a-galileo-moment_b_2688895.html).Huffington Post Religion Blog. Retrieved 19 February 2013.

13. "Creationism: The Hindu View" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html). www.talkorigins.org. Retrieved2019-04-23.

14. Numbers 1998, p. 50 (https://books.google.com/books?id=drk3zykoEy4C&pg=PA50) "Since at least the early1840s Darwin had occasionally referred to 'creationists' in his unpublished writings, but the epithet acquired littlepublic currency." – sketch written in 1842 (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=61&itemID=F1555&viewtype=text) – "if this had happened on an island, whence could the new forms have come,—here thegeologist calls in creationists."

15. Darwin, Charles (July 5, 1856). "Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D." (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-1919)Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. Letter 1919. Retrieved2010-08-11.

Darwin, Charles (May 31, 1863). "Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa" (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-4196).Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. Letter 4196. Retrieved2010-08-11.

16. Numbers 1998, p. 50 (https://books.google.com/books?id=drk3zykoEy4C&pg=PA50) "In 1873 Asa Graydescribed a 'special creationist' (a phrase he placed in quotation marks) as one who maintained that species'were supernaturally originated just as they are'," – The Nation (https://books.google.com/books?id=HvZAAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA260). J.H. Richards. October 16, 1873. p. 260.

17. Richard F. Carlson, Tremper Longman III, Science, Creation and the Bible: Reconciling Rival Theories of Origins,p.25

18. "Creationism and intelligent design" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/creationism_1.shtml). BBC. 2 June 2009. Retrieved 2 October 2018.

19. Chang, Kenneth (2 November 2009). "Creationism, Minus a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World" (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/science/03islam.html). NY Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved2 October 2018.

20. Butt, Riazat (16 November 2009). "Darwinism, through a Chinese lens" (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/16/darwin-evolution-china-politics). The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited.Retrieved 2 October 2018.

21. Scott, Eugenie C. (7 December 2000). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum" (https://web.archive.org/web/20080509170526/http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp).Reports of the National Center for Science Education, July–August 1999. 19 (4): 16–17, 23–25. ISSN 2158-818X(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/2158-818X). Archived from the original (http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp) on 2008-05-09. (original online version, with link to theCreation/Evolution Continuum graphic (https://web.archive.org/web/20070708193630/http://www.natcenscied.org/graphics/Continu.jpg)

22. Wise, Donald U. (January 2001). "Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution" (http://nagt.org/nagt/jge/abstracts/jan01.html). Journal of Geoscience Education. 49 (1): 30–35. Bibcode:2001JGeEd..49...30W(http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JGeEd..49...30W). doi:10.5408/1089-9995-49.1.30 (https://doi.org/10.5408%2F1089-9995-49.1.30). ISSN 1089-9995 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1089-9995). Retrieved 2014-03-09.

23. Ross, Marcus R. (May 2005). "Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism" (http://nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Ross_v53n3p319.pdf) (PDF). Journal of GeoscienceEducation. 53 (3): 319–323. Bibcode:2005JGeEd..53..319R (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JGeEd..53..319R). CiteSeerX 10.1.1.404.1340 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.404.1340).doi:10.5408/1089-9995-53.3.319 (https://doi.org/10.5408%2F1089-9995-53.3.319). ISSN 1089-9995 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1089-9995). Retrieved 2014-03-09.

24. Scott 2009, pp. 63–75 (https://books.google.com/books?id=FAAlDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA63).

25. 2 Peter 3

26. Greener, M (December 2007). "Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?"(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267227). EMBO Rep. 8 (12): 1107–9.doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401131 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fsj.embor.7401131). PMC 2267227 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267227). PMID 18059309 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18059309).

27. NAS 1999, p. R9 (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=R9)

28. Amicus Curiae Brief Of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 State Academies Of Science, And 7 Other ScientificOrganizations (https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html) atthe Wayback Machine (archive index), Edwards v. Aguillard

29. Sahotra Sarkar; Jessica Pfeifer (2006). The Philosophy of science: an encyclopedia. A-M (https://books.google.com/books?id=od68ge7aF6wC). Psychology Press. p. 194 (https://books.google.com/books?id=od68ge7aF6wC&pg=PA194). ISBN 978-0-415-93927-0.

30. Okasha 2002, p. 127. Okasha's full statement is that "virtually all professional biologists regard creation scienceas a sham – a dishonest and misguided attempt to promote religious beliefs under the guise of science, withextremely harmful educational consequences."

31. Morris, Henry M. "Neocreationism" (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=425). icr.org.Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved Sep 29, 2014.

32. Safire, William (August 21, 2005). "On Language: Neo-Creo" (https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21ONLANGUAGE.html?ref=onlanguage). The New York Times. Retrieved Sep 29, 2014.

33. Scott, Eugenie C. (1996). "Creationism, ideology, and science" (http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationism-ideology-science). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. The Flight from Science and Reason. 775.pp. 505–22. Bibcode:1995NYASA.775..505S (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995NYASA.775..505S).doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1996.tb23167.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1749-6632.1996.tb23167.x). Retrieved2009-11-12.

34. Johnson, Phillip E. (October 2004). "Darwinism is Materialist Mythology, Not Science" (https://web.archive.org/web/20110725220342/http://www.darwinreconsidered.org/media/MaterialistMythology.pdf) (PDF).DarwinReconsidered.org. Archived from the original (http://www.darwinreconsidered.org/media/MaterialistMythology.pdf) (PDF) on July 25, 2011. Retrieved September 29, 2014.

35. Boudry, Maarten; Blancke, Stefaan; Braeckman, Johan (December 2010). "Irreducible Incoherence andIntelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience" (https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482/file/6828579.pdf) (PDF). The Quarterly Review of Biology. 85 (4): 473–82. doi:10.1086/656904 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F656904). hdl:1854/LU-952482 (https://hdl.handle.net/1854%2FLU-952482). PMID 21243965 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21243965). Article available from Universiteit Gent (https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482)

36. Pigliucci, Massimo (2010). "Science in the Courtroom: The Case against Intelligent Design" (http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Nonsenseonstilts.pdf) (PDF). Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. Chicago, Illinois:University of Chicago Press. pp. 160–86. ISBN 978-0-226-66786-7. LCCN 2009049778 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2009049778). OCLC 457149439 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/457149439).

37. "Top Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design?" (http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign). Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA:Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-05-13.

38. "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6pm.html). TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved2014-03-13.

39. Forrest, Barbara (May 2007). "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature andGoals" (https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf) (PDF). Center for Inquiry (A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy).Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry. Archived from the original (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf) (PDF) on 2011-05-19. Retrieved 2014-03-13.

40. "The Wedge" (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf) (PDF). Seattle, WA: Center for the Renewal ofScience and Culture. 1999. Retrieved 2014-03-13.

41. Mu, David (Fall 2005). "Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design"(http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/wp-content/themes/hsr/pdf/fall2005/mu.pdf) (PDF). Harvard Science Review.19 (1): 22–25. Retrieved 2014-03-13. "...for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not ascientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience."

Klotzko, Arlene Judith (May 28, 2001). "Cynical Science and Stem Cells" (http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/13410/title/Cynical-Science-and-Stem-Cells/). The Scientist. 15 (11): 35. ISSN 0890-3670(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0890-3670). Retrieved 2014-03-13. "Creationists are repackaging theirmessage as the pseudo-science of 'intelligent design theory.'"

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). , Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136.

42. Numbers 2006

43. Forrest & Gross 2004

44. 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 andothers in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting thatdoing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to 'rally the troops'. (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski'smovement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection ofbiological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond thisthere is considerable variability..."

Pennock 1999

45. Scott 2005

46. Young, Matt; Edis, Taner (2006). Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism (https://books.google.com/?id=hYLKdtlVeQgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Why+Intelligent+Design+Fails:+A+Scientific+Critique+of+the+New+Creationism#v=onepage&q=Why%20Intelligent%20Design%20Fails%3A%20A%20Scientific%20Critique%20of%20the%20New%20Creationism&f=false). Rutgers University Press.ISBN 9780813538723.

47. Flank, Lenny (April 24, 2006). "Creationism/ID: A Short Legal History" (https://web.archive.org/web/20140823063247/http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm). Talk Reason. Archived from the original (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm) on August 23, 2014. Retrieved 2014-03-09.

48. Smith, Deborah (October 21, 2005). "Intelligent design not science: experts" (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/intelligent-design-not-science-experts/2005/10/20/1129775902661.html). The Sydney Morning Herald.Sydney: Fairfax Media. Retrieved 2007-07-13.

49. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). , Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136.

50. Full text of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, datedDecember 20, 2005.

51. Numbers, Ronald L. (1993) [Originally published 1992; New York: Alfred A. Knopf]. The Creationists: TheEvolution of Scientific Creationism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. p. 237. ISBN 978-0-5200-8393-6. LCCN 93015804 (https://lccn.loc.gov/93015804). OCLC 810488078 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/810488078).

52. Sefton, Dru (March 30, 2006). "In this world view, the sun revolves around the earth" (https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_1kaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XCYEAAAAIBAJ&dq=robert-sungenis&pg=6714%2C4991566). Times-News.Hendersonville, NC: Hendersonville Newspaper Corporation. Religion News Service. p. 5A. Retrieved2014-03-14.

53. DeYoung, Donald B. (November 5, 1997). "Astronomy and the Bible: Selected questions and answers excerptedfrom the book" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1997/11/05/astronomy-bible). Answers in Genesis.Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis Ministries International. Retrieved 2013-12-01.

54. Gosse 1857

55. Sweet & Feist 2007, p. 48 (https://books.google.com/?id=qwaRUNj6S34C&pg=PA48&dq=theistic+evolution+evolutionary+creation#v=onepage&q=theistic%20evolution%20evolutionary%20creation&f=false), "EvolutionaryCreation (or Theistic Evolution) asserts that the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life throughevolutionary processes."

56. Rusbult, Craig (1998). "Evolutionary Creation" (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te2-cr.htm). Ipswich,MA: American Scientific Affiliation. Retrieved 2014-03-14.

57. Bowler 2003, p. 139

58. "Darwin and design: historical essay" (https://web.archive.org/web/20141021101910/http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwin-and-design-article). Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library.2007. Archived from the original (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwin-and-design-article) on 2014-10-21.Retrieved 2012-04-18.

59. Kingsley, Charles (November 18, 1859). "Kingsley, Charles to Darwin, C. R." (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2534) Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. Letter 2534. Retrieved2010-08-11.

60. Moore, James (September 20, 2007). "Evolution and Wonder: Understanding Charles Darwin" (http://www.onbeing.org/program/evolution-and-wonder-understanding-charles-darwin/transcript/899). Speaking of Faith with KristaTippett (Interview). Interviewed by Krista Tippett. American Public Media. Retrieved 2014-03-09 – via NPR.

61. Quammen 2006, p. 119

62. Barlow 1963, p. 207 (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1577&pageseq=9)

63. Dewey 1994, p. 27

64. Miles, Sara Joan (September 2001). "Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design" (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html). Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 53: 196–201.Retrieved 2008-11-22.

65. Gray, Asa (1860). "Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology" (https://web.archive.org/web/20090220124011/http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/84/69/). The Atlantic Monthly (Reprint). Archived from theoriginal (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/84/69/) on 2009-02-20. Retrieved 2009-04-11. "AtlanticMonthly for July, August, and October, 1860, reprinted in 1861."

66. Bowler 2003, pp. 202–08

67. Scott 2005, pp. 62–63

68. Moritz, Albrecht (October 31, 2006). "The Origin of Life" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#intro). TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2008-11-22.

69. Scott 1999

70. Akin, Jimmy (January 2004). "Evolution and the Magisterium" (https://web.archive.org/web/20070804102139/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp). This Rock. 15 (1). ISSN 1049-4561 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1049-4561). Archived from the original (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp) on 2007-08-04.Retrieved 2014-03-14.

71. Guntzel, Jeff Severns (March 25, 2005). "Catholic schools steer clear of anti-evolution bias" (http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005a/032505/032505ssn.htm). National Catholic Reporter. Kansas City, MO: The NationalCatholic Reporter Publishing Company. ISSN 0027-8939 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0027-8939). Retrieved2007-08-15.

72. Coyne, George V. (January 30, 2006). "Text of talk by Vatican Observatory director on 'Science Does Not NeedGod. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution' " (https://web.archive.org/web/20110606050849/http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504). Catholic Online, LLC. Archived from the original (http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504) on June 6, 2011. Retrieved 2011-03-10.

73. Pennock 1999Schafersman, Steven D. (May 1997). "Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry" (http://llanoestacado.org/freeinquiry/files/naturalism.html). Free Inquiry: The Humanist and Skeptic Website of StevenSchafersman. Steven Schafersman. Retrieved 2014-03-15.

Leiter, Brian (April 6, 2004). "On Methodological Naturalism and Intelligent Design (or Why Can't LawrenceVanDyke Leave Well Enough Alone?)" (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/04/on_methodologic.html).Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog (Blog). Brian Leiter. Retrieved 2014-03-15.

Burgeson, John W. (1997). "NTSE: An Intellectual Feast" (http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/ntse182.htm). Origins & Design. 18 (2). Retrieved 2014-03-15.

Draper 2005

Pigliucci, Massimo; et al. (May–June 2004). "The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory" (http://philosophynow.org/issues/46/The_Alleged_Fallacies_of_Evolutionary_Theory). Philosophy Now (46). ISSN 0961-5970(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0961-5970). Retrieved 2014-03-15.

"Statement on Intelligent Design" (https://web.archive.org/web/20100901150357/http://www.biology.uiowa.edu/ID.html). The Department of Biology (Petition). Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa. 2005. Archived from theoriginal (http://www.biology.uiowa.edu/ID.html) on 2010-09-01. Retrieved 2014-03-15.

Pigliucci, Massimo (December 2005). "Science and fundamentalism" (http://embor.embopress.org/content/6/12/1106). EMBO Reports. 6 (12): 1106–1109. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400589 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fsj.embor.7400589). ISSN 1469-3178 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1469-3178). PMC 1369219 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1369219). PMID 16319954 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16319954).Retrieved 2014-03-15.

Martin, Michael (2002). "Justifying Methodological Naturalism" (http://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/naturalism.html). The Secular Web. Colorado Springs, CO: Internet Infidels, Inc. Retrieved 2014-03-15.

74. Bradley, Raymond (November 23, 2005). "Intelligent Design or Natural Design" (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2005/intelligent-design-or-natural-design/). Butterflies and Wheels. Seattle, WA: Ophelia Benson. Retrieved2014-03-16.

75. `Abdu'l-Bahá 1982, p. 220 (http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PUP/pup-79.html#gr8)

76. Miller, Jon D.; Scott, Eugenie C.; Okamoto, Shinji (August 2006). "Public acceptance of evolution" (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5788/765). Science. 313 (5788): 765–66. doi:10.1126/science.1126746 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1126746). PMID 16902112 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16902112). Retrieved2014-03-16.

77. "Denominational Views" (http://ncse.com/religion/denominational-views). National Center for Science Education.Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. October 17, 2008. Retrieved 2010-05-17.

78. "Episcopal Church, General Convention (2006)" (http://ncse.com/media/voices/episcopal-church-general-convention-2006). National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. 2008-09-09. Retrieved 2010-05-17.

79. Schick, Edwin A. (1965). "Evolution" (http://ncse.com/media/voices/lutheran-world-federation). In Bodensieck,Julius (ed.). The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church. 1. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.LCCN 64021500 (https://lccn.loc.gov/64021500). OCLC 947120 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/947120).Retrieved 2010-05-17. Edited for the Lutheran World Federation.

Hollabaugh, Mark (October 2006). "God allows the universe to create itself and evolve" (https://web.archive.org/web/20131231072935/http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=6093). The Lutheran.ISSN 0024-743X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0024-743X). Archived from the original (http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=6093) on 2013-12-31. Retrieved 2014-03-16.

80. "Interview: Rowan Williams" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/21/religion.uk). The Guardian(Transcript). London: Guardian Media Group. March 21, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-16.

81. Williams, Christopher (March 21, 2006). "Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution" (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/21/archbishop_backs_evolution/). The Register. London: Situation Publishing Limited. Retrieved2011-03-10.

82. McDonell, Keelin (July 12, 2005). "What Catholics Think of Evolution" (https://web.archive.org/web/20050716003211/http://www.slate.com/id/2122506/). Slate. Archived from the original (http://www.slate.com/id/2122506/) on2005-07-16. Retrieved 2014-03-16.

83. See also the article Catholic Church and evolution.

84. Polkinghorne 1998, pp. 7–8

85. Philo

86. Bradshaw, Rob. "Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC – c. AD 50)" (http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/philo.php). EarlyChurch.org.uk. West Wickham, England: Steve Bradshaw. Retrieved December 21, 2011.

87. Young, Davis A. (March 1988). "The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation" (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Young.html). Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 40 (1): 42–45.ISSN 0892-2675 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0892-2675). Retrieved 2008-08-18.

88. Pope Pius XII (August 12, 1950). "Humani Generis" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120419021937/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html). Vatican:the Holy See (Papal encyclical). St. Peter's Basilica, Vatican City: Holy See. Archived from the original (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html) onApril 19, 2012. Retrieved 2011-11-08.

89. Pope John Paul II (October 30, 1996). "Magisterium is concerned with question of evolution, for it involvesconception of man" (https://web.archive.org/web/20160321064939/http://www.its.caltech.edu/%7Enmcenter/sci-cp/evolution.html). L'Osservatore Romano (Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) (44) (Weekly Englished.). Tipografia Vaticana, Vatican City: Holy See. pp. 3, 7. Archived from the original (http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/evolution.html) on March 21, 2016. Retrieved March 19, 2014.

90. "Social and Political Views". U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf) (PDF) (Report). Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. 2008. p. 95. Retrieved2014-03-19. Report 2: Religious Beliefs & Practices, Chapter 2.

91. Chryssides, George D. (2008). Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses (https://books.google.com/books?id=Xx6nUwZzeCsC&pg=PA37). Scarecrow Press. p. 37. ISBN 9780810862692.

92. Jackson, Wayne. "Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?" (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194). Apologetics Press. Montgomery, Al. Retrieved 2007-05-23.

93. Tobin, Paul N. (2000). "The Creation Myths: Internal Difficulties" (https://web.archive.org/web/20141008175621/http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/creationint.html). The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide toChristianity. Singapore: Paul Tobin. Archived from the original (http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/creationint.html) on 2014-10-08. Retrieved 2014-03-19.

94. Forster & Marston 1999

95. Eddy 1934, p. 547

96. McGrath 2010, p. 140

97. Numbers 2006, p. 420

98. Carper & Hunt 2009, p. 167

99. Dasgupta 1922, p. 10

100. Bennett, Drake (October 25, 2009). "Islam's Darwin problem" (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). The Boston Globe. Boston, MA. Archived from the original (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/25/in_the_muslim_world_creationism_is_on_the_rise/?page=full) on 2009-10-30. Retrieved2014-03-21.

101. Irvine, Chris (September 29, 2008). "Creationist Adnan Oktar offers trillion-pound prize for fossil proof ofevolution" (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3102103/Creationist-Adnan-Oktar-offers-trillion-pound-prize-for-fossil-proof-of-evolution.html). The Daily Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 2014-03-21.

102. "Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools" (http://education.guardian.co.uk/conferences/story/0,,1117752,00.html). The Guardian (Conferences). London: Guardian Media Group. January 7, 2004. Retrieved 2008-07-18.

103. Edis, Taner (November–December 1999). "Cloning Creationism in Turkey" (http://ncse.com/rncse/19/6/cloning-creationism-turkey). Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 19 (6): 30–35. ISSN 2158-818X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/2158-818X). Retrieved 2008-02-17.

104. Kaufman, Marc (November 8, 2009). "In Turkey, fertile ground for creationism" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/07/AR2009110702233.html). The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: TheWashington Post Company. Retrieved 2014-03-21.

105. Harun Yahya (June 30, 2005). "The Big Bang Echoes through the Map of the Galaxy" (http://www.harunyahya.com/tr/works/3344/The-Big-Bang-echoes-throught-the-map-of-the-galaxy). Harun Yahya. Horsham, England:Global Publication Ltd. Co. Retrieved 2014-03-21.

106. Bucaille 1977Bucaille 1976

107. Abd-Allah, A. "The Qur'an, Knowledge, and Science" (https://web.archive.org/web/20081128054613/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/scislam.html). Compendium of Muslim Texts. Los Angeles, CA: University of SouthernCalifornia. Archived from the original (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/scislam.html) on 2008-11-28.Retrieved 2014-03-21.

108. Masood 1994, Chapter 13, "Every Wind of Doctrine" (http://www.itl-usa.org/ahmadi/ahmadi13.html) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20130208191324/http://itl-usa.org/ahmadi/ahmadi13.html) 2013-02-08 at the WaybackMachine

109. Lahaye, Ataul Wahid; Shah, Zia H. "Guided Evolution: Proof From Punctuated Equilibrium" (http://www.alislam.org/library/articles/Guided_evolution_and_punctuated_equilibrium-20081104MN.pdf) (PDF). Al Islam. London:Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Retrieved 2014-03-21.

110. Aviezer 1990

111. Carmell & Domb 1976

112. Schroeder 1998

113. Tigay, Jeffrey H. (Winter 1987–1988). "Genesis, Science, and 'Scientific Creationism' " (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/sci.htm). Conservative Judaism. 40 (2): 20–27. ISSN 0010-6542 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0010-6542). Retrieved 2014-03-21.

114. The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, Natan Slifkin, ZooTorah, 2006, p. 129

115. The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, Natan Slifkin, ZooTorah, 2006, p. 158

116. The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, Natan Slifkin, ZooTorah, 2006, pp. 169, 170

117. Le Page, Michael (April 19, 2008). "Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution" (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826523.000-evolution-myths-it-doesnt-matter-if-people-dont-grasp-evolution.html). New Scientist. 198 (2652): 31. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0262-4079%2808%2960984-7). ISSN 0262-4079 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0262-4079). Retrieved 2014-03-27.

118. Hecht, Jeff (August 19, 2006). "Why doesn't America believe in evolution?" (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9786-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolution.html). New Scientist. 191 (2565): 11. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0262-4079%2806%2960136-X). ISSN 0262-4079 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0262-4079). Retrieved 2014-03-27.

119. Kahan, Dan (May 24, 2014). "Weekend update: You'd have to be science illiterate to think 'belief in evolution'measures science literacy" (http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/5/24/weekend-update-youd-have-to-be-science-illiterate-to-think-b.html). Cultural Cognition Project (Blog). New Haven, CT: Yale Law School. Retrieved2015-03-23.

120. Shtulman, Andrew (March 2006). "Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution".Cognitive Psychology. 52 (2): 170–94. Bibcode:1992CogPs..24..535V (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992CogPs..24..535V). doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cogpsych.2005.10.001).ISSN 0010-0285 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0010-0285). PMID 16337619 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16337619). |access-date= requires |url= (help)

121. Marr, David (December 19, 2009). "Faith: What Australians believe in" (https://www.smh.com.au/national/faith-what-australians-believe-in-20091218-l5qy.html). The Age. Melbourne, Australia. Archived (https://archive.today/20181211051311/https://www.smh.com.au/national/faith-what-australians-believe-in-20091218-l5qy.html) from theoriginal on December 11, 2018. Retrieved December 11, 2018.

122. Maley, Jacqueline (December 19, 2009). "God is still tops but angels rate well" (http://www.theage.com.au/national/god-is-still-tops-but-angels-rate-well-20091218-l5v9.html). The Age. Melbourne, Australia. Archived (https://archive.today/20120913234134/http://www.theage.com.au/national/god-is-still-tops-but-angels-rate-well-20091218-l5v9.html) from the original on September 13, 2012. Retrieved December 18, 2009.

123. "Science literacy in Australia" (https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/learning/documents/ScienceLiteracyReport2013.pdf) (PDF). Australian Academy of Science. 2013.

124. "Believe In Evolution: Canadians More Likely Than Americans To Endorse Evolution" (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/06/believe-in-evolution_n_1861373.html). HuffPost Canada. AOL. September 6, 2012. Retrieved2012-04-28.

Canseco, Mario (September 5, 2012). "Britons and Canadians More Likely to Endorse than Americans" (https://web.archive.org/web/20140429224428/http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012.09.05_CreEvo.pdf) (PDF) (Press release). New York: Angus Reid Public Opinion. Archived from the original(http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012.09.05_CreEvo.pdf) (PDF) on April 29,2014. Retrieved 2014-05-11.

125. "Britons unconvinced on evolution" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm). BBC News. London:BBC. January 26, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-27.

126. "BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life" (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=262). Ipsos MORI. London: Ipsos MORI. January 30, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-27.

127. "The origin of humans" (http://cdn.yougov.com/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-Pol-Prospect-Evolution-181110.pdf) (PDF). YouGov Global (Prospect Survey Results). London: YouGov Plc. November 20, 2010. Retrieved2014-03-24.

128. Bates, Stephen (March 20, 2006). "Archbishop: stop teaching creationism" (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/mar/21/religion.topstories3). The Guardian. London: Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 2014-03-27.

129. "Italy Keeps Darwin in its Classrooms" (http://www.dw.de/italy-keeps-darwin-in-its-classrooms/a-1188423-1).Deutsche Welle. Bonn, Germany: ARD. May 3, 2004. Retrieved 2014-03-27.

130. Lorenzi, Rossella (April 28, 2004). "No evolution for Italian teens" (http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/22817/title/No-evolution-for-Italian-teens/). The Scientist. Retrieved 2014-03-27.

131. "In the beginning" (http://www.economist.com/node/9036706). The Economist. London: Economist Group. April19, 2007. ISSN 0013-0613 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0013-0613). Retrieved 2007-04-25.This article gives aworldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.

132. "The dangers of creationism in education" (https://web.archive.org/web/20130309011447/http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11678&Language=EN). Committee on Culture, Science and Education(Report). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. June 8, 2007. Doc. 11297. Archived from the original(http://www.assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11678&Language=EN) on March 9, 2013.Retrieved 2014-03-22.

133. "The dangers of creationism in education" (https://web.archive.org/web/20140307163155/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta07%2FERES1580.htm). Committee on Culture, Scienceand Education (Resolution). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. October 4, 2007. Resolution1580. Archived from the original (http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta07/eres1580.htm) on March 7, 2014. Retrieved 2014-03-22. Paras. 13, 18

134. de Quetteville, Harry (September 9, 2004). "Darwin is off the curriculum for Serbian schools" (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1471367/Darwin-is-off-the-curriculum-for-Serbian-schools.html). The Daily Telegraph. London:Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved January 24, 2012.

135. "Serbia reverses Darwin suspension" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3642460.stm). BBC News. London:BBC. September 9, 2004. Retrieved 2014-03-21.

136. " 'Anti-Darwin' Serb minister quits" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3663196.stm). BBC News. London: BBC.September 16, 2004. Retrieved 2014-03-27.

137. "And finally..." (http://www.wbj.pl/?command=article&id=35336&type=wbj) Warsaw Business Journal. Warsaw,Poland: Valkea Media. December 18, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-27.

138. Masci, David (10 February 2017). "For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate" (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/). Pew Research Center.

139. "In US, Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low" (http://www.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx). Gallup. May 22, 2017.

140. Newport, Frank (November 19, 2004). "In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins" (http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx). Gallup.com. Omaha, NE: Gallup, Inc.Retrieved 2014-05-10.

141. Newport, Frank (Host) (June 11, 2007). Evolution Beliefs (https://web.archive.org/web/20140427004950/http://www.gallup.com/video/27838/Evolution-Beliefs.aspx). The Gallup Poll Daily Briefing. Omaha, NE: Gallup, Inc.Archived from the original (http://www.gallup.com/video/27838/Evolution-Beliefs.aspx) on April 27, 2014.Retrieved 2014-03-27.

142. Robinson, Bruce A. (November 1995). "Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation" (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm). ReligiousTolerance.org. Kingston, Canada: Ontario Consultants on ReligiousTolerance. Retrieved 2007-11-11.

143. Martz, Larry; McDaniel, Ann (June 29, 1987). "Keeping God Out of the Classroom" (http://kgov.com/files/docs/Newsweek-1987-God-Classroom.pdf) (PDF). Newsweek: 23–24. ISSN 0028-9604 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0028-9604). Retrieved 2015-09-25.

144. "Evolution and Creationism In Public Education: An In-depth Reading Of Public Opinion" (http://media.pfaw.org/pdf/creationism/creationism-poll.pdf) (PDF). People For the American Way. Washington, D.C.: People For theAmerican Way. March 2000. Retrieved 2014-03-28.

145. "Fox News Poll: Creationism" (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/07/fox-news-poll-creationism/). Fox News.News Corporation. September 7, 2011. Retrieved 2011-09-22.

146. Luvan, Dylan (September 24, 2012). "Bill Nye Warns: Creation Views Threaten US Science" (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bill-nye-warns-creation-views-threaten-us-science). Associated Press. Retrieved 2014-03-09.

147. Fowler, Jonathan; Rodd, Elizabeth (August 23, 2012). "Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU). YouTube. New York: Big Think. Retrieved 2012-09-24.

148. Deiviscio, Jeffrey (November 3, 2014). "A Fight for the Young Creationist Mind: In 'Undeniable,' Bill Nye SpeaksEvolution Directly to Creationists" (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/science/in-undeniable-bill-nye-speaks-evolution-directly-to-creationists.html). The New York Times. Retrieved November 4, 2014.

149. Boyle, Alan (February 5, 2014). "Bill Nye Wins Over the Science Crowd at Evolution Debate" (http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/bill-nye-wins-over-science-crowd-evolution-debate-n22836). NBCNews.com.Retrieved 2014-02-06.

150. Kopplin, Zack (February 4, 2014). "Why Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to reason with America's creationists"(https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/04/bill-nye-science-guy-evolution-debate-creationists).The Guardian. London: Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 2014-02-06.

151. Foreman, Tom (Moderator) (February 4, 2014). Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI). YouTube. Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2014-02-05. (program begins at 13:14).

152. "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf) (PDF). Washington, D.C.: American Association for theAdvancement of Science. February 16, 2006. Archived from the original (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf) (PDF) on 2006-02-21. Retrieved 2014-03-09.

Pinholster, Ginger (February 19, 2006). "AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws as Hundreds of K-12Teachers Convene for 'Front Line' Event" (https://web.archive.org/web/20060421193306/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml) (Press release). St. Louis, MO: American Association for theAdvancement of Science. Archived from the original (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml) on 2006-04-21. Retrieved 2014-08-05.

153. Delgado, Cynthia (July 28, 2006). "Finding the Evolution in Medicine" (https://web.archive.org/web/20081122022815/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm). NIH Record. ISSN 1057-5871 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1057-5871). Archived from the original (http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm) on November 22, 2008. Retrieved 2014-03-31. "...While 99.9 percent of scientists acceptevolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory." – BrianAlters

154. van Harn, Roger; Ford, David F.; Gunton, Colin E. (2004). Exploring and Proclaiming the Apostles' Creed (https://books.google.com/books?id=GCXUAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA44). A&C Black. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-8192-8116-6. Extractof page 44 (https://books.google.com/books?id=GCXUAwAAQBAJ)

155. Ra, Aron (2016). Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism (https://books.google.com/books?id=F-rvDAAAQBAJ).Pitchstone Publishing. p. 182. ISBN 978-1-63431-079-6. Extract of page 182 (https://books.google.com/books?id=F-rvDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT182)

156. "Statements from Religious Organizations" (http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion). National Center for ScienceEducation. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. 2008-09-08. Retrieved 2011-03-10.

157. Murphy, George L. (2002). "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem" (http://puffin.creighton.edu/nrcse/IDTHG.html). Covalence: The Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science andTechnology. IV (2). OCLC 52753579 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/52753579). Retrieved 2014-03-31. Reprintedwith permission.

158. Purcell, Brendan (2012). From Big Bang to Big Mystery: Human Origins in the Light of Creation and Evolution.New City Press of the Focolare. p. 94. ISBN 978-1565484337.

159. "NSTA Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution" (http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx).National Science Teachers Association. 2013.

160. "ASTE Position Statement on Teaching Biological Evolution" (https://theaste.org/about/aste-position-statement-on-teaching-biological-evolution/). Association for Science Teacher Education. 2015.

161. "NABT Position Statement on Teaching Evolution" (https://web.archive.org/web/20150916020337/http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/?p=92). National Association of Biology Teachers. 2011. Archived from the original (http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/?p=92) on 2015-09-16.

162. "Statement on Evolution and Creationism" (http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2599). American Anthropological Association. 2000.

163. "American Geological Institute Position on Teaching Evolution" (http://www.agiweb.org/gapac/evolution_statement.html). American Geoscience Institute. 2000.

164. "Position Statement: Teaching Evolution" (http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm). Geological Societyof America. 2012.

165. "AGU Position Statement on Teaching Creationism as Science" (http://www.rbsp.info/rbs/CLONE/debate.html).American Geophysical Institute. 1998.

166. "American Academy of Religion on teaching creationism" (http://ncse.com/news/2010/07/american-academy-religion-teaching-creationism-005712). National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center forScience Education. July 23, 2010. Retrieved 2010-08-09.

167. Moore, Randy; Cotner, Sehoya (May 2009). "The Creationist Down the Hall: Does It Matter When TeachersTeach Creationism?". BioScience. 59 (5): 429–35. Bibcode:1985BioSc..35..499W (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985BioSc..35..499W). doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.5.10 (https://doi.org/10.1525%2Fbio.2009.59.5.10). ISSN 0006-3568 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0006-3568). JSTOR 25502451 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/25502451).

168. NAS 2008, p. 12 (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=12)

169. NAS 2008, p. 10 (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=10), "In science, explanationsmust be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and thereforecan be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside ofnature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations."

170. Isaak, Mark, ed. (2006). "An Index to Creationist Claims" (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html).TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2012-12-09.

171. Futuyma 2005

172. Gould 1999

173. Gould, Stephen Jay (March 1997). "Nonoverlapping Magisteria" (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html). Natural History. 106 (3): 16–22. ISSN 0028-0712 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0028-0712). Retrieved2014-03-31.

174. Dawkins 2006, p. 5

175. "Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design" (https://web.archive.org/web/20080602213726/http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298). Royal Society. London: Royal Society. April 11, 2006.Archived from the original (http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298) on 2008-06-02. Retrieved2014-03-09.

176. Matsumura, Molleen; Mead, Louise (February 14, 2001). "Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution andCreationism" (http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism). National Center forScience Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2008-11-04. Updated 2007-07-31.

177. Myers, PZ (June 18, 2006). "Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?" (https://web.archive.org/web/20070809011055/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php). Pharyngula (Blog).ScienceBlogs LLC. Archived from the original (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php) on August 9, 2007. Retrieved 2007-09-12.

178. "About Old Earth Ministries?" (http://www.oldearth.org/about_aic.htm). Old Earth Ministries. Springfield, OH: OldEarth Ministries. Retrieved 2014-03-09.

`Abdu'l-Bahá (1982) [Originally published 1922–1925]. The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Talks Delivered by'Abdu'l-Bahá during His Visit to the United States and Canada in 1912. Compiled by Howard MacNutt (2nd ed.).Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust. ISBN 978-0-8774-3172-5. LCCN 81021689 (https://lccn.loc.gov/81021689).OCLC 853066452 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/853066452).

Aviezer, Nathan (1990). In the Beginning—: Biblical Creation and Science. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV PublishingHouse. ISBN 978-0-88125-328-3. LCCN 89049127 (https://lccn.loc.gov/89049127). OCLC 20800545 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/20800545).

Barlow, Nora, ed. (1963). "Darwin's Ornithological Notes" (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F1577&viewtype=side). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Historical Series. 2 (7): 201–278. ISSN 0068-2306 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0068-2306). Retrieved 2009-06-10.

Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.ISBN 978-0-520-23693-6. LCCN 2002007569 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2002007569). OCLC 49824702 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/49824702).

Bucaille, Maurice (1977) [Original French edition published 1976]. The Bible, The Qur'an and Science: The HolyScriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge. translated from the French by Alastair D. Pannell andthe author. Paris: Seghers. LCCN 76488005 (https://lccn.loc.gov/76488005). OCLC 373529514 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/373529514).

Bucaille, Maurice (1976). The Qur'an and Modern Science (http://www.sultan.org/articles/QScience.html)(Booklet). Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Cooperative Offices for Call & Guidance at Al-Badiah & IndustrialArea. OCLC 52246825 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/52246825). Retrieved 2014-03-21.

References

Carmell, Aryeh; Domb, Cyril, eds. (1976). Challenge: Torah Views on Science and its Problems. Jerusalem; NewYork: Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists; Feldheim Publishers. ISBN 978-0-87306-174-2.LCCN 77357516 (https://lccn.loc.gov/77357516). OCLC 609518840 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/609518840).

Carper, James C.; Hunt, Thomas C., eds. (2009). The Praeger Handbook of Religion and Education in the UnitedStates. 1: A–L. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. ISBN 978-0-275-99228-6. LCCN 2008041156 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2008041156). OCLC 246888936 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/246888936).

Collins, Francis S. (2006). The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: FreePress. ISBN 978-0-7432-8639-8. LCCN 2006045316 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2006045316). OCLC 65978711 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/65978711).

Dasgupta, Surendranath (1922). A History of Indian Philosophy. 1. Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress. LCCN 22018463 (https://lccn.loc.gov/22018463). OCLC 4235820(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/4235820).

Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press. ISBN 978-0-5930-5548-9.LCCN 2006015506 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2006015506). OCLC 70671839 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/70671839).

Desmond, Adrian (1989). The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London.Science and its Conceptual Foundations. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-14346-0. LCCN 89005137 (https://lccn.loc.gov/89005137). OCLC 828159401 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/828159401).

Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991). Darwin. London; New York: Michael Joseph; Viking Penguin. ISBN 978-0-7181-3430-3. LCCN 92196964 (https://lccn.loc.gov/92196964). OCLC 26502431 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/26502431).

Dewey, John (1994). "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy". In Martin Gardner (ed.). Great Essays inScience. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-0-87975-853-0. LCCN 93035453 (https://lccn.loc.gov/93035453). OCLC 28846489 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/28846489).

Draper, Paul R. (2005). "God, Science, and Naturalism" (http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195138090.001.0001/acprof-9780195138092-chapter-12). In Wainwright, William J. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook ofPhilosophy of Religion. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 272–303.doi:10.1093/0195138090.003.0012 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2F0195138090.003.0012). ISBN 978-0-1951-3809-2. LCCN 2004043890 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2004043890). OCLC 54542845 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/54542845). Retrieved 2014-03-15.

Dundes, Alan (1984). "Introduction". In Dundes, Alan (ed.). Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-5200-5192-8. LCCN 83017921 (https://lccn.loc.gov/83017921). OCLC 9944508 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/9944508).

Dundes, Alan (1996). "Madness in Method, Plus a Plea for Projective Inversion in Myth". In Patton, Laurie L.;Doniger, Wendy (eds.). Myth and Method. Charlottesville; London: University of Virginia Press. ISBN 978-0-8139-1657-6. LCCN 96014672 (https://lccn.loc.gov/96014672). OCLC 34516050 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/34516050).

Eddy, Mary Baker (1934) [Originally published 1875 as Science and Health; Christian Scientist PublishingCompany: Boston, MA]. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (Sunday school ed.). Boston, MA:Christian Science Publishing Society for the Trustees under the will of Mary Baker G. Eddy. LCCN 42044682 (https://lccn.loc.gov/42044682). OCLC 4579118 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/4579118).

Forrest, Barbara; Gross, Paul R. (2004). Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford;New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-515742-0. LCCN 2002192677 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2002192677). OCLC 50913078 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/50913078).

Forster, Roger; Marston, V. Paul (1999). "Genesis Through History". Reason, Science, and Faith. Crowborough,East Sussex: Monarch Books. ISBN 978-1-85424-441-3. LCCN 99488551 (https://lccn.loc.gov/99488551).OCLC 41159110 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/41159110).

Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). "Evolutionary Science, Creationism, and Society". Evolution. Sunderland, MA:Sinauer Associates. ISBN 978-0-87893-187-3. LCCN 2004029808 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2004029808).OCLC 57311264 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57311264).

Giberson, Karl W.; Yerxa, Donald A. (2002). Species of Origins: America's Search for a Creation Story. Lanham,MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-0764-7. LCCN 2002002365 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2002002365).OCLC 49031109 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/49031109).

Gosse, Philip Henry (1857). Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. London: J. Van Voorst.LCCN 11004351 (https://lccn.loc.gov/11004351). OCLC 7631539 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/7631539).

Gould, Stephen Jay (1999). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. Library of ContemporaryThought (1st ed.). New York: Ballantine Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-345-43009-0. LCCN 98031335 (https://lccn.loc.gov/98031335). OCLC 39886951 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/39886951).

Gunn, Angus M. (2004). Evolution and Creationism in the Public Schools: A Handbook for Educators, Parents,and Community Leaders. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-0-7864-2002-5. LCCN 2004018788(https://lccn.loc.gov/2004018788). OCLC 56319812 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/56319812).

Hayward, James L. (1998). The Creation/Evolution Controversy: An Annotated Bibliography. MagillBibliographies. Lanham, MD; Pasadena, CA: Scarecrow Press; Salem Press. p. 253. ISBN 978-0-8108-3386-9.LCCN 98003138 (https://lccn.loc.gov/98003138). OCLC 38496519 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38496519).

Lamoureux, Denis O. (1999). "Evangelicals Inheriting the Wind: The Phillip E. Johnson Phenomenon". DarwinismDefeated?: The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins. Foreword by J. I. Packer. Vancouver, B.C.:Regent College Publishing. ISBN 978-1-57383-133-8. OCLC 40892139 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/40892139).

Masood, Steven (1994) [Originally published 1986]. Jesus and the Indian Messiah. Oldham, England: Word ofLife. ISBN 978-1-898868-00-2. LCCN 94229476 (https://lccn.loc.gov/94229476). OCLC 491161526 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/491161526).

McComas, William F. (2002). "Science and Its Myths". In Shermer, Michael (ed.). The Skeptic Encyclopedia ofPseudoscience. 1. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-57607-653-8. LCCN 2002009653 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2002009653). OCLC 50155642 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/50155642).

McGrath, Alister E. (2010). Science and Religion: A New Introduction (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.ISBN 978-1-4051-8790-9. LCCN 2009020180 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2009020180). OCLC 366494307 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/366494307).

National Academy of Sciences (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences(http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024) (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.ISBN 978-0-309-06406-4. LCCN 99006259 (https://lccn.loc.gov/99006259). OCLC 43803228 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/43803228). Retrieved 2014-11-22.

National Academy of Sciences; Institute of Medicine (2008). Science, Evolution, and Creationism (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105. Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press. pp. 3–4. Bibcode:2008PNAS..105....3A (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PNAS..105....3A). doi:10.1073/pnas.0711608105 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0711608105). ISBN 978-0-309-10586-6. LCCN 2007015904 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2007015904). OCLC 123539346 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/123539346). PMC 2224205 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2224205). PMID 18178613 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18178613). Retrieved 2014-11-22.

Numbers, Ronald L. (1998). Darwinism Comes to America. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UniversityPress. ISBN 978-0-674-19312-3. LCCN 98016212 (https://lccn.loc.gov/98016212). OCLC 38747194 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38747194).

Numbers, Ronald L. (2006) [Originally published 1992 as The Creationists: The Evolution of ScientificCreationism; New York: Alfred A. Knopf]. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design(Expanded ed., 1st Harvard University Press pbk. ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.ISBN 978-0-674-02339-0. LCCN 2006043675 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2006043675). OCLC 69734583 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/69734583).

Okasha, Samir (2002). Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. 67. Oxford;New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280283-5. LCCN 2002510456 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2002510456). OCLC 48932644 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/48932644).

Pennock, Robert T. (1999). Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Cambridge,Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-16180-0. LCCN 98027286 (https://lccn.loc.gov/98027286).OCLC 44966044 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44966044).

Pennock, Robert T, ed. (2001). Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, andScientific Perspectives. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-66124-9. LCCN 2001031276 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2001031276). OCLC 46729201 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/46729201).

Philo, of Alexandria (1854–55). "The First Book of the Treatise on The Allegories of the Sacred Laws, after theWork of the Six Days of Creation" (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html). The Works of PhiloJudaeus (https://archive.org/details/worksofphilojuda01yonguoft). Bohn's Classical Library. Translated from theGreek, by C. D. Yonge. London: H.G. Bohn. LCCN 20007801 (https://lccn.loc.gov/20007801). OCLC 1429769 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1429769). Retrieved 2014-03-09.

Plimer, Ian (1994). Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism. Milsons Point, NSW: Random House Australia.ISBN 978-0-09-182852-3. LCCN 94237744 (https://lccn.loc.gov/94237744). OCLC 32608689 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/32608689).

Polkinghorne, John (1998). Science and Theology: An Introduction. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. ISBN 978-0-8006-3153-6. LCCN 98229115 (https://lccn.loc.gov/98229115). OCLC 40117376 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/40117376).

Quammen, David (2006). The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of HisTheory of Evolution. Great Discoveries. New York: Atlas Books/W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-05981-6. LCCN 2006009864 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2006009864). OCLC 65400177 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/65400177).

Rainey, David (2008). Faith Reads: A Selective Guide to Christian Nonfiction. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.ISBN 978-1-59158-602-9. LCCN 2008010352 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2008010352). OCLC 213599217 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/213599217).

Schroeder, Gerald L. (1998) [Originally published 1997; New York: Free Press]. The Science of God: TheConvergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom (1st Broadway Books trade paperback ed.). New York: BroadwayBooks. ISBN 978-0-7679-0303-5. LCCN 97014978 (https://lccn.loc.gov/97014978). OCLC 39162332 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/39162332).

Scott, Eugenie C. (1999). "Science, Religion, and Evolution" (https://web.archive.org/web/20030628210954/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/528_science_religion_and_evoluti_6_19_2001.asp). In Springer, DaleA.; Scotchmoor, Judy (eds.). Evolution: Investigating the Evidence (Reprint). The Paleontological Society SpecialPublications. 9. Pittsburgh, PA: Paleontological Society. LCCN 00274093 (https://lccn.loc.gov/00274093).OCLC 42725350 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/42725350). Archived from the original (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/528_science_religion_and_evoluti_6_19_2001.asp) on 2003-06-28. "Presented as aPaleontological Society short course at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, Denver,Colorado, October 24, 1999."

Scott, Eugenie C. (2005) [Originally published 2004; Westport, CT: Greenwood Press]. Evolution vs. Creationism:An Introduction. Foreword by Niles Eldredge (1st paperback ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.ISBN 978-0-520-24650-8. LCCN 2005048649 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2005048649). OCLC 60420899 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/60420899).

Scott, Eugenie C. (3 August 2009). Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction (https://books.google.com/books?id=FAAlDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1). Univ of California Press. pp. i–331. ISBN 978-0-520-26187-7.

Secord, James A. (2000). Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorshipof Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-74410-0. LCCN 00009124 (https://lccn.loc.gov/00009124). OCLC 43864195 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/43864195).

Stewart, Melville Y., ed. (2010). Science and Religion in Dialogue. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-8921-7. LCCN 2009032180 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2009032180). OCLC 430678957 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/430678957).

Sweet, William; Feist, Richard, eds. (2007). Religion and the Challenges of Science. Aldershot, England;Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7546-5715-6. LCCN 2006030598 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2006030598). OCLC 71778930 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/71778930).

"Creationism" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/) at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy byMichael Ruse

Wilder-Smith, A. E. (1978). Die Naturwissenschaften kennen keine Evolution: Empirische und theoretischeEinwände gegen die Evolutionstheorie [The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution]. Basel, Switzerland:Schwabe Verlag. ISBN 978-3-7965-0691-8. LCCN 80067425 (https://lccn.loc.gov/80067425). OCLC 245955034(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/245955034).

Young, Davis A. (1995). The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence.Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-0719-9. LCCN 95001899 (https://lccn.loc.gov/95001899).OCLC 246813515 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/246813515).

Anderson, Bernard W. (1967). Creation versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible.New York: Association Press. LCCN 67014578 (https://lccn.loc.gov/67014578). OCLC 671184 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/671184).

Anderson, Bernhard W., ed. (1984). Creation in the Old Testament. Issues in Religion and Theology. 6.Introduction by Bernhard W. Anderson. Philadelphia; London: Fortress Press; Society for Promoting ChristianKnowledge. ISBN 978-0-8006-1768-4. LCCN 83048910 (https://lccn.loc.gov/83048910). OCLC 10374840 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/10374840).

Barbour, Ian G. (1997). Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (1st HarperCollins reviseded.). San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 978-0-06-060938-2. LCCN 97006294 (https://lccn.loc.gov/97006294). OCLC 36417827 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/36417827).

Barbour, Ian G. (2000). When Science Meets Religion (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco.ISBN 978-0-06-060381-6. LCCN 99055579 (https://lccn.loc.gov/99055579). OCLC 42752713 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/42752713).

Clark, Kelly James (2014). Religion and the Sciences of Origins: Historical and Contemporary Discussions (1sted.). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-137-41483-0. LCCN 2014466739 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2014466739). OCLC 889777438 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/889777438).

Darwin, Charles (1958). Barlow, Nora (ed.). The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882: With originalomissions restored; Edited and with Appendix and Notes by his grand-daughter, Nora Barlow (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1497&viewtype=side&pageseq=1). London: Collins. LCCN 93017940 (https://lccn.loc.gov/93017940). OCLC 869541868 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/869541868). Retrieved 2009-01-09.

Kaplan, Aryeh (1993). Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View. With anappendix Derush Or ha-Hayyim by Israel Lipschitz; translated and annotated by Yaakov Elman. Hoboken, NJ:KTAV Publishing House in association with the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists. ISBN 978-0-88125-345-0. LCCN 92036917 (https://lccn.loc.gov/92036917). OCLC 26800167 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/26800167).

Kauffman, Stuart A. (2008). Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason and Religion. New York:Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-00300-6. LCCN 2007052263 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2007052263). OCLC 191023778(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/191023778).

Leeming, David Adams; Leeming, Margaret (1995). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. New York: Oxford UniversityPress. ISBN 978-0-19-510275-8. LCCN 95039961 (https://lccn.loc.gov/95039961). OCLC 33160980 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/33160980).

Primack, Joel R.; Abrams, Nancy Ellen (Jan–Feb 1995). "In a Beginning...: Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah"(http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primack_abrams/InABeginningTikkun1995.pdf) (PDF). Tikkun. 10 (1): 66–73.ISSN 0887-9982 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0887-9982). Retrieved 2014-04-24.

Roberts, Michael (2008). Evangelicals and Science. Greenwood Guides to Science and Religion. Westport, CT:Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-33113-8. LCCN 2007041059 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2007041059).OCLC 174138819 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/174138819).

Further reading

External links

"How Creationism Works" (http://www.howstuffworks.com/creationism.htm) at HowStuffWorks by Julia Layton"TIMELINE: Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design" (http://www.allviewpoints.org/RESOURCES/EVOLUTION/timeline.htm) – Focuses on major historical and recent events in the scientific and political debate"Evolution and Creationism: A Guide for Museum Docents" (http://images.derstandard.at/20051012/Evolution-and-Creationism.pdf) (PDF). (204 KB) by Warren D. Allmon, Director of the Museum of the Earth"What is creationism?" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html) at talk.origins by Mark Isaak"The Creation/Evolution Continuum" (http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum) byEugenie Scott"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/) byJohn Rennie, editor in chief of Scientific American magazineHuman Timeline (Interactive) (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive) –Smithsonian, National Museum of Natural History (August 2016)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&oldid=906586381"

This page was last edited on 16 July 2019, at 20:36 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By usingthis site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the WikimediaFoundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Biblical cosmologyBiblical cosmology is the biblical writers' conception of the cosmos as anorganised, structured entity, including its origin, order, meaning anddestiny.[1][2] The Bible was formed over many centuries, involving manyauthors, and reflects shifting patterns of religious belief; consequently, itscosmology is not always consistent.[3][4] Nor do the biblical textsnecessarily represent the beliefs of all Jews or Christians at the time theywere put into writing: the majority of those making up Hebrew Bible orOld Testament in particular represent the beliefs of only a small segment ofthe ancient Israelite community, the members of a late Judean religioustradition centered in Jerusalem and devoted to the exclusive worship ofYahweh.[5]

The ancient Israelites envisaged a universe made up of a flat disc-shapedEarth floating on water, heaven above, underworld below.[6] Humansinhabited Earth during life and the underworld after death, and theunderworld was morally neutral;[7] only in Hellenistic times (after c.330BCE) did Jews begin to adopt the Greek idea that it would be a place ofpunishment for misdeeds, and that the righteous would enjoy an afterlife inheaven.[8] In this period too the older three-level cosmology in largemeasure gave way to the Greek concept of a spherical earth suspended inspace at the center of a number of concentric heavens.[6]

The opening words of the Genesis creation narrative (Genesis 1:1-26) sum up a view of how the cosmos originated: "In thebeginning God created the heavens and the earth"; Yahweh, the God of Israel, was solely responsible for creation and had norivals.[9] Later Jewish thinkers, adopting ideas from Greek philosophy, concluded that God's Wisdom, Word and Spirit penetratedall things and gave them unity.[10] Christianity in turn adopted these ideas and identified Jesus with the Logos (Word): "In thebeginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).[11]

Cosmogony (origins of the cosmos)Divine battle and divine speechNaming: God, Wisdom, Torah and Christ

Cosmography (shape and structure of the cosmos)Heavens, Earth, and underworldThe cosmic oceanHeavens

Form and structureGod and the heavenly beingsParadise and the human soul

EarthCosmic geographyTemples, mountains, gardens and rivers

Underworld

God creating the cosmos (Bible moralisée,French, 13th century)

Contents

Sheol and the Old TestamentIntertestamental periodSatan and the end of time

See also

References

Bibliography

Two different models of the process of creation existed in ancient Israel.[12] In the"logos" (speech) model, God speaks and shapes unresisting dormant matter intoeffective existence and order (Psalm 33: "By the word of YHWH the heavens weremade, and by the breath of his mouth all their hosts; he gathers up the waters like amound, stores the Deep in vaults"); in the second, or "agon" (struggle) model, Goddoes battle with the monsters of the sea at the beginning of the world in order tomark his sovereignty and power.[13] Psalm 74 evokes the agon model: it opens witha lament over God's desertion of his people and their tribulations, then asks him toremember his past deeds: "You it was who smashed Sea with your might, whobattered the heads of the monsters in the waters; You it was who crushed the headsof Leviathan, who left them for food for the denizens of the desert..."[13] In thisworld-view the seas are primordial forces of disorder, and the work of creation ispreceded by a divine combat (or "theomachy").[14]

Creation in the "agon" model takes the following storyline: (1) God as the divine warrior battles the monsters of chaos, whoinclude Sea, Death, Tannin and Leviathan; (2) The world of nature joins in the battle and the chaos-monsters are defeated; (3)God is enthroned on a divine mountain, surrounded by lesser deities; (4) He speaks, and nature brings forth the created world,[15]

or for the Greeks, the cosmos. This myth was taken up in later Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature and projected into thefuture, so that cosmic battle becomes the decisive act at the end of the world's history:[15] thus the Book of Revelation (end of the1st century CE) tells how, after the God's final victory over the sea-monsters, New Heavens and New Earth shall be inauguratedin a cosmos in which there will be "no more sea" (Revelation 21:1).[16]

The Genesis creation narrative (Genesis 1) is the quintessential "logos" creation myth. Like the "agon" model it begins withdarkness and the uncreated primordial ocean:[17] God separates and restrains the waters, but he does not create them fromnothing.[18] God initiates each creative act with a spoken word ("God said, Let there be..."), and finalises it with the giving of aname.[19] Creation by speech is not unique to the Old Testament: it is prominent in some Egyptian traditions.[20] There is,however, a difference between the Egyptian and Hebrew logos mythologies: in Genesis 1 the divine word of the Elohim is an actof "making into"; the word of Egyptian creator-god, by contrast, is an almost magical activation of something inherent in pre-creation: as such, it goes beyond the concept of fiat (divine act) to something more like the Logos of the Gospel of John.[20]

In the ancient world, things did not exist until they were named: "The name of a living being or an object was ... the very essenceof what was defined, and the pronouncing of a name was to create what was spoken."[20] The pre-Exilic (before 586 BCE) OldTestament allowed no equals to Yahweh in heaven, despite the continued existence of an assembly of subordinate servant-deitieswho helped make decisions about matters on heaven and earth.[21] The post-Exilic writers of the Wisdom tradition (e.g. the Book

Cosmogony (origins of the cosmos)

The Destruction of Leviathan(Gustave Doré, 1865)

Divine battle and divine speech

Naming: God, Wisdom, Torah and Christ

of Proverbs, Song of Songs, etc.) develop the idea that Wisdom, later identified with Torah, existed before creation and was usedby God to create the universe:[4] "Present from the beginning, Wisdom assumes the role of master builder while God establishesthe heavens, restricts the chaotic waters, and shapes the mountains and fields."[22] Borrowing ideas from Greek philosophers whoheld that reason bound the universe together, the Wisdom tradition taught that God's Wisdom, Word and Spirit were the ground ofcosmic unity.[10] Christianity in turn adopted these ideas and applied them to Jesus: the Epistle to the Colossians calls Jesus"...image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation...", while the Gospel of John identifies him with the creative word ("In thebeginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God").[11]

The Hebrew Bible depicted a three-part world, with the heavens(shamayim) above, Earth (eres) in the middle, and theunderworld (sheol) below.[23] After the 4th century BCE this wasgradually replaced by a Greek scientific cosmology of a sphericalearth surrounded by multiple concentric heavens.[6]

The three-part world of heavens, Earth and underworld floated inTehom, the mythological cosmic ocean, which covered the Earthuntil God created the firmament to divide it into upper and lowerportions and reveal the dry land;[24] the world has been protectedfrom the cosmic ocean ever since by the solid dome of thefirmament.[25]

The tehom is, or was, hostile to God: it confronted him at the beginning of the world (Psalm 104:6ff) but fled from the dry land athis rebuke; he has now set a boundary or bar for it which it can no longer pass (Jeremiah 5:22 and Job 38:8-10).[26] The cosmicsea is the home of monsters which God conquers: "By his power he stilled the sea, by his understanding he smote Rahab!" (Job26:12f).[26] (Rahab is an exclusively Hebrew sea-monster; others, including Leviathan and the tannin, or dragons, are found inUgaritic texts; it is not entirely clear whether they are identical with Sea or are Sea's helpers).[27] The "bronze sea" which stood inthe forecourt of the Temple in Jerusalem probably corresponds to the "sea" in Babylonian temples, representing the apsu, thecosmic ocean.[28]

In the New Testament Jesus' conquest of the stormy sea shows the conquering deity overwhelming the forces of chaos: a mereword of command from the Son of God stills the foe (Mark 4:35-41), who then tramples over his enemy, (Jesus walking on water- Mark 6:45, 47-51).[29] In Revelation, where the Archangel Michael expels the dragon (Satan) from heaven ("And war broke outin heaven, with Michael and his angels attacking the dragon..." - Revelation 12:7), the motif can be traced back to Leviathan inIsrael and to Tiamat, the chaos-ocean, in Babylonian myth, identified with Satan via an interpretation of the serpent in Eden.[30]

Cosmography (shape and structure of the cosmos)

The Old Testament cosmos.

Heavens, Earth, and underworld

The cosmic ocean

Heavens

Form and structure

In the Old Testament the word shamayim represented both the sky/atmosphere, andthe dwelling place of God.[31] The raqia or firmament - the visible sky - was a solidinverted bowl over the Earth, coloured blue from the heavenly ocean above it.[32]

Rain, snow, wind and hail were kept in storehouses outside the raqia, which had"windows" to allow them in - the waters for Noah's flood entered when the"windows of heaven" were opened.[33] Heaven extended down to and wascoterminous with (i.e. it touched) the farthest edges of the Earth (e.g. Deuteronomy4:32);[34] humans looking up from Earth saw the floor of heaven, which they sawalso as God's throne, as made of clear blue lapis-lazuli (Exodus 24:9-10), and(Ezekiel 1:26).[35] Below that was a layer of water, the source of rain, which wasseparated from us by an impenetrable barrier, the firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). Therain may also be stored in heavenly cisterns (Job: 38:37) or storehouses (Deut 28:12)alongside the storehouses for wind, hail and snow.[36]

Grammatically the word shamayim can be either dual (two) or plural (more than two), without ruling out the singular (one).[37]

As a result, it is not clear whether there were one, two, or more heavens in the Old Testament,[38] but most likely there was onlyone, and phrases such as "heaven of heavens" were meant to stress the vastness of God's realm.[34]

The Babylonians had a more complex idea of heaven, and during the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE) the influence ofBabylonian cosmology led to the idea of a plurality of heavens among Jews.[39] This continued into the New Testament:Revelation apparently has only one heaven, but the Epistle to the Hebrews and the epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesianshave more than one, although they don't specify how many,[40] and the apostle Paul tells of his visit to the third heaven, the place,according to contemporary thought, where the garden of Paradise is to be found.[41]

Israel and Judah, like other Canaanite kingdoms, originally had a full pantheon ofgods.[42] The chief of the old Canaanite pantheon was the god El, but over timeYahweh replaced him as the national god and the two merged ("Yahweh-El, creatorof heaven and earth" - Genesis 14:22).[42] The remaining gods were now subject toYahweh: "Who in the sky is comparable to Yahweh, like Yahweh among the divinebeings? A god dreaded in the Council of holy beings...?" (Psalm 89:6-9).[43] In theBook of Job the Council of Heaven, the Sons of God (bene elohim) meet in heavento review events on Earth and decide the fate of Job.[44] One of their number is "theSatan", literally "the accuser", who travels over the Earth much like a Persianimperial spy, (Job dates from the period of the Persian empire), reporting on, andtesting, the loyalty of men to God.[44]

The heavenly bodies (the heavenly host - Sun, Moon, and stars) were worshiped asdeities, a practice which the bible disapproves and of which righteous Job protestshis innocence: "If I have looked at the sun when it shone, or the moon ... and mymouth has kissed my hand, this also would be an iniquity..."[45] Belief in the divinityof the heavenly bodies explains a passage in Joshua 10:12, usually translated asJoshua asking the Sun and Moon to stand still, but in fact Joshua utters anincantation to ensure that the sun-god and moon-god, who supported his enemies,would not provide them with oracles.[46]

The Tablet of Shamash depictinga solid sky with stars embeddedholding up the heavenly ocean.

God and the heavenly beings

The Archangel Michael, amember of the host of divinebeings who attend God inheaven, defeating Satan, thedragon of chaos.[30]

In the earlier Old Testament texts the bene elohim were gods, but subsequently they became angels,[47] the "messengers"(malakim), whom Jacob sees going up and down a "ladder" (actually a celestial mountain) between heaven and Earth.[48] Inearlier works the messengers were anonymous, but in the Second Temple period (539 BCE-100 CE) they began to be givennames, and eventually became the vast angelic orders of Christianity and Judaism.[42] Thus the gods and goddesses who had oncebeen the superiors or equals of Yahweh were first made his peers, then subordinate gods, and finally ended as angels in hisservice.[42]

There is no concept of a human soul, or of eternal life, in the oldest parts of the Old Testament.[8] Death is the going-out of thebreath which God once breathed into the dust (Genesis 2:7), all men face the same fate in Sheol, a shadowy existence withoutknowledge or feeling (Job 14:13; Qoheloth 9:5), and there is no way that mortals can enter heaven.[8] In the centuries after theBabylonian exile, a belief in afterlife and post-death retribution appeared in Jewish apocalyptic literature.[8] At much the sametime the Bible was translated into Greek, and the translators used the Greek word paradaisos (Paradise) for the garden of God[49]

and Paradise came to be located in heaven.[41]

In the Old Testament period, the Earth was most commonly thought of as a flat discfloating on water.[18] The concept was apparently quite similar to that depicted in aBabylonian world-map from about 600 BCE: a single circular continent bounded bya circular sea,[51] and beyond the sea a number of equally spaced triangles callednagu, "distant regions", apparently islands although possibly mountains.[52] The OldTestament likewise locates islands alongside the Earth; (Psalm 97:1) these are the"ends of the earth" according to Isaiah 41:5, the extreme edge of Job's circularhorizon (Job 26:10) where the vault of heaven is supported on mountains.[53] OtherOT passages suggest that the sky rests on pillars (Psalm 75:3, 1 Samuel 2:8, Job9:6), on foundations (Psalms 18:7 and 82:5), or on "supports" (Psalm 104:5),[54]

while the Book of Job imagines the cosmos as a vast tent, with the Earth as its floorand the sky as the tent itself; from the edges of the sky God hangs the Earth over"nothing", meaning the vast Ocean, securely supported by being tied to the sky (Job26:7).[55] If the technical means by which Yahweh keeps the earth from sinking intothe chaos-waters are unclear, it is nevertheless clear that he does so by virtue of hispersonal power.[56]

The idea that the Earth was a sphere was developed by the Greeks in the 6th centuryBCE, and by the 3rd century BCE this was generally accepted by educated Romansand Greeks and even by some Jews.[57] The author of Revelation, however, assumed a flat Earth in 7:1.[58]

In the cosmology of the ancient Near East, the cosmic warrior-god, after defeating the powers of chaos, would create the worldand build his earthly house, the temple.[59] Just as the abyss, the deepest deep, was the place for Chaos and Death, so God'stemple belonged on the high mountain.[60] In ancient Judah the mountain and the location of the Temple was Zion(Jerusalem),[59] the navel and center of the world (Ezekiel 5:5 and 38:12).[61] The Psalms describe God sitting enthroned over theFlood (the cosmic sea) in his heavenly palace (Psalm 29:10), the eternal king who "lays the beams of his upper chambers in the

Paradise and the human soul

Earth

Babylonian Map of the World(c.600 BCE). The Old Testamentconcept of the Earth was verysimilar: a flat circular Earth ringedby a world-ocean, with fabulousislands or mountains beyond atthe "ends of the earth".[50]

Cosmic geography

Temples, mountains, gardens and rivers

waters" (Psalm 104:3). The Samaritan Pentateuch identifies this mountain as Mount Gerizim, which the New Testament alsoimplicitly acknowledges (John 4:20). This imagery recalls the Mesopotamian god Ea who places his throne in Apsu, the primevalfresh waters beneath the Earth, and the Canaanite god El, described in the Baal cycle as having his palace on a cosmic mountainwhich is the source of the primordial ocean/water springs.[62]

The point where heavenly and earthly realms join is depicted as an earthly "garden of God", associated with the temple and royalpalace.[63] Ezekiel 28:12-19 places the garden in Eden on the mountain of the gods;[64] in Genesis 2-3 Eden's location is morevague, simply far away "in the east",[65] but there is a strong suggestion in both that the garden is attached to a temple orpalace.[66] In Jerusalem the earthly Temple was decorated with motifs of the cosmos and the Garden,[67] and, like other ancientnear eastern temples, its three sections made up a symbolic microcosm, from the outer court (the visible world of land and sea),through the Holy Place (the visible heaven and the garden of God) to the Holy of Holies (the invisible heaven of God).[68] Theimagery of the cosmic mountain and garden of Ezekiel reappears in the New Testament Book of Revelation, applied to themessianic Jerusalem, its walls adorned with precious stones, the "river of the water of life" flowing from under its throne(Revelation 22:1-2).[69]

A stream from underground (a subterranean ocean of fresh water?) fertilises Eden before dividing into four rivers that go out tothe entire earth (Genesis 2:5-6); in Ezekiel 47:1-12 (see Ezekiel's Temple) and other prophets the stream issues from the Templeitself, makes the desert bloom, and turns the Dead Sea from salt to fresh.[70] Yet the underground waters are ambiguous: they arethe source of life-giving rivers, but they are also associated with death (Jeremiah 2:6 and Job 38:16-17 describe how the way toSheol is through water, and its gates are located at the foot of the mountain at the bottom of the seas).[71]

Beneath the earth is Sheol, the abode of the rephaim (shades),[73] although it isnot entirely clear whether all who died became shades, or only the "mightydead" (compare Psalm 88:10 with Isaiah 14:9 and 26:14).[74] Some biblicalpassages state that God has no presence in the underworld: "In death there is noremembrance of Thee, in Sheol who shall give Thee thanks?" (Psalm 6).[75]

Others imply that the dead themselves are in some sense semi-divine, like theshade of the prophet Samuel, who is called an elohim, the same word used forGod and gods.[76] Still other passages state God's power over Sheol as over therest of his creation: "Tho they (the wicked) dig into Sheol, from there shall myhand take them..." (Amos 9:2).[77]

The Old Testament Sheol was simply the home of all the dead, good and badalike.[78] In the Hellenistic period the Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt, perhapsunder the influence of Greek thought, came to believe that the good would notdie but would go directly to God, while the wicked would really die and go tothe realm of Hades, god of the underworld, where they would perhaps suffer torment.[79] The Book of Enoch, dating from theperiod between the Old and New Testaments, separates the dead into a well-lit cavern for the righteous and dark caverns for thewicked,[80] and provides the former with a spring, perhaps signifying that these are the "living" (i.e. a spring) waters of life.[81] Inthe New Testament, Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus reflects the idea that the wicked began their punishment in Hadesimmediately on dying.[79]

Underworld

Valley of Hinnom (or Gehenna), c.1900. The former site of child-sacrificeand a dumping-ground for the bodiesof executed criminals, Jeremiahprophesied that it would become a"valley of slaughter" and burial place;in later literature it thus becameidentified with a new idea of Hell as aplace where the wicked would bepunished.[72]

Sheol and the Old Testament

Intertestamental period

The New Testament Hades is a temporary holding place, to be used only until the end of time, when its inhabitants will be throwninto the pit of Gehenna or the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:10-14).[82] This lake is either underground, or will go undergroundwhen the "new earth" emerges.[82] The Satan does not inhabit or supervise the underworld – his sphere of activity is the humanworld – and is only to be thrown into the fire at the end of time.[82] He appears throughout the Old Testament not as God's enemybut as his minister, "a sort of Attorney-General with investigative and disciplinary powers", as in the Book of Job.[82] It was onlywith the early Church Fathers that he was identified with the Serpent of the Garden of Eden and came to be seen as an activerebel against God, seeking to thwart the divine plan for mankind.[82]

Allegorical interpretations of GenesisAntediluvianBabylonian astronomyBabylonian cosmologyBiblical names of starsChronology of the BibleClassical planetCosmogonyCosmological argument

Creationist cosmologiesGenesis creation narrativeHellenistic JudaismHistory of astronomyJewish eschatologyList of topics characterized as pseudoscienceMormon cosmologyReligious cosmologySeven Heavens

1. Lucas 2003, p. 130

2. Knight 1990, p. 175

3. Bernstein 1996, p. 134: "The canon of the Hebrew Bible [...] was formed of [...] diverse writings composed bymany men or women over a long period of time, under many different circumstances, and in the light of shiftingpatterns of religious belief and practice. [...] Indeed, the questions under investigation in this book concerning theend of an individual's life, the nature of death, the possibility of divine judgment, and the resultant reward orpunishment [...] are simply too crucial to have attracted a single solution unanimously accepted over the nearmillennium of biblical composition."

4. Berlin 2011, p. 188

5. Wright 2002, p. 52: "The religious ideology promoted in a majority of the texts that now form the Hebrew Biblerepresent the beliefs of only a small portion of the ancient Israelite community: the late Judean individuals whocollected, edited, and transmitted the biblical materials were, for the most part, members of a religious traditioncentered in Jerusalem that worshipped the god Yahweh exclusively."

6. Aune 2003, p. 119: "During the Hellenistic period a geocentric model of the universe largely replaced the olderthree-tiered universe model, for Greek thinkers (such as Aristotle and Eratosthenes) proposed that the earth wasa sphere suspended freely in space."

7. Wright 2002, pp. 117,124–125

8. Lee 2010, pp. 77–78

Satan and the end of time

See also

References

9. Wright 2002, p. 53: "Biblical texts from all historical periods and a variety of literary genres demonstrate that inYahwistic circles, that is, among people who worshipped Yahweh as the chief god, God was always understoodas the one who alone created heaven, Earth, and all that is in them. [...] Yahweh, the Israelite god, had no rivals,and in a world where nations claimed that their gods were the supreme beings in the universe and that all otherswere subject to them, the Israelites' claim for the superiority of Yahweh enabled them to imagine that no othernation could rival her [...]. Phrases such as 'Yahweh, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth' [...] andrelated phrases for Yahweh as creator and almighty master of the cosmos have parallels in earlier Canaaniteterminology for the god El. [...] In fact, the Israelites did not create these phrases but inherited them from earlierCanaanite civilizations. Moreover, later editors of the Hebrew Bible used them to serve their particularmonotheistic theology: their god is the supreme god, and he alone created the universe."

10. Kaiser 1997, p. 28

11. Parrish 1990, pp. 183–184

12. Fishbane 2003, pp. 34

13. Fishbane 2003, pp. 34–35

14. Fishbane 2003, p. 39

15. Aune 2003, p. 118

16. Mabie 2008, p. 50

17. Mabie 2008, pp. 47–48

18. Berlin 2011, p. 189

19. Walton 2006, p. 190.

20. Walton 2011.

21. Page Lee 1990, pp. 176–177

22. Parrish 1990, p. 183

23. Wright 2002, p. 54.

24. Ringgren 1990, pp. 91–92

25. Ryken et al 1998

26. Ringgren 1990, p. 92

27. Ringgren 1990, p. 93

28. Ringgren 1990, p. 98

29. Wyatt 2001, pp. 105–106

30. Wyatt 2001, pp. 106–107

31. Pennington 2007, p. 41

32. Pennington 2007, p. 42

33. Wright 2002, p. 57

34. Wright 2002, p. 54

35. Wright 2002, p. 56=

36. Wright 2002, p. 57=

37. Pennington 2007, pp. 40–41

38. Collins 2000, pp. 23–24

39. Collins 2000, p. 24

40. Collins 2000, p. 68

41. Lee 2010, p. 147

42. Wright 2002, p. 63

43. Wright 2002, pp. 63–64

44. Habel 2001, p. 67

45. Deist 2000, pp. 120–121

46. Deist 2000, p. 121

47. Knight & Levine 2011, p. none

48. Wright 2002, pp. 61–62

49. Bremmer 1999, p. 1,19

50. Keel 1997, p. 20

51. Keel 1997, pp. 20–22.

52. Horowitz 1998, p. 30ff.

53. Keel 1997, p. 22

54. Keel 1997, pp. 40

55. Hartley 1988, p. 366.

56. Keel 1997, pp. 40.

57. Dahl & Gauvin 2000, p. 17.

58. Farmer 2005, p. 33.

59. Hoppe 2000, p. 24

60. Keel 1997, p. 114

61. Mills 1998, p. xi

62. Mabie 2008, p. 44

63. Burnett 2010, p. 71

64. Tigghelaar 1999, p. 37

65. Noort 1999, p. 28

66. Gillingham 2002, p. 19

67. Smith 2003, p. 169

68. Beale 2004, pp. 58–59

69. Delumeau & O'Connell 2000, p. 5

70. Bautch 2003, pp. 71–72

71. Bautch 2003, pp. 72–73

72. Berlin 2011, p. 285

73. Bernstein 1996, pp. 141–142

74. Habel 1975, p. 136

75. Bernstein 1996, p. 143

76. Bernstein 1996, pp. 138–139

77. Bernstein 1996, p. 144

78. Bernstein 1996, p. 139

79. Kelly 2010, pp. 121–122

80. Delumeau & O'Connell 2000, p. 24

81. Bautch 2003, p. 74

82. Kelly 2010, p. 122

Aune, David E. (2003). "Cosmology". Westminster Dictionary of the New Testament and Early ChristianLiterature (https://books.google.com/books?id=nhhdJ-fkywYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dictionary+New+Testament&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3Mn2TpmZBtKbiQeE4I2jAQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=cosmology&f=false).Westminster John Knox Press.

Bibliography

Bautch, Kelley Coblentz (2003). A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17-19 (https://books.google.com/books?id=3FPNFEtWNrQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+Study+of+the+Geography+of+1+Enoch+17-19&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jF_tTvCTFOmyiQeMtqW-Bw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=A%20Study%20of%20the%20Geography%20of%201%20Enoch%2017-19&f=false). Brill. ISBN 9789004131033.

Beale, G.K. (2004). The Temple and the Church's mission (https://books.google.com/books?id=28qJM1Qt4fsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=beale+temple+church%27s+mission&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n6QHT5STD6qXiQem48WcCQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=beale%20temple%20church%27s%20mission&f=false). InterVarsity Press.

Berlin, Adele (2011). "Cosmology and creation". In Berlin, Adele; Grossman, Maxine (eds.). The OxfordDictionary of the Jewish Religion (https://books.google.com/books?id=hKAaJXvUaUoC&pg=PA189&dq=Bible+Cosmology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jvHuTu_wDcStiQeFz62dBw&ved=0CGcQ6AEwCTgo#v=onepage&q=Bible%20Cosmology&f=false). Oxford University Press.

Bernstein, Alan E. (1996). The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds(https://books.google.com/books?id=y8wAdna_YY0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+formation+of+Hell&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RhEET_6HH6TImQWp3th9&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20formation%20of%20Hell&f=false). Cornell University Press.

Bremmer, J.N. (1999). "Paradise in the Septuagint". In Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. (ed.). Paradise interpreted:representations of biblical paradise in Judaism and Christianity (https://books.google.com/books?id=b74e-uMd2JAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Paradise&hl=en&sa=X&ei=11IIUaC7JcickAXmnoHwAw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA).Brill.

Burnett, Joel S. (2010). Where is God?: divine absence in the Hebrew Bible (https://books.google.com/books?id=BC55hdySna8C&pg=PA64&dq=Bible+Cosmology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X_HuTuuRE4qTiQf78_W8Bw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=Bible%20Cosmology&f=false). Fortress Press.

Collins, Adela Yarbro (2000). Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (https://books.google.com/books?id=eZv1JZAHdg0C&pg=PA26&dq=cosmology+hebrew+bible&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bZTxTt3SFqzImAWqipWgAg&ved=0CGgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=cosmology%20hebrew%20bible&f=false). Brill.

Dahl, Edward H.; Gauvin, Jean-Francois (2003). Sphaerae Mundi (https://books.google.com/books?id=cHxQZTX8_14C&pg=PA17&dq=%22generally+accepted+by+educated+Romans+and+Greeks%22%22that+the+earth+was+round%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qZLbU7LbN9K5uASVpIDoDQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22generally%20accepted%20by%20educated%20Romans%20and%20Greeks%22%22that%20the%20earth%20was%20round%22&f=false). McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP.

Davies, William David (1982). The Territorial Dimension of Judaism (https://books.google.com/books?id=PsrTocBeeU0C&pg=PA1&dq=The+belief+that+the+Land+of+Israel+is+at+the+centre+of+the+earth&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Dd7ZU9DTLMu8ugSn0YK4DA&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20belief%20that%20the%20Land%20of%20Israel%20is%20at%20the%20centre%20of%20the%20earth&f=false). University of California Press.

Deist, Ferdinand E. (2000). The material culture of the Bible: an introduction (https://books.google.com/books?id=14uR6qqV_7cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+material+culture+of+the+Bible:+an+introduction&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cADvTsDOJM2XiAeKl43_Ag&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20material%20culture%20of%20the%20Bible%3A%20an%20introduction&f=false). Sheffield Academic Press.

Delumeau, Jean; O'Connell, Matthew (2000). Westminster Dictionary of the New Testament and Early ChristianLiterature (https://books.google.com/books?id=ubJDLvEV0vEC&pg=PA3&dq=Eden+becomes+Paradise&hl=en&sa=X&ei=458KT6yOFaH4mAWO7OSuAg&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Eden%20becomes%20Paradise&f=false). University of Illinois Press.

Farmer, Ronald L. (2005). Revelation (https://books.google.com/books?id=vx7fsfSvMCAC&pg=PA33&dq=%22John%22%22a+flat+earth+with+four+corners%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dc7ZU6C4I5aUuASnj4KwAw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22John%22%22a%20flat%20earth%20with%20four%20corners%22&f=false). ChalicePress.

Fishbane, Michael (2003). Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking (https://books.google.com/books?id=6qZg42W9EFcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Biblical+Myth+and+Rabbinic+Mythmaking&hl=en&ei=KMfRTqukH8HmmAWpkZTIDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Biblical%20Myth%20and%20Rabbinic%20Mythmaking&f=false). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-826733-9.

Fretheim, Terence E. (2003). "Heaven(s)". In Gowan, Donald E. (ed.). The Westminster theological wordbook ofthe Bible (https://books.google.com/books?id=obj6XCWIX1AC&pg=PA202&dq=Heaven+is+unreachable+by+human+beings,+through+exceptions+are+made&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JPcdT9_lDMK0iQeXncXRDQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Heaven%20is%20unreachable%20by%20human%20beings%2C%20through%20exceptions%20are%20made&f=false). Westminster University Press.

Gillingham, Susan (2002). The image, the depths, and the surface (https://books.google.com/books?id=FmiKUCoUyzMC&pg=PA19&dq=garden+of+god+ancient+near+east+bible&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V9UGT_XgI6eViQeCqtWyCQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false). Continuum.

Habel, Norman C. (1975). The Book of Job (https://books.google.com/books?id=D4I8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA137&dq=job+cosmology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ELn2TueQMe2ViAfK_qHKAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CGQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=job%20cosmology&f=false). Cambridge University Press.

Habel, Norman C. (2001). "Earth First: Inverse Cosmology in Job". In Habel, Norman C.; Wurst, Shirley (eds.).The Earth Story in Wisdom Traditions (https://books.google.com/books?id=Py1ukZN_uN8C&pg=PA65&dq=job+cosmology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ELn2TueQMe2ViAfK_qHKAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=job%20cosmology&f=false). Sheffield Academic Press.

Hartley, John E. (1988). The Book of Job (https://books.google.com/books?id=f-m5GnRjDckC&pg=PA366&dq=the+floor+of+Gods+tenttied+to+the+heavens&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9ijTU6GxAdGSuATH7YKgDg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false). Eerdmans.

Hess, Richard S. (2007). Israelite Religions: An Archeological and Biblical Survey (https://books.google.com/books?id=2jNoqNRDYDUC&pg=PA161&dq=Zion+Zaphon&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0r72Tqm8DYihmQW8__WuAg&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Zion%20Zaphon&f=false). Baker Academic Press.

Hiebert, Theodore (2009). "Genesis". In O'Day, Gail R.; Petersen, David L. (eds.). Theological Bible Commentary(https://books.google.com/books?id=rQWknj4ORJkC&pg=PA3&dq=Genesis+Theodore+Hiebert&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e2HtTrJN5Z6IB4Cl1fEC&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Genesis%20Theodore%20Hiebert&f=false).Westminster John Knox Press.

Hoppe, Leslie J. (2000). The Holy City: Jerusalem in the theology of the Old Testament (https://books.google.com/books?id=SCxHOC8B2pYC&pg=PA25&dq=zaphon&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NVAET5jfEq_0mAXs2vWdAg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=zaphon&f=false). Liturgical Press.

Horowitz, Wayne (1998). Mesopotamian cosmic geography (https://books.google.com/books?id=P8fl8BXpR0MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Mesopotamian+cosmic+geography&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QFjtTuPuLaeaiAeYzaSXBw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Mesopotamian%20cosmic%20geography&f=false). Eisenbrauns.

Janin, Hunt (2002). Four Paths to Jerusalem (https://books.google.com/books?id=Ke9f7n4Xs_QC&pg=PA48&dq=%22Jerusalem+was+truly+the+center+of+the+earth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wdXZU8H8HYq3uATu5oLoAw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Jerusalem%20was%20truly%20the%20center%20of%20the%20earth%22&f=false). McFarland.

Kaiser, Christopher B. (1997). Creational theology and the history of physical science (https://books.google.com/books?id=BBgXuy_D8WEC&pg=PA28&dq=number+heavens+biblical+cosmology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-Jz2TuuQEIPJmAWii-GJAg&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false). Brill.

Keel, Othmar (1997). The symbolism of the biblical world (https://books.google.com/books?id=Fy4B1iMg33YC&pg=PA20&dq=similar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KNv6TuQv5tCYBevYmbwK&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=similar&f=false). Eisenbrauns.

Kelly, Henry A. (2010). "Hell with Purgatory and two Limbos". In Moreira, Isabel; Toscano, Margaret (eds.). Helland Its Afterlife: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (https://books.google.com/books?id=H04CJvW58agC&pg=PA121&dq=Hell+with+Purgatory+and+two+Limbos&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1hIET7mbIK-HmQWVm4CzAg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Hell%20with%20Purgatory%20and%20two%20Limbos&f=false). AshgatePublishing.

Kittel, Gerhard; Friedrich, Gerhard, eds. (1985). "Kosmos". Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (https://books.google.com/books?id=ltZBUW_F9ogC&pg=PA463&dq=kosmos+in+the+NT&hl=en&sa=X&ei=h8z2Tub5Hc-RiQfurYDEAQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=kosmos%20in%20the%20NT&f=false). Eerdmans.

Knight, Douglas A. (1990). "Cosmology". In Watson E. Mills (General Editor) (ed.). Mercer Dictionary of the Bible(https://books.google.com/books?id=goq0VWw9rGIC&pg=PA176&dq=Mercer+Dictionary+of+the+Bible+Cosmology&hl=en&ei=yDvUTrjHOcW8iAedsumbDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false). Mercer University Press.

Knight, Douglas A.; Levine, Amy-Jill (2011). The Meaning of the Bible: What the Jewish Scriptures and ChristianOld Testament Can Teach Us (https://books.google.com/books?id=ox31oGXZzZQC&pg=PT64&dq=meaning+bene+elohim&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JesLT9e3MeiNmQW5l6SVBg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=meaning%20bene%20elohim&f=false). HarperCollins.

Lee, Sang Meyng (2010). The Cosmic Drama of Salvation (https://books.google.com/books?id=64p8Dmw8f-cC&pg=PA65&dq=New+Testament+cosmology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ycL2TsG_PPHAmQXPjamtAg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=New%20Testament%20cosmology&f=false). Mohr Siebeck.

Lucas, E.L. (2003). "Cosmology". In Alexander, T. Desmond; Baker, David W. (eds.). Dictionary of the OldTestament: Pentateuch (https://books.google.com/books?id=Ao5ecZ0ZsG8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dictionary+of+the+Old+Testament:+Pentateuch+Alexander&hl=en&ei=YgfYTpGfB4bymAWw1dT5Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false). InterVarsity Press.

Mabie, F.J (2008). "Chaos and Death". In Longman, Tremper; Enns, Peter (eds.). Dictionary of the Old Testament(https://books.google.com/books?id=kE2k36XAkv4C&pg=PA48&dq=chaos&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yhL9TsWmGOyXiAfmqIDIAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=chaos%2C%20society%20and%20kingship%20the%20motif&f=false). InterVarsity Press.

Mills, Watson E. (1998). "Introduction". Mercer Commentary on the Bible: Pentateuch/Torah (https://books.google.com/books?id=ym5rt115YtwC&pg=PR11&dq=Hebrew+bible+mountain+center+of+earth&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QFQET_OME42XmQWeiNygAg&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Hebrew%20bible%20mountain%20center%20of%20earth&f=false). Mercer University Press.

Noort, Ed (1999). "Gan-Eden in the context of the mythology of the Hebrew bible". In Luttikhuizen, Gerard P.(ed.). Paradise interpreted: representations of biblical paradise in Judaism and Christianity (https://books.google.com/books?id=b74e-uMd2JAC&pg=PA21&dq=Gan-Eden+in+the+context+of+the+mythology+of+the+Hebrew+bible&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vk0GT-m6NM-ZiQfnzqy_Aw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Gan-Eden%20in%20the%20context%20of%20the%20mythology%20of%20the%20Hebrew%20bible&f=false). Brill.

O'Dowd, R. (2008). "Creation imagery". In Longman, Tremper; Enns, Peter (eds.). Dictionary of the OldTestament (https://books.google.com/books?id=kE2k36XAkv4C&pg=PA48&dq=chaos&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yhL9TsWmGOyXiAfmqIDIAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=chaos%2C%20society%20and%20kingship%20the%20motif&f=false). InterVarsity Press.

Olson, Daniel C. (2003). "1 Enoch". In Dunn, James; Rogerson, John William (eds.). Eerdmans commentary onthe Bible (https://books.google.com/books?id=2Vo-11umIZQC&pg=PA904&dq=1+Enoch+Daniel+C+Olson&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8_8UT7SLGIXNmAXRn4z8Aw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=1%20Enoch%20Daniel%20C%20Olson&f=false). Eerdmans.

Page Lee, H. (1990). "Council, Heavenly". In Watson E. Mills (General Editor) (ed.). Mercer Dictionary of theBible (https://books.google.com/books?id=goq0VWw9rGIC&pg=PA176&dq=Mercer+Dictionary+of+the+Bible+Cosmology&hl=en&ei=yDvUTrjHOcW8iAedsumbDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false). Mercer University Press.

Parrish, V. Steven (1990). "Creation". In Watson E. Mills (General Editor) (ed.). Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (https://books.google.com/books?id=goq0VWw9rGIC&pg=PA183&dq=Creation,+Wisdom+and+the+Torah&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NPoIT4rWIeXAmQWF4OG8Ag&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Creation%2C%20Wisdom%20and%20the%20Torah&f=false). Mercer University Press.

Parsons, Mikeal (2008). Acts (https://books.google.com/books?id=1yGSo5pQ_sMC&pg=PA40&dq=%22Luke+locates+Jerusalem%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bNrZU77oBcWwuASkwYDIDw&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Luke%20locates%20Jerusalem%22&f=false). Baker Academic.

Pennington, Jonathan T. (2007). Heaven and earth in the Gospel of Matthew (https://books.google.com/books?id=EGTaBJDQoD0C&pg=PA42&dq=ancient+Israelite+ideas+about+the+heavenly+realms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=A9X7Tu-gI5DomAXe7oWaAg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false). Brill.

Perdue, Leo G. (1991). Wisdom in Revolt: Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job (https://books.google.com/books?id=d_KDSNlwvRYC&pg=PA74&dq=job+cosmology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ELn2TueQMe2ViAfK_qHKAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CFIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=job%20cosmology&f=false). Sheffield Academic Press.

Reike, Bo (2001). "Hell". In Metzger, Bruce Manning; Coogan, Michael David (eds.). The Oxford guide to ideas &issues of the Bible (https://books.google.com/books?id=aml3tEWoOVEC&pg=PA197&dq=cosmology+sheol+hades&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UxT9To7lJaTSmAWqp9yfAg&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=cosmology%20sheol%20hades&f=false). Oxford University Press.

Ringgren, Helmer (1990). "Yam". In Botterweck, G. Johannes; Ringgren, Helmer (eds.). Theological Dictionary ofthe Old Testament (https://books.google.com/books?id=MCOd-uAEQy0C&pg=PA92&dq=cosmic+ocean&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x2_5Tq-BN6SImQX-kuTOBQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=cosmic%20ocean&f=false).Eerdmans.

Rochberg, Francesca (2010). In the Path of the Moon: Babylonian Celestial Divination and Its Legacy (https://books.google.com/books?id=vYluiWFPsjMC&pg=PA339&dq=waters&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3mj5Tqv7MfGMmQXfh5C3Ag&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=short%20history%20of%20the%20waters%20above%20the%20firmament&f=false). Brill.

Ryken, Leland; Wilhoit, Jim; Longman, Tremper; Duriez, Colin; Penney, Douglas; Reid, Daniel G., eds. (1998)."Cosmology". Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (https://books.google.com/books?id=qjEYEjVVEosC&pg=PA172&dq=biblical+firmament&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9g0FT9SYIKaNmQXB2_mQAg&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=biblical%20firmament&f=false). InterVarsity Press.

Sarna, Nahum M. (1997). "The Mists of Time: Genesis I-II". In Feyerick, Ada (ed.). Genesis: World of Myths andPatriarchs (https://books.google.com/books?id=c7BSe16MeRsC&pg=PA49&dq=Sarna&hl=en&ei=G9PATq34C4aGmQWcvcG3BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Mists%20of%20Time%3A%20Genesis%20I-II%20Nahum%20Sarna&f=false). New York: NYU Press. p. 560.ISBN 0-8147-2668-2.

Seybold, Klaus (1990). Introducing the Psalms (https://books.google.com/books?id=SGrWvONYwCsC&pg=PA177&dq=psalms+cosmology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8Lj2Ts-BH6b_mAW7k6S4Ag&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=psalms%20cosmology&f=false). T&T Clarke.

Smith, Mark S. (2003). The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (https://books.google.com/books?id=qKBlFnQj4AEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Origins+of+Biblical+Monotheism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Jf0HT8GlK6nDmQWniJyyAg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Origins%20of%20Biblical%20Monotheism&f=false). OxfordUniversity Press.

Stordalen, Terje (2000). Echoes of Eden (https://books.google.com/books?id=UIXwojA2_nYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Echoes+of+Eden&hl=en&ei=SHvgTv63IIqWiQeM0vm5BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Echoes%20of%20Eden%3A%20Genesis%202-3%20and%20symbolism%20of%20the%20Eden%20garden%20in%20Biblical&f=false). Peeters.

Tigghelaar, Eibert J.C. (1999). "Eden and Paradise". In Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. (ed.). Paradise interpreted:representations of biblical paradise in Judaism and Christianity (https://books.google.com/books?id=b74e-uMd2JAC&pg=PA37&dq=Eden+and+Paradise:+the+garden+motif+in+some+early+Jewish+texts&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KFoGT4PGCoipiAec3ujSBA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Eden%20and%20Paradise%3A%20the%20garden%20motif%20in%20some%20early%20Jewish%20texts&f=false). Brill.

Walton, John H.; Matthews, Victor H.; Chavalas, Mark W., eds. (2000). The IVP Bible background commentary:Old Testament (https://books.google.com/books?id=wIA3tH9HqY4C&pg=PA505&dq=cosmology+hebrew+bible&hl=en&sa=X&ei=opTxTtTXBavImQXiv7SCAg&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=cosmology%20hebrew%20bible&f=false). InterVarsity Press.

Walton, John H. (2006). Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual Worldof the Hebrew Bible (https://books.google.com/books?id=rhb20fH7cZYC&pg=PA190&dq=God+initiates+the+creative+act+with+a+spoken+word&hl=en&sa=X&ei=td0SU6HWBsuqlAWMy4CYDw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=God%20initiates%20the%20creative%20act%20with%20a%20spoken%20word&f=false). BakerAcademic. ISBN 0-8010-2750-0.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biblical_cosmology&oldid=890226669"

This page was last edited on 31 March 2019, at 00:20 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By usingthis site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the WikimediaFoundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Walton, John H. (2011). Genesis (https://books.google.com/books?id=qNbx-84TAwQC&pg=PT90&dq=%22The+name+of+a+living+being+or+an+object+was%22+%22the+very+essence+of+what+was+defined%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ga8SU8XTLYmXkQWv7IC4Bg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20name%20of%20a%20living%20being%20or%20an%20object%20was%22%20%22the%20very%20essence%20of%20what%20was%20defined%22&f=false). Zondervan.

Welch, John Woodland (2009). The Sermon on the Mount in the light of the Temple (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZE78M9xeVdIC&pg=PA27&dq=biblical+cosmic+mountain&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nNP6Tr_BK46OmQWF-OiDCA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=biblical%20cosmic%20mountain&f=false). Ashgate.

Wright, J. Edward (2002). The Early History of Heaven (https://books.google.com/books?id=lKvMeMorNBEC&pg=PA42&dq=Mesopotamian&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-Af5TqCHKYy5iAep55W2AQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false). Oxford University Press.

Wright, J. Edward (2004). "Whither Elijah?". In Chazon, Esther G.; Satran, David; Clements, Ruth (eds.). Thingsrevealed: studies in early Jewish and Christian literature in honor of Michael E. Stone (https://books.google.com/books?id=YiK40p-PW7MC&pg=PA137&dq=Whither+Elijah?&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_Bj9TtXgDKPGmAXgk72EAg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Whither%20Elijah%3F&f=false). Brill.

Wyatt, Nick (2001). Space and Time in the Religious Life of the Near East (https://books.google.com/books?id=0-46Tys4wCUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Space+and+Time+in+the+religious+life+of+the+near+east&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rIcLT5HlB6ihiAfS3e2KBg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Space%20and%20Time%20in%20the%20religious%20life%20of%20the%20near%20east&f=false). Sheffield University Press.

Day-age creationismDay-age creationism, a type of old Earth creationism, is an interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. It holds that the sixdays referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but are much longer periods (from thousands tobillions of years). The Genesis account is then reconciled with the age of the Earth. Proponents of the day-age theory can befound among both theistic evolutionists, who accept the scientific consensus on evolution, and progressive creationists, whoreject 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 differences between the young Earth interpretation of Genesis and modern scientific theories such as Big Bang, abiogenesis,and common descent are significant. The young Earth interpretation says that everything in the universe and on Earth was createdin six 24-hour days, estimated to have occurred some 6,000 years ago. Modern scientific observations, however, put the age ofthe universe at 13.8 billion years and the Earth at 4.5 billion years, with various forms of life, including humans, being formedgradually over time.

The day-age theory attempts to reconcile these views by asserting that the creation "days" were not ordinary 24-hour days, butactually lasted for long periods of time (as day-age implies, the "days" each lasted an age). According to this view, the sequenceand duration of the creation "days" may be paralleled to the scientific consensus for the age of the earth and the universe.

History

Interpretation of Genesis

See also

Notes

References

External links

Further reading

The Old-Earth figurative view can be traced back at least to Saint Augustine in the 5th Century who pointed out, in De Genesi adLitteram (On the Literal [Interpretation of] Genesis) that the "days" in Genesis could not be literal days, if only because Genesisitself tells us that the sun was not made until the fourth "day".[1]

Scottish lawyer and geologist Charles Lyell published his famous and influential work Principles of Geology in 1830–1833 whichinterpreted geologic change as the steady accumulation of minute changes over enormously long spans of time and that naturalprocesses, uniformly applied over the length of that existence (uniformitarianism), could account for what men saw and studied increation.

In the mid 19th century, American geologist Arnold Guyot sought to harmonize science and scripture by interpreting the "days"of Genesis 1 as epochs in cosmic history. Similar views were held by a protégé of Lyell, John William Dawson, who was aprominent Canadian geologist and commentator, from an orthodox perspective, on science and religion in the latter part of the

Contents

History

19th century. Dawson was a special creationist, but not a biblical literalist, admitting that the days of creation represented longperiods of time, that the Genesis flood was only 'universal' from the narrator's limited perspective, and that it was only humanity,not the Earth itself, that was of recent creation.[2]

American geologist and seminarian George Frederick Wright was originally a leading Christian Darwinist. However reactionagainst higher criticism in biblical scholarship and the influence of James Dwight Dana led him to become increasinglytheologically conservative. By the first decade of the 20th century he joined forces with the emerging fundamentalist movementin advocating against evolution, penning an essay for The Fundamentals entitled "The Passing of Evolution". In these later yearsWright believed that the "days" of Genesis represented geological ages and argued for the special creation of several plant andanimal species "and at the same time endowed them with the marvellous capacity for variation which we know they possess." Hisstatements on whether there had been a separate special creation of humanity were contradictory.[3]

Probably the most famous day-age creationist was American politician, anti-evolution campaigner and Scopes Trial prosecutorWilliam Jennings Bryan. Unlike many of his conservative followers, Bryan was not a strict biblical literalist, and had no objectionto "evolution before man but for the fact that a concession as to the truth of evolution up to man furnishes our opponents with anargument which they are quick to use, namely, if evolution accounts for all the species up to man, does it not raise a presumptionin behalf of evolution to include man?" He considered defining the days in Genesis 1 to be twenty-four hours to be a pro-evolution straw man argument to make attacking creationists easier, and admitted at Scopes that the world was far older than sixthousand years, and that the days of creation were probably longer than twenty-four hours each.[4]

American Baptist preacher and anti-evolution campaigner William Bell Riley, "The Grand Old Man of Fundamentalism", founderof the World Christian Fundamentals Association and of the Anti-Evolution League of America was another prominent day-agecreationist in the first half of the 20th century, who defended this position in a famous debate with friend and prominent youngEarth creationist Harry Rimmer.[5]

One modern defender is astronomer Hugh Ross, who in 1994 wrote Creation and Time defending the day-age view in greatdetail,[6] and who founded the day-age creationist ministry Reasons to Believe.[7] Another person who has defended the view isRodney Whitefield.[8][9]

Day-age creationists like Robert Pennock differ from young Earth creationists in how they interpret a number of crucial Hebrewwords in Genesis, and thus how they interpret the genealogies and creation account contained in it.

He pointed out that the Hebrew words for father ('ab) and son (ben) can also mean forefather and descendant, respectively, andthat the Biblical scripture occasionally "telescopes" genealogies to emphasize the more important ancestors. This, he argued,renders genealogical dating of the creation, such as the Ussher chronology, inaccurate.

He admitted that yom can mean a 24-hour solar day, but argued it can refer to an indefinitely long period of time and it is in thissense that the word is employed in Genesis 2:4, with a "day" of God's total creation taking place in the course of "days" ofcreation.[6]

Day-age creationists often point to phenomena such as the Cambrian explosion as evidence of one of the Creation "days"appearing in the fossil record as a long period of time.

Answers in GenesisYomBiblical cosmology

Interpretation of Genesis

See also

Genesis creation narrativeGenesis 1:5Creator godDating CreationTimeline of the Big Bang

1. Pennock(2000), p 19

2. Numbers(2006), p21-23

3. Numbers(2006), p33-50, 82

4. Numbers(2006) p58

5. Numbers(2006) p82

6. Pennock(2000), p20

7. About Our Founder (http://www.reasons.org/about/who-we-are/hugh-ross), Reasons to Believe

8. http://godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_one_age_earth.html

9. http://www.creationingenesis.com/index.html

Numbers, Ronald (November 30, 2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design,Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. pp. 624 pages. ISBN 0-674-02339-0.Pennock, Robert T. (February 28, 2000). Tower of Babel, The Evidence against the New Creationism. The MITPress. pp. 451 pages. ISBN 0-262-66111-X.

Answers In Creation (http://www.answersincreation.org)—Another website promoting the day-age modelDay-Age Genesis One Interpretation (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html)—Articleadvocating the day-age theoryDays of Creation (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp#days)—List of articles opposingthe day-age theoryReasons To Believe (http://www.reasons.org)—Website promoting the day-age model

Ross, Hugh, A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy, Navpress Publishing Group, 2004, ISBN 1-57683-375-5Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Compromise, Master Books, 2004, ISBN 0-89051-411-9 (YEC critique of the day-agetheory and old-earth creationism)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Day-age_creationism&oldid=899505262"

This page was last edited on 30 May 2019, at 14:17 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By usingthis site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the WikimediaFoundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Notes

References

External links

Further reading

Framework interpretation (Genesis)This article focuses on the views of certain Christian commentators and theologians. Fora more general account of the topic of Genesis chapter 1, see Genesis creation narrative.

The framework interpretation (also known as the literary framework view, framework theory, or framework hypothesis) isa description of the structure of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis (more precisely Genesis 1:1–2:4a), the Genesis creationnarrative.[1]

The following table illustrates the proposed framework:[2]

First triad Second triad

Day 1 Let there be light (1:3). Let there be lights (1:14). Day4

Day 2 Let there be a firmament in themidst of the waters, and let it dividethe waters from the waters (1:6).

Let the water teem with creatures andlet birds fly above the earth (1:20).

Day5

Day 3 Let dry land appear (1:9). Let the land produce vegetation(1:11).

Let the land produce living creatures(1:24). Let us make man (1:26). I give you every seed bearing plant…and every tree that has fruit with seedin it… for food (1:29).

Day6

Two triads and three kingdoms

Supporters and critics

See also

References

Bibliography

External links

Genesis 1 divides its six days of Creation into two groups of three ("triads"). The introduction, Genesis 1:1–2, "In thebeginning… the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep…", describes the primal universecontaining darkness, a watery "deep", and a formless earth, over which hovers the spirit of God. The following three daysdescribe the first triad: the creation of light and its separation from the primal darkness (Gen. 1:3–5); the creation of the"firmament" within the primal waters so that the heavens (space between the firmament and the surface of the seas) and the"waters under the firmament" can appear (Gen. 1:6–8); and the separation of the waters under the firmament into seas and dry

Contents

Two triads and three kingdoms

Creation Kingdoms Creature Kings

Day 1: Light Day 4: Luminaries

Day 2: Sky/Water Day 5: Birds/Fish

Day 3: Land/Vegetation Day 6: Land animals/Man

The Creator King

Day 7: Sabbath

land with its plants and trees. The second triad describes the peopling of the three elements of the first: sun, moon, and stars forthe day and night (Gen. 1:14–19), fish and birds for the heavens and seas (Gen. 1:20–23), and finally animals and man for thevegetated land (24–31).

Differences exist on how to classify the two triads, butMeredith G. Kline's analysis is suggestive: the firsttriad (days 1–3) narrate the establishment of thecreation kingdoms, and the second triad (days 4–6), theproduction of the creature kinds. Furthermore, thisstructure is not without theological significance, for allthe created realms and regents of the six days aresubordinate vassals of God who takes His royalSabbath rest as the Creator King on the seventh day.Thus the seventh day marks the climax of the creationweek.[3]

The framework interpretation is held by many theistic evolutionists and some progressive creationists. Some argue that it had aprecedent in the writings of the early church father St. Augustine.[4] Others claim Augustine was a young earth creationist.[5] Dr.Arie Noordzij[6] of the University of Utrecht was the first proponent of the Framework Hypothesis in 1924. Nicolaas Ridderbos(not to be confused with his more well-known brother, Herman Nicolaas Ridderbos) popularized the view in the late 1950s.[7] Ithas gained acceptance in modern times through the work of such theologians and scholars as Meredith G. Kline, Henri Blocher,and Bruce Waltke.

Old Testament and Pentateuch scholar Gordon Wenham supports a schematic interpretation of Genesis 1 in his two volume,scholarly commentary on Genesis.

It has been unfortunate that one device which our narrative uses to express the coherence and purposiveness of thecreator's work, namely, the distribution of the various creative acts to six days, has been seized on and interpretedover-literalistically… The six day schema is but one of several means employed in this chapter to stress thesystem and order that has been built into creation. Other devices include the use of repeating formulae, thetendency to group words and phrases into tens and sevens, literary techniques such as chiasm and inclusio, thearrangement of creative acts into matching groups, and so on. If these hints were not sufficient to indicate theschematization of the six-day creation story, the very content of the narrative points in the same direction.

— Gordon Wenham[8]

The framework view has been successful in the modern era because it resolves the traditional conflict between the Genesiscreation narrative and science. It presents an alternative to literalistic interpretations of the Genesis narratives, which areadvocated by some conservative Christians and Creationists at a popular level. Creationists who take a literalist approach havelaid the charge that Christians who interpret Genesis symbolically or allegorically are assigning science an authority over that ofScripture.[9] Advocates of the framework view respond by noting that Scripture affirms God's general revelation in nature (Ps 19(http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Psalms+19–19&version=nrsv), Rom 1:19–20 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Romans+1:19–1:20&version=nrsv)), and therefore in our search for the truth about the origins of the universe we must be sensitive to both the"book of words" (Scripture) and the "book of works" (nature). Since God is the author of both "books", we should expect thatthey do not conflict with each other when properly interpreted.[10]. This was also the view of Darwin.

Supporters and critics

The framework interpretation is rejected by some biblical scholars, such as James Barr, Andrew Steinmann, Robert McCabe, andTing Wang,[11] Some systematic theologians also oppose it, including Wayne Grudem[12] and Millard Erickson,[13] who deem itan unsuitable reading of the Genesis text.

Allegorical interpretations of GenesisTheistic evolutionCreation-evolution controversy

Blocher, Henri (1984). In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-87784-325-2.Futato, Mark (Spring 1998). "Because it Had Rained: A Study of Genesis 2:5–7 With Implications for Genesis2:4–25 and Genesis 1:1–2:3" (http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Futato_RainGen2_WTJ.pdf) (PDF). Westminster Theological Journal. Gordon. 60 (1): 1–21. Reprintedin "Part 1" (http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/mar_futato/TH.Futato.Rained.1.html), Reformed Perspectives Magazine,Third mill and part 2 (http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/mar_futato/TH.Futato.Rained.2.html).Irons, Lee (January 2000). "The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary" (http://www.upper-register.com/papers/framework_interpretation.html). Ordained Servant. Upper register. 9 (1): 7–11.———; Kline, Meredith G (2000). "The Framework Interpretation". In Hagopian, David G (ed.). The GenesisDebate: Three Views on the "Days" of Creation. Global Publishing Services. ISBN 978-0-9702245-0-7.

1. Ruiten 2000, p. 9.

2. Ruiten 2000, p. 10.

3. Kline 1996, p. 6.

4. Young, Davis A (1988). "The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation" (http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Young.html). Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 40 (1): 42–45. Retrieved2007-02-19.

5. Zuiddam, Benno A (2010). "Augustine: Young Earth Creationist" (http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_1/j24_1_5-6.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Creation. 24 (1): 5–6.

6. Genealogie Online profile for Personal data Arie (Arie) Noordzij (1847-1924) (https://www.genealogieonline.nl/en/stamboom-koster-coster/I1064058656.php)

7. McCabe, Robert V (2005). "A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2)" (http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2005/McCabe.pdf) (PDF). Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal. 10: 19–67.

8. Wenham, Gordon J. (1987). Genesis 1–15. Waco, TX: Word Books. pp. 39–40. ISBN 978-0-8499-0200-0.

9. Ham, Ken; Sarfati, Jonathan; Wieland, Carl. Batten, Don (ed.). "Did God really take six days?" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/answersbook/sixdays2.asp). Answers book. Answers in Genesis.

10. Berry, R. J. (2003). God's book of works: the nature and theology of nature. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. ISBN 0-567-08915-0.

11. Batten, Don; Catchpoole, David; Sarfati, Jonathan D; Wieland, Carl. "Is Genesis poetry/figurative, a theologicalargument (polemic) and thus not history?" (http://creation.com/is-genesis-poetry-figurative-a-theological-argument-polemic-and-thus-not-history). Creation Answers Book. Creation Book Publishers.

12. Grudem, Wayne A. (1994). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine. Leicester: Inter-Varsity.pp. 302–4. ISBN 978-0-310-28670-7.

13. Erickson, Millard J. (1998). Christian theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. pp. 407–8. ISBN 0-8010-2182-0.

See also

References

Bibliography

Kline, Meredith G (May 1958). "Because It Had Not Rained" (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html). Westminster Theological Journal. 20 (2): 146–57.——— (1996). "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony" (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html). Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (48): 2–15.Longman, Tremper III (2005). How To Read Genesis. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-87784-943-8.Ridderbos, N.H. (1957). Is There a Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? (https://books.google.com/books?id=yTqgOQAACAAJ). Eerdmans.van Ruiten (2000), Primæval history.Waltke, Bruce K; Fredricks, Cathi J (2001). Genesis. Zondervan. ISBN 978-0-310-22458-7.

The Logical Framework in Genesis 1 (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/fw.htm), The AmericanScientific Affiliation (advocating the framework view).Akin, Jimmy (2003), "The Six Days of Creation" (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301bt.asp), This rock,Catholic (describing the framework view and its general agreement with Catholic teaching).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)&oldid=890056757"

This page was last edited on 29 March 2019, at 19:19 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By usingthis site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the WikimediaFoundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

External links

Progressive creationismProgressive creationism (see for comparison intelligent design) is the religious belief that God created new forms of lifegradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological andcosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, some tenets of biology such as microevolution as well as archaeology to make itscase. In this view creation occurred in rapid bursts in which all "kinds" of plants and animals appear in stages lasting millions ofyears. The bursts are followed by periods of stasis or equilibrium to accommodate new arrivals. These bursts represent instancesof God creating new types of organisms by divine intervention. As viewed from the archaeological record, progressivecreationism holds that "species do not gradually appear by the steady transformation of its ancestors; [but] appear all at once and"fully formed."[1]

The view rejects macroevolution, claiming it is biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record,[2] as well as rejectsthe concept of universal descent from a last universal common ancestor. Thus the evidence for macroevolution is claimed to befalse, but microevolution is accepted as a genetic parameter designed by the Creator into the fabric of genetics to allow forenvironmental adaptations and survival. Generally, it is viewed by proponents as a middle ground between literal creationism andevolution.

Historical developmentRevival

Modern progressive creationism

Interpretation of Genesis

Relationship to science

See also

Notes

References

External links

At the end of the 18th century the French anatomist Georges Cuvier proposed that there had been a series of successive creationsdue to catastrophism. Cuvier believed that God destroyed previously created forms through regional catastrophes such as floodsand afterwards repopulated the region with new forms.[3] The French naturalist Alcide d'Orbigny held similar ideas; he linkeddifferent stages in the geologic time scale to separate creation events. At the time these ideas were not popular with strictChristians. In defense of the theory of successive creations, Marcel de Serres (1783–1862), a French geologist, suggested thatnew creations grow more and more perfect as the time goes on.[4]

The idea that there had been a series of episodes of divine creation of new species with many thousands of years in between them,serving to prepare the world for the eventual arrival of humanity, was popular with Anglican geologists like William Buckland inthe early 19th century; they proposed it as an explanation for the patterns of faunal succession in the fossil record that showedthat the types of organisms that lived on the earth had changed over time. Buckland explained the idea in detail in his bookGeology and Mineralogy considered with reference to Natural Theology (1836), which was one of the eight Bridgewater

Contents

Historical development

Treatises. Buckland presented this idea in part to counter pre-Darwin theories on the transmutation of species.[5] The Scottishgeologist and evangelical Christian Hugh Miller also argued for many separate creation events brought about by divineinterventions, and explained his ideas in his book The testimony of the rocks; or, Geology in its bearings on the two theologies,natural and revealed in 1857.[6]

Louis Agassiz, a Swiss-American naturalist, argued for separate divine creations. In his work he noted similarities of distributionof like species in different geological era; a phenomenon clearly not the result of migration. Agassiz questioned how fish of thesame species live in lakes well separated with no joining waterway. He concluded they were created at both locations. Accordingto Agassiz the intelligent adaptation of creatures to their environments testified to an intelligent plan. The conclusions of hisstudies led him to believe that whichever region each animal was found in, it was created there: “animals are naturallyautochthones wherever they are found”. After further research he later extended this idea to humans, he wrote that different raceshad been created separately, this became known as his theory of polygenism.[7][8]

The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) was founded in the early 1940s as an organisation of orthodox Christian scientists.[9]

Although its original leadership favoured Biblical literalism and it was intended to be anti-evolutionary, it rejected the creationisttheories propounded by George McCready Price (young Earth creationism) and Harry Rimmer (gap creationism), and it was soonmoving rapidly in the direction of theistic evolution, with some members "stopping off" on the less Modernist view that theycalled "progressive creationism." It was a view developed in the 1930s by Wheaton College graduate Russell L. Mixter.[10] In1954 evangelical philosopher and theologian Bernard Ramm (an associate of the inner circle of the ASA) wrote The ChristianView of Science and Scripture, advocating Progressive Creationism which did away with the necessity for a young Earth, a globalflood and the recent appearance of humans.[11]

In contrast to young Earth creationists, progressive creationists accept the geological column of the progressive appearance ofplants and animals through time. To their viewpoint it accurately reflects the order in which God sequentially created kinds oforganisms, starting with simple, single-celled organisms and progressing to complex multicellular organisms and the present day.They do not however accept the scientific consensus that these kinds evolved from each other, and believe that kinds aregenetically limited, such that one cannot change into another.[12]

Proponents of the Progressive creation theory include astronomer-turned-apologist Hugh Ross, whose organization, Reasons ToBelieve, accepts the scientifically determined age of the Earth but seeks to disprove Darwinian evolution

Bernard Ramm adopted the view (developed by P. J. Wiseman) that "creation was revealed [pictorially] in six days, notperformed in six days", with God intervening periodically to create new "root-species" which then "radiated" out. This allowedgeological formations such as coal to form naturally, so that they "might appear a natural product and not an artificial insertionin Nature", prior to the creation of mankind.[13]

Progressive creationist and astrophysicist Hugh Ross adheres to a literal translation of Genesis 1 and 2 and holds to the principlethat "Scripture interprets Scripture” to shed light on the context of the Creation account.[14] Using this principle, ProgressiveCreationist Alan Hayward cites Hebrews 4, which discusses in the context of the creation story, a continued Seventh Day ofcreation.[15] Ross ties this literal view of a lengthy seventh day to the Creation account in which he describes the Hebrew word"yom" to have multiple translation possibilities, ranging from 24 hours, year, time, age, or eternity/always.[16] Ross contends that

Revival

Modern progressive creationism

Interpretation of Genesis

at the end of each Genesis "day", with the exception of the seventh "day", the phrase, “…and there was evening and there wasmorning,” is used to put a terminus to each event.[17] The omission of that phrase on the Seventh Day, is in harmony with theliteral translation of Hebrews 4’s continuing Seventh Day.[18]

From a theological perspective, Robert Newman addresses a problem with this particular model of lengthy Genesis days, in that itputs physical plant and animal death before the fall of Man, which according to most Young Earth creationism is consideredunscriptural. Old Earth creationists interpret death due to the fall of man as spiritual death specifically related to the context ofman himself. Another problem with Progressive Creationism is due to the complicated nature of a model that arises from anattempt not to favor science over Scripture and vice versa, potentially angering both schools of thought with this compromise.[19]

However, progressive creationists would argue that science and scripture are not conflicting, but rather supporting each other.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that creation science is a pseudoscientific, not a scientific view. It fails to qualify as ascience because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms ofscientifically untestable supernatural causes.[20][21] Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientificfacts,[22][23][24] and is viewed by professional biologists as unscholarly[25] and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, withharmful educational consequences.[26]

Answers in GenesisDating creationGreat chain of beingYom

1. Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton & CO., 1982), page 182.

2. Bocchino, Peter; Geisler, Norman "Unshakable Foundations" (Minneapolis: Bethany House., 2001). Pages 141-188

3. A Companion to Biological Anthropology, Clark Spencer Larson, 2010, p. 555

4. Gabriel Gohau, Albert V. Carozzi, Marguerite Carozzi, A history of geology, 1990, p. 161

5. Cadbury (2000) pp. 190–94

6. Science and religion in the nineteenth century, Tess Cosslett, 1984, p. 67

7. Scott Mandelbrote, Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: 1700–Present, Volume 2, 2009, pp. 159–64

8. A Companion to Biological Anthropology, Clark Spencer Larsen, 2010 p. 556

9. Numbers (2006) p. 181

10. Numbers (2006) pp. 194–95

11. Numbers (2006) p. 208

12. Eugenie C. Scott (December 7, 2000). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum" (http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum). National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2010-12-03. including text fromChapter 3 of Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, second edition, 2009, by Eugenie C. Scott.

13. Numbers(2006) p210-211

14. Ross(2004) p71

15. Heyward(1995) p177

16. Ross(1994) p46

Relationship to science

See also

Notes

Cadbury, Deborah (2000). The Dinosaur Hunters: A True Story of Scientific Rivalry and the Discovery of thePrehistoric World. Fourth Estate, London. ISBN 1-85702-963-1.Hayward, Alan (March 1995). Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible.Bethany House Publishers. ISBN 1-55661-679-1.Jastrow, Robert (2000). God and the Astronomers: Second Edition. W. W. Norton & Company; 2 edition. ISBN 0-393-85006-4.Newman, Robert (September 1995). Scientific and Religious Aspects of the Origins Debate. The AmericanScientific Affiliation.Numbers, Ronald (November 30, 2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design,Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. p. 624 pages. ISBN 0-674-02339-0.Ross, Hugh (March 2004). A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy. Navpress Publishing Group.ISBN 1-57683-375-5.Ross, Hugh (March 1994). Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-DateControversy. Navpress Publishing Group. ISBN 0-89109-777-5.

Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA. (http://www.reasons.org/)Research and Essays on Evolution and the Bible (https://web.archive.org/web/20090403201808/http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm)Progressive Creation: An Overview (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html)Essays and Biblical Studies on the Big Bang and Evolution (http://www.kiva.net/%7Ekls/page2.html)Hugh Ross and ‘progressive creationism’: why is it wrong to add billions of years to the Bible? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/compromise.asp#progressive)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Progressive_creationism&oldid=903658972"

This page was last edited on 27 June 2019, at 02:41 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By usingthis site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the WikimediaFoundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

17. Ross(2004) p76

18. Ross(2004) p81

19. Newman(September 1995) p172

20. NAS 1999, p. R9 (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=R9)

21. "Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html). TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-09-18.

22. Ruse, Michael (1982). "Creation Science Is Not Science" (http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/3330/ruseandlaudan-demarcation.pdf) (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 7 (40): 72–78.

23. Sarkar & Pfeifer 2006, p. 194 (https://books.google.com/books?id=od68ge7aF6wC&pg=PA194)

24. Shermer 2002, p. 436 (https://books.google.com/books?id=Gr4snwg7iaEC&pg=PA436)

25. Scott, Eugenie C.; Cole, Henry P. (1985). "The elusive basis of creation "science" ". The Quarterly Review ofBiology. 60 (1): 21–30. doi:10.1086/414171 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F414171).

26. Okasha 2002, p. 127, Okasha's full statement is that "virtually all professional biologists regard creation scienceas a sham – a dishonest and misguided attempt to promote religious beliefs under the guise of science, withextremely harmful educational consequences."

References

External links

Gap creationismGap creationism (also known as ruin-restoration creationism, restoration creationism, or "the Gap Theory") is a form of oldEarth creationism that posits that the six-yom creation period, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved six literal 24-hourdays (light being "day" and dark "night" as God specified), but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in thefirst and the second verses of Genesis, which the theory states explains many scientific observations, including the age of theEarth.[1][2][3] It differs from day-age creationism, which posits that the 'days' of creation were much longer periods (of thousandsor millions of years), and from young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days ofcreation, does not posit any gap of time.

History

Interpretation of Genesis

Biblical support

See also

Notes

References

Further reading

Gap creationism became increasingly attractive near the end of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries, because the newlyestablished science of geology had determined that the Earth was far older than common interpretations of Genesis and the Bible-based flood geology would allow. Gap creation allowed religious geologists (who composed the majority of the geologicalcommunity at the time) to reconcile their faith in the Bible with the new authority of science. According to the doctrine of naturaltheology, science was in this period considered a second revelation, God's word in nature as well as in Scripture, so the two couldnot contradict each other.[4]

From 1814,[4] gap creationism was popularized by Thomas Chalmers,[5] who attributed the concept to the 17th-century DutchArminian theologian Simon Episcopius. Chalmers became a divinity professor at the University of Edinburgh, founder of theFree Church of Scotland, and author of one of the Bridgewater Treatises. Other early proponents included Oxford Universitygeology professor and fellow Bridgewater author William Buckland, Sharon Turner and Edward Hitchcock.[4]

It gained widespread attention when a "second creative act"[6] was discussed prominently in the reference notes for Genesis in theinfluential 1917 Scofield Reference Bible.[4]

In 1954, a few years before the re-emergence of young Earth flood geology eclipsed Gap creationism, influential evangelicaltheologian Bernard Ramm wrote in The Christian View of Science and Scripture:[4]

"The gap theory has become the standard interpretation throughout hyper-orthodoxy, appearing in an endlessstream of books, booklets, Bible studies, and periodical articles. In fact, it has become so sacrosanct with somethat to question it is equivalent to tampering with Sacred Scripture or to manifest modernistic leanings".

Contents

History

This book by Ramm was influential in the formation of another alternative to gap creationism, that of progressive creationism,which found favour with more conservative members of the American Scientific Affiliation (a fellowship of scientists who areChristians), with the more modernist wing of that fellowship favouring theistic evolution.[7]

Religious proponents of this form of creationism have included Oral Roberts, Cyrus I. Scofield, Harry Rimmer, JimmySwaggart,[8] Perry Stone, G. H. Pember, L. Allen Higley,[4] Arthur Pink, Peter Ruckman, Finis Jennings Dake, Chuck Missler, E.W. Bullinger, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Herbert W. Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong, Michael Pearl and Clarence Larkin.[9]

Some gap creationists may believe that science has proven beyond reasonabledoubt that the Earth is far older than can be accounted for by, for instance,adding up the ages of Biblical patriarchs and comparing it with secular historicaldata, as James Ussher famously attempted in the 17th century when hedeveloped the Ussher chronology.

For some, the gap theory allows both the Genesis creation account andgeological science to be inerrant in matters of scientific fact. Gap creationists believe that certain facts about the past and the ageof the Earth have been omitted from the Genesis account; they hold that there was a gap of time in the Biblical account that lastedan unknown number of years between a first creation in Genesis 1:1 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Genesis+1:1–1:1&version=nrsv) and a second creation in Genesis 1:2-31 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Genesis+1:2–1:31&version=nrsv). By positingsuch an event, various observations in a wide range of fields, including the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, dinosaurs,fossils, ice cores, ice ages, and geological formations are allowed by adherents[10][11][12][12] to have occurred as outlined byscience without contradicting their literal belief in Genesis.

Because there is no specific information given in Genesis concerning the proposed gap of time, other scriptures are used tosupport and explain what may have occurred during this period and to explain the specific linguistic reasoning behind thisinterpretation of the Hebrew text. A short list of examples is given below:

The word "was" in Genesis 1:2 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Genesis+1:2–1:2&version=nrsv) for someadherents is more accurately translated "became". Such a word choice makes the gap interpretation easier tosee in modern English.[11][13][14]

God is perfect and everything He does is perfect, so a newly created earth from the hand of God should not havebeen without form and void and shrouded in darkness. Deuteronomy 32:4 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Deuteronomy+32:4–32:4&version=nrsv), Isaiah 45:18 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Isaiah+45:18–45:18&version=nrsv) 1 John 1:5 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=1+John+1:5–1:5&version=nrsv)[10][11][14]

The Holy Spirit was "renewing" the face of the earth as he hovered over the face of the waters. Psalms 104:30 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Psalms+104:30–104:30&version=nrsv)[11][14]

Angels already existed in a state of grace when God "laid the foundations of the Earth", so there had been atleast one creative act of God before the six days of Genesis. Job 38:4-7 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Job+38:4–38:7&version=nrsv)[11]

Satan and his angels caused war in Heaven and had fallen from grace (Isaiah 14:12 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Isaiah+14:12–14:12&version=nrsv)) (Luke 10:18 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke+10:18–10:18&version=nrsv)) "in the beginning" which, since the serpent tempted Adam and Eve, had to have occurred beforethe Fall of man. Isaiah 14:12-15 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Isaiah+14:12–14:15&version=nrsv), Ezekiel28:11-19 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Ezekiel+28:11–28:19&version=nrsv), John 8:44 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=John+8:44–8:44&version=nrsv)[10][11]

Interpretation of Genesis

Gap creationism

Biblical support

See also

Answers in GenesisDating CreationYom

Chafer, Lewis Sperry (1964). Satan: His Motive and Methods (reprint ed.). Zondervan. ISBN 0-310-22361-X.Custance, Arthur C. (2008). Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2 (reprint ed.). ClassicReprint Press. ISBN 978-1934251331.Gaebelein, Arno (1991). The History of the Scofield Reference Bible (reprint ed.). Living Words Foundation.ISBN 0-9628169-0-6.Larkin, Clarence (2005). Dispensational Truth (reprint ed.). Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 0-7661-8427-7.Numbers, Ronald (November 30, 2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design,Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02339-0.Pember, George (1987). Earth's Earliest Ages (reprint ed.). Kregel Publications. ISBN 0-8254-3533-1.Pink, Arthur (2007). Gleanings in Genesis (reprint ed.). Filiquarian Publishing, LLC. ISBN 1-59986-741-9.Thieme, Robert (1974). Creation: Chaos and Restoration. Berachah Tapes and Publications.

Sailhammer, John, Genesis Unbound (Multnomah Books, 1996, ISBN 0-88070-868-9).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gap_creationism&oldid=895339786"

This page was last edited on 3 May 2019, at 15:40 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By usingthis site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the WikimediaFoundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

1. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Eugenie Scott, pp61-62

2. The Scientific Case Against Scientific Creationism, Jon P. Alston, p24

3. "What is Creationism?" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html).

4. McIver, Tom (Fall 1988). "Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism" (http://www.ncseprojects.org/cej/8/3/formless-void-gap-theory-creationism). Creation/Evolution. 8 (3): 1–24.

5. Moore, Randy; Mark D Decker (2008). More Than Darwin: An Encyclopedia of the People and Places of theEvolution-creationism Controversy. Greenwood Press. p. 302. ISBN 978-0313341557.

6. Scofield References Notes online (http://www.studylight.org/com/srn/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=001), verse byverse notes on Genesis 1.

7. Numbers(2006) p208

8. Numbers(2006), p11

9. Unformed and Unfilled, Weston Fields, ISBN 0-89051-423-2, p43

10. De Principiis, Book 4 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04122.htm) (chapter 9) Origen, 3rd century.

11. Thieme (1974)

12. The Bible, Genesis, and Geology (http://www.kjvbible.org/), Gaines Johnson, 1997.

13. "Without Form and Void - Frontpage" (http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/).

14. Pink (2007)

Notes

References

Further reading

Old Earth creationismOld Earth creationism is a form of creationism which includes gap creationism, progressive creationism, and theisticevolution.[1] Old Earth creationism is typically more compatible with the scientific evidence on the issues of physics, chemistry,geology, and the age of the Earth, in contrast to young Earth creationism.[2]

TypesGap creationismProgressive creationismTheistic evolution

Approaches to Genesis 1Framework interpretationDay-age creationismCosmic time

The biblical flood

Criticism

Hindu creationism

See also

References

Further reading

External links

Gap creationism is a form of old Earth creationism which posits the belief that the six-yom creation period, as described in theBook of Genesis, involved six literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first andsecond verses of Genesis, which the theory states explains many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth.[3][4][5]

This view was popularized in 1909 by the Scofield Reference Bible.

Progressive creationism is the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually over a period of hundreds of millionsof years. As a form of Old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of theEarth, some tenets of biology such as microevolution as well as archaeology to make its case. In this view creation occurred inrapid bursts in which all "kinds" of plants and animals appear in stages lasting millions of years. The bursts are followed byperiods of stasis or equilibrium to accommodate new arrivals. These bursts represent instances of God creating new types oforganisms by divine intervention. As viewed from the archaeological record, progressive creationism holds that "species do notgradually appear by the steady transformation of its ancestors; [but] appear all at once and "fully formed."[6] The view rejects

Contents

Types

Gap creationism

Progressive creationism

Summary of the Genesis 6-day creation account, showingthe pattern according to the framework hypothesis.

Days of creation Days of creation

Day 1: Light; day and night Day 4: Sun, moon and stars

Day 2: Sea and heavens Day 5: Sea creatures; birds

Day 3: Land and vegetation Day 6: Land creatures; man

macroevolution, claiming it is biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record,[7] and it rejects the concept ofuniversal descent from a last universal common ancestor. Thus the evidence for macroevolution is claimed to be false, butmicroevolution is accepted as a genetic parameter designed by the Creator into the fabric of genetics to allow for environmentaladaptations and survival. Generally, it is viewed by proponents as a middle ground between literal creationism and evolution.

Theistic evolution regards religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biologicalevolution. Theistic evolution is not in itself a scientific theory, but a range of views about how the science of general evolutionrelates to religious beliefs in contrast to special creation views.

Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God, rejecting the conflict thesisregarding the relationship between religion and science – they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theoriesof evolution need not contradict each other.[8][9]

Evolutionary creationism, or theistic evolution, asserts that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life throughevolutionary processes."[10] According to the American Scientific Affiliation:

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creationwas to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theisticevolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geologicalevolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (forthe development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.[11]

Old Earth Christian creationists may approach the creation accounts of Genesis in a number of different ways.

The framework interpretation (or frameworkhypothesis) notes that there is a pattern or"framework" present in the Genesis accountand that, because of this, the account may nothave been intended as a strict chronologicalrecord of creation. Instead, the creativeevents may be presented in a topical order.This view is broad enough that proponents ofother old earth views (such as many Day-Age creationists) have no problem with many of the key points put forward by thehypothesis, though they might believe that there is a certain degree of chronology present.

Day-age creationism is an effort to reconcile the literal Genesis account of creation with modern scientific theories on the age ofthe universe, the Earth, life, and humans. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary24-hour days, but rather are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). The Genesis account is then interpreted asan account of the process of cosmic evolution, providing a broad base on which any number of theories and interpretations arebuilt. Proponents of the day-age theory can be found among theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists.

Theistic evolution

Approaches to Genesis 1

Framework interpretation

Day-age creationism

The day-age theory tries to reconcile these views by arguing that the creation "days" were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actuallylasted for long periods of time—or as the theory's name implies: the "days" each lasted an age. Most advocates of old Earthcreationism hold that the six days referred to in the creation account given in Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, as theHebrew word for "day" (yom) can be interpreted in this context to mean a long period of time (thousands or millions of years)rather than a 24-hour day.[12] According to this view, the sequence and duration of the creation "days" is representative orsymbolic of the sequence and duration of events that scientists theorize to have happened, such that Genesis can be read as asummary of modern science, simplified for the benefit of pre-scientific humans.

Gerald Schroeder puts forth a view which reconciles 24-hour creation days with an age of billions of years for the universe bynoting, as creationist Phillip E. Johnson summarizes in his article "What Would Newton Do?": "the Bible speaks of time from theviewpoint of the universe as a whole, which Schroeder interprets to mean at the moment of 'quark confinement,' when stablematter formed from energy early in the first second of the big bang."[13] Schroeder calculates that a period of six days under theconditions of quark confinement, when the universe was approximately a trillion times smaller and hotter than it is today is equalto fifteen billion years of earth time today. This is all due to space expansion after quark confinement.[14] Thus Genesis andmodern physics are reconciled.[15] Schroeder, though, states in an earlier book, Genesis and the Big Bang, that the Earth and solarsystem is some "4.5 to 5 billion years" old[16] and also states in a later book, The Science of God, that the Sun is 4.6 billion yearsold.[17]

Some old Earth creationists reject flood geology,[18][19] a position which leaves them open to accusations that they thereby rejectthe infallibility of scripture (which states that the Genesis flood covered the whole of the earth).[20] In response, old Earthcreationists cite verses in the Bible where the words "whole" and "all" clearly require a contextual interpretation.[21][22] Old Earthcreationists generally believe that the human race was localised around the Middle East at the time of the Genesis flood,[23] aposition which is in conflict with the Out of Africa theory.

Old Earth creationism has received criticism from some secular communities and proponents of theistic evolution for rejectingevolution, as well as criticism from young Earth creationists for not taking a hyper-literal interpretation of the Genesis creationnarrative and for believing in death and suffering before the fall.

In Hinduism there is no single story of creation which instead is derived from various sources like the Vedas, Brahmanas, andPuranas. Some are philosophical while others are narratives.[24] According to "Vedic" (more accurately known as HistoricalVedic religion) creationism and evolution, all species on earth, including humans, have "devolved" from a state of pureconsciousness. Hindu creationists claim that species of plants and animals are material forms adopted by pure consciousnesswhich live a cycle of births and rebirths until liberation from this material universe into an impersonal or personal spiritualreality.[25] Ronald Numbers says that: "Hindu creationists have insisted on the antiquity of humans, who they believe appearedfully formed as long, perhaps, as trillions of years ago."[26] Hindu creationism is a form of old earth creationism. According toHindu creationists, the universe is part of a multi-verse that goes through cycles with no end. These views are based on the Vedas,which depict an extreme antiquity of the universe and history of the Earth.[27][28]

Cosmic time

The biblical flood

Criticism

Hindu creationism

See also

Biblical cosmologyCosmogonyCreation scienceDating CreationPre-AdamiteTimeline of cosmological epochs

1. Neyman, Greg (2011). "Theistic Evolution" (http://oldearth.org/theistic_evolution.htm). Old Earth Ministries.Retrieved 24 April 2012. "Theistic Evolution is the old earth creationist belief that God used the process ofevolution to create life on earth. The modern scientific understanding of biological evolution is considered to becompatible with the Bible."

2. The Creation/Evolution Continuum (http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum),Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.

3. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Eugenie Scott, pp61-62

4. The Scientific Case Against Scientific Creationism, Jon P. Alston, p24

5. "What is Creationism?" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html).

6. Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton & CO., 1982), page 182.

7. Bocchino, Peter; Geisler, Norman "Unshakable Foundations" (Minneapolis: Bethany House., 2001). Pages 141-188

8. Numbers 2006, pp. 34–38

9. Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p62-63

10. Feist, Richard; Sweet, William (2007). Religion and the Challenges of Science (https://books.google.com/?id=qwaRUNj6S34C&pg=PA48). Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 9780754687443. "Evolutionary Creation (or TheisticEvolution) asserts that the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionaryprocesses."

11. Craig Rusbult, Ph.D. (1998). "Evolutionary Creation" (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te2-cr.htm).American Scientific Affiliation. "A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation * —proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturallyevolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to formgalaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to formthe first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution."

12. Old Earth Creation Science Word Study: Yom (http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm), GregNeyman © 2007, Answers In Creation, Published 16 March 2005

13. Phillip E. Johnson. "What Would Newton Do?" (http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9811/articles/johnson.html).

14. "Redirecting..." (http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Age_of_the_Universe.asp)

15. Response to Genesis and the Big Bang: A book authored by Gerald Schroeder, Hugh Ross and Miguel Endara

16. Genesis and the Big Bang, Gerald Schroeder, p. 116

17. The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom, p. 68, Broadway Books, GeraldSchroeder 1998, ISBN 0-7679-0303-X

18. Deluge Geology (http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1950/JASA3-50Kulp.html), J. Laurence Kulp, Journal of theAmerican Scientific Affiliation, 2, 1(1950): 1-15.

19. The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/), Copyright ©2001 by Glenn Morton, TalkOrigins website, Last Update: February 17, 2001

20. Did Noah’s Flood cover the whole earth? (http://creation.com/did-noahs-flood-cover-the-whole-earth), John D.Morris, Creation 12(2):48–50, March 1990

21. Noah's Flood: Global or Local? (http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/noah.html), Donald Hochner

References

Schroeder, Gerald, Genesis and the Big Bang Theory: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science andthe Bible, 1991, ISBN 0-553-35413-2 (articulates old Earth creationism)A comprehensive critique of Genesis & the Big Bang by Yoram Bogacz, entitled Genesis & the Big Bluff, can befound at the Torah Explorer website [1] (http://www.torahexplorer.com).Ross, Hugh, A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy, 2004, ISBN 1-57683-375-5 (Details why oldEarth creationism is the literal Biblical view)Ross, Hugh, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis, 2001, ISBN 1-57683-230-9 (Details the agreement of science with old Earth creationism)Elder, Samuel A., The God Who Makes Things Happen: Physical Reality and the Word of God, iUniverse, 2007,ISBN 0-595-42236-5 (Harmonization of the Biblical six 24-hour days of creation and the estimated 13.8 billionyears observed in nature; quantum mechanics theory demonstrates God's sovereignty over chance; law ofentropy identifies Jesus Christ as "anchor of time" bringing salvation "once for all").David G. Hagopian, editor, The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, 2000, ISBN 0-9702245-0-8 (Three pairs of scholars present and debate the three most widespread evangelical interpretations of thecreation days)Refuting Compromise (ISBN 0-89051-411-9) 2004 (critique of old-earth creationism, in particular that of Ross,Hugh)Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible, 1995, ISBN 1-55661-679-1 (by a Christadelphian old-earth creationist)Steven R. Webb, Deep Time in Genesis: A Christian geologist examines the age of the Earth in light of Scripture,2016, ISBN 978-1-5127-3597-0 (by an old-earth professional geologist with a degree in theology)

Reasons to Believe (http://www.reasons.org/), An old Earth, day-age siteAnswers In Creation (http://www.answersincreation.org/), An old Earth creationism site purporting to demonstratethe flaws in young Earth creationismAnswers in Genesis (AiG) (http://www.answersingenesis.org/), A young Earth creationism site purporting todemonstrate the theological flaws in old Earth creationism

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old_Earth_creationism&oldid=906618512"

This page was last edited on 17 July 2019, at 01:42 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By usingthis site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the WikimediaFoundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

22. The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local? (http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/2002/PSCF9-02Hill.pdf), Carol A. Hill,Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, p. 170-183, Volume 54, Number 3, September 2002

23. The Mediterranean Flood (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97Morton.html), Glenn R. Morton,Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (December 1997): 238, American Scientific Affiliation website

24. "How did the world come into being according to Hinduism?" (https://www.dailyo.in/variety/hindusim-world-creation-universe-brahma-vishu-shiva/story/1/19522.html).

25. Science & Religion: A New Introduction, Alister E. McGrath, 2009, p. 140

26. The creationists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design, Ronald L. Numbers, 2006, p. 420

27. James C. Carper, Thomas C. Hunt, The Praeger Handbook of Religion and Education in the United States: A-L,2009, p. 167

28. A history of Indian philosophy, Volume 1, Surendranath Dasgupta, 1992, p. 10

Further reading

External links

Young Earth creationismYoung Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism which holds as a central tenet that the Earth and its lifeforms werecreated in their present forms by supernatural acts of a deity between approximately 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.[1][2] In its mostwidespread version, YEC is based on the religious belief in the inerrancy of certain literal interpretations of the Book ofGenesis.[3][4] Its primary adherents are Christians who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days[5][6] in contrastwith old Earth creationism (OEC), which holds literal interpretations of Genesis that are compatible with the scientificallydetermined ages of the Earth and universe.[7][8]

Since the mid-20th century, young Earth creationists—starting with Henry Morris (1918–2006)—have devised and promoted apseudoscientific explanation called "creation science" as a basis for a religious belief in a supernatural, geologically recentcreation.[9] Contemporary YEC movements arose in protest to the scientific consensus, established by numerous scientificdisciplines, which demonstrates that the age of the universe is around 13.8 billion years, the formation of the Earth happenedaround 4.5 billion years ago, and the first appearance of life on Earth was at least 3.5 billion years ago.[10][11][12][13][14]

A 2017 Gallup creationism survey found 38 percent of adults in the United States held the view that "God created humans in theirpresent form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their views on the origin and development of humanbeings, which Gallup noted was the lowest level in 35 years.[15] This level of support could be even lower when poll results areadjusted after comparison with other polls with questions that more specifically account for uncertainty and ambivalence.[16]

BackgroundBiblical dates for creationScientific Revolution and the old Earth

HistoryChristian fundamentalism and belief in a young EarthImpact

Characteristics and beliefsView of the Bible

Interpretations of Genesis

Age of the EarthHuman historyFlood geology, the fossil record, and dinosaursAttitude towards science

Compared to other forms of creationismOld Earth creationismGap creationismOmphalos hypothesis

CriticismTheological considerationsScientific refutation

Adhering church bodies

See also

Notes

Contents

References

External links

Young Earth creationists have claimed that their view has its earliest roots in ancient Judaism, citing, for example, thecommentary on Genesis by Ibn Ezra (c. 1089–1164).[5] Shai Cherry of Vanderbilt University notes that modern Jewishtheologians have generally rejected such literal interpretations of the written text, and that even Jewish commentators who opposesome aspects of science generally accept scientific evidence that the Earth is much older.[17]

The chronology dating the creation to 4004 BC became the most accepted and popular, mainly because this specific date wasprinted in the King James Bible.[18] The youngest ever recorded date of creation within the historic Jewish or Christian traditionsis 3616 BC, by Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller in the 17th century[19] while the oldest proposed date was 6984 BC by Alfonso X ofCastile.[20] However some contemporary or more recent proponents of Young Earth Creationism have taken this figure backfurther by several thousands of years by proposing significant gaps in the genealogies in chapters 5 and 11 of the Book ofGenesis. Harold Camping for example dated the creation to 11,013 BC, while Christian Charles Josias Bunsen in the 19th centurydated the creation to 20,000 BC.[21]

A number of prominent early Church Fathers and Christian writers, including Origen and Augustine, did not believe that thecreation myth in Genesis depicted ordinary solar days and read creation history as an allegory as well as being theologically true.Several early Jews also followed an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, including most notably Philo (On the Creation,III.13).[22]

The Protestant reformation hermeneutic inclined some of the Reformers, including John Calvin[23][24] and Martin Luther,[25] andlater Protestants toward a literal reading of the Bible as translated, believing in an ordinary day, and maintaining this younger-Earth view.[26]

An Earth that was thousands of years old remained the dominant view during the Early Modern Period (1500–1800) and is foundtypically referenced in the works of famous poets and playwrights of the era, including William Shakespeare:

...The poor world is almost 6,000 years old.[27]

Support for an Earth that was created thousands of years ago declined among the scientists and philosophers from the 18thcentury onwards with the development of the Age of Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution, and new scientific discoveries. Inparticular, discoveries in geology required an Earth that was much older than thousands of years, and proposals such as AbrahamGottlob Werner's Neptunism attempted to incorporate what was understood from geological investigations into a coherentdescription of Earth's natural history. James Hutton, now regarded as the father of modern geology, went further and opened upthe concept of deep time for scientific inquiry. Rather than accepting that the Earth was deteriorating from a primal state, hemaintained that the Earth was infinitely old. Hutton stated that:

the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to beemployed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know theprinciple.[28]

Background

Biblical dates for creation

Scientific Revolution and the old Earth

Hutton's main line of argument was that the tremendous displacements and changes he was seeing did not happen in a shortperiod of time by means of catastrophe, but that the incremental processes of uplift and erosion happening on the Earth in thepresent day had caused them. As these processes were very gradual, the Earth needed to be ancient, in order to allow time for thechanges to occur. While his ideas of Plutonism were hotly contested, scientific inquiries on competing ideas of catastrophismpushed back the age of the Earth into the millions of years – still much younger than commonly accepted by modern scientists,but a great change from the literalist view of an Earth that was only a few thousand years old.[29]

Hutton's ideas, called uniformitarianism or gradualism, were popularized by Sir Charles Lyell in the early 19th century. Theenergetic advocacy and rhetoric of Lyell led to the public and scientific communities largely accepting an ancient Earth. By thistime, the Reverends William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick and other early geologists had abandoned their earlier ideas ofcatastrophism related to a biblical flood and confined their explanations to local floods. By the 1830s, mainstream science hadabandoned a young Earth as a serious hypothesis.

John H. Mears was one such scholar who proposed several theories varying from a mix of long/indefinite periods with momentsof creation to a day-age theory of indefinite 'days'. He subscribed to the latter theory (indefinite days) and found support from theside of Yale professor James Dwight Dana, one of the fathers of Mineralogy, who wrote a paper consisting of four articles named'Science and the Bible' on the topic.[30] With the acceptance by many biblical scholars of a reinterpretation of Genesis 1 in thelight of the breakthrough results of Lyell, and supported by a number of renowned (Christian) scientific scholars, a new hurdlewas taken in the future acceptance of Developmentalism (based on Darwin's Natural selection).[31]

The decline of support for a biblically literal young Earth during the 19th century was opposed by first the scripturalgeologists[32] and then by the founders of the Victoria Institute.[33]

The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the 20th century brought rejection of evolution. Its leaders explained anancient Earth through belief in the gap or in the day-age interpretation of Genesis.[34] In 1923, George McCready Price, aSeventh-day Adventist, wrote The New Geology, a book partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great Flood on the shape of the Earth. Although not anaccredited geologist, Price's writings, which were based on reading geological texts and documents rather than field or laboratorywork,[35] provide an explicitly fundamentalist perspective on geology. The book attracted a small following, with its advocatesalmost all being Lutheran pastors and Seventh-day Adventists in America.[36] Price became popular with fundamentalists for hisopposition to evolution, though they continued to believe in an ancient Earth.[34]

In the 1950s, Price's work came under severe criticism, particularly by Bernard Ramm in his book The Christian View of Scienceand Scripture. Together with J. Laurence Kulp, a geologist and in fellowship with the Plymouth Brethren, and other scientists,[37]

Ramm influenced Christian organizations such as the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) in not supporting flood geology.

Price's work was subsequently adapted and updated by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. in their book The GenesisFlood in 1961. Morris and Whitcomb argued that the Earth was geologically recent and that the Great Flood had laid down mostof the geological strata in the space of a single year, reviving pre-uniformitarian arguments. Given this history, they argued, "thelast refuge of the case for evolution immediately vanishes away, and the record of the rocks becomes a tremendous witness... tothe holiness and justice and power of the living God of Creation!"[38]

History

Christian fundamentalism and belief in a young Earth

This became the foundation of a new generation of young Earth creationist believers, who organized themselves around Morris'Institute for Creation Research. Sister organizations such as the Creation Research Society have sought to re-interpret geologicalformations within a Young Earth Creationist viewpoint. Langdon Gilkey writes:

... no distinction is made between scientific theories on the one hand and philosophical or religious theories on theother, between scientific questions and the sorts of questions religious beliefs seek to answer... It is, therefore, nosurprise that in their theological works, as opposed to their creation science writings, creationists regard evolutionand all other theories associated with it, as the intellectual source for and intellectual justification of everythingthat is to them evil and destructive in modern society. For them all that is spiritually healthy and creative has beenfor a century or more under attack by "that most complex of godless movements spawned by the pervasive andpowerful system of evolutionary uniformitarianism", "If the system of flood geology can be established on asound scientific basis... then the entire evolutionary cosmology, at least in its present neo-Darwinian form, willcollapse. This in turn would mean that every anti-Christian system and movement (communism, racism,humanism, libertarianism, behaviorism, and all the rest) would be deprived of their pseudo-intellectualfoundation", "It [evolution] has served effectively as the pseudo-scientific basis of atheism, agnosticism,socialism, fascism, and numerous faulty and dangerous philosophies over the past century.[39]

Young Earth creationism directly contradicts the scientific consensus of the scientific community. A 2006 joint statement ofInterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) by 68 national and international science academies enumerated the scientificfacts that young Earth creationism contradicts, in particular that the universe, the Earth, and life are billions of years old, that eachhas undergone continual change over those billions of years, and that life on Earth has evolved from a common primordial origininto the diverse forms observed in the fossil record and present today.[11] Evolutionary theory remains the only explanation thatfully accounts for all the observations, measurements, data, and evidence discovered in the fields of biology, ecology, anatomy,physiology, zoology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[40][41][42][43][44]

As such, young Earth creationism is dismissed by the academic and the scientific communities. One 1987 estimate found that"700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[45] An expert inthe evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists acceptevolution".[46] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5 per cent of American scientists (including those with training outsidebiology) identified themselves as creationists.[47][48] For their part, Young Earth Creationists say that the lack of support for theirbeliefs by the scientific community is due to discrimination and censorship by professional science journals and professionalscience organizations. This viewpoint was explicitly rejected in the rulings from the 1981 United States District Court caseMcLean v. Arkansas Board of Education as no witness was able to produce any articles that had been refused publication and thejudge could not conceive how "a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, soeffectively censor new scientific thought".[12] A 1985 study also found that only 18 out of 135,000 submissions to scientificjournals advocated creationism.[49][50]

Morris' ideas had a considerable impact on creationism and fundamentalist Christianity. Armed with the backing of conservativeorganizations and individuals, his brand of "creation science" was widely promoted throughout the United States and overseas,with his books being translated into at least ten different languages. The inauguration of so-called "Young Earth Creationism" as areligious position has, on occasion, impacted science education in the United States, where periodic controversies have ragedover the appropriateness of teaching YEC doctrine and creation science in public schools (see Teach the Controversy) alongsideor in replacement of the theory of evolution. Young Earth creationism has not had as large an impact in the less literalist circles of

Impact

Christianity. Some churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches, accede to the possibility oftheistic evolution; though individual church members support young Earth creationism and do so without those churches' explicitcondemnation.[51]

Adherence to Young EarthCreationism and rejection of evolutionis higher in the U.S. than in most ofthe rest of the Western world.[52][53]

A 2012 Gallup survey reported that 46per cent of Americans believed in thecreationist view that God createdhumans in their present form at onetime within the last 10,000 years, astatistic which has remainedessentially the same since 1982; forthose with a postgraduate education,only 25 per cent believed in thecreationist viewpoint. About one thirdof Americans believed that humansevolved with God's guidance and 15per cent said humans evolved, but thatGod had no part in the process.[54] A2009 poll by Harris Interactive foundthat 39 per cent of Americans agreed with the statement that "God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants,animals, and the first two people within the past 10,000 years", yet only 18 per cent of the Americans polled agreed with thestatement "The earth is less than 10,000 years old".[55] A 2017 Gallup creationism survey found that 38 per cent of adults in theUnited States inclined to the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" whenasked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, which Gallup noted was the lowest level in 35 years.[15]

Reasons for the higher rejection of evolution in the U.S. include the abundance of fundamentalist Christians compared toEurope.[53] A 2011 Gallup survey reported that 30 per cent of Americans said the Bible is the actual word of God and should beinterpreted literally, a statistic which had fallen slightly from the late 1970s. Fifty-four per cent of those who attended churchweekly and 46 per cent of those with a high school education or less took the Bible literally.[56]

The common belief of Young Earth creationists is that the Earth and life were created in six 24-hour periods,[57] 6,000–10,000years ago. However, there are different approaches to how this is possible given the geological evidence for much longertimescales. The Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College has identified two major types of YEC beliefsystems:[57]

Believers in flood geology attach great importance to the biblical story of Noah's Flood in explaining the fossilrecord and geological strata. Major American YEC organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research andAnswers in Genesis support this approach with detailed argumentation and references to scientific evidence,though often framed with pseudoscientific misconceptions.[57]

A less-visible form of YEC not seen as often on the internet is one which claims that there has been essentiallyno development of the Universe, Earth, or life whatsoever since creation — that creation has been in a steadystate since the beginning without major changes. According to Ronald Numbers this belief, which does notnecessarily try to explain scientific evidence through appeal to a global flood, has not been promoted as much asthe former example given.[58] Such YECs believe that fossils are not real and that major extinctions never

Views on human evolution in various countries.[52][53]

Characteristics and beliefs

occurred, so dinosaurs, trilobites, and other examples of extinct organisms found in the fossil record would haveto either be hoaxes or simply secular lies, promoted perhaps by the devil.[57][59]

Young Earth creationists regard the Bible as a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history. As Henry Morris,a leading Young Earth Creationist, explained it, "Christians who flirt with less-than-literal readings of biblical texts are alsoflirting with theological disaster."[60][61] According to Morris, Christians must "either ... believe God's Word all the way, or not atall."[60] Young Earth creationists consider the account of creation given in Genesis to be a factual record of the origin of the Earthand life, and that Bible-believing Christians must therefore regard Genesis 1–11 as historically accurate.

Young Earth creationists interpret the text of Genesis as strictly literal. Young Earth Creationists reject allegorical readings ofGenesis and further argue that if there was not a literal Fall of Man, Noah's Ark, or Tower of Babel this would undermine coreChristian doctrines like the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The genealogies of Genesis record the line of descent from Adam through Noah to Abraham. Young Earth Creationists interpretthese genealogies literally, including the old ages of the men. For example, Methuselah lived 969 years according to thegenealogy. Differences of opinion exist regarding whether the genealogies should be taken as complete or abbreviated, hence the6,000 to 10,000 year range usually quoted for the Earth's age. In contrast, Old Earth Creationists tend to interpret the genealogiesas incomplete, and usually interpret the days of Genesis 1 figuratively as long periods of time.

Young Earth creationists believe that the flood described in Genesis 6–9 did occur, was global in extent, and submerged all dryland on Earth. Some Young Earth Creationists go further and advocate a kind of flood geology which relies on the appropriationof late eighteenth and early nineteenth century arguments in favor of catastrophism made by such scientists as Georges Cuvierand Richard Kirwan. This approach which was replaced by the mid-nineteenth century almost entirely by uniformitarianism wasadopted most famously by George McCready Price and this legacy is reflected in the most prominent YEC organizations today.YEC ideas to accommodate the massive amount of water necessary for a flood that was global in scale included inventing suchconstructs as an orbiting vapor canopy which would have collapsed and generated the necessary extreme rainfall or a rapidmovement of tectonic plates causing underground aquifers[62] or tsunamis from underwater volcanic steam[63] to inundate theplanet.

The young Earth creationist belief that the age of the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old conflicts with the age of 4.54 billion yearsmeasured using independently cross-validated geochronological methods including radiometric dating.[64] Creationists disputethese and all other methods which demonstrate the timescale of geologic history in spite of the lack of scientific evidence thatthere are any inconsistencies or errors in the measurement of the Earth's age.[65][66]

Between 1997 and 2005, a team of scientists at the Institute for Creation Research conducted an eight-year research projectentitled RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) to assess the validity and accuracy of radiometric dating techniques.While they concluded that there was overwhelming evidence for over 500 million years' worth of radioactive decay, they claimedto have found other scientific evidence to prove a young earth. They therefore proposed that nuclear decay rates were acceleratedby a factor of one billion during the Creation week and at the time of the Flood. However, when subjected to independent scrutinyby non-affiliated experts, their analyses were shown to be flawed.[67][68][69][70]

View of the Bible

Interpretations of Genesis

Age of the Earth

Human history

Young Earth creationists reject almost all of the results of physical anthropology and human evolution and instead insist thatAdam and Eve were the universal ancestors of every human to have ever lived.[71] Noah's flood as reported in the book ofGenesis is said to have killed all humans on Earth with the exception of Noah and his sons and their wives, so young Earthcreationists also argue that humans alive today are descended from this single family.[72]

The literal belief that the world's linguistic variety originated with the tower of Babel is pseudoscientific, sometimes calledpseudolinguistics, and it is contrary to what is known about the origin and history of languages.[73]

Young Earth creationists reject the geologic evidence that the stratigraphic sequence of fossils proves the Earth is billions of yearsold. In his Illogical Geology, expanded in 1913 as The Fundamentals of Geology, George McCready Price argued that theoccasionally out-of-order sequence of fossils that are shown to be due to thrust faults made it impossible to prove any one fossilwas older than any other. His "law" that fossils could be found in any order implied that strata could not be dated sequentially. Heinstead proposed that essentially all fossils were buried during the flood and thus inaugurated flood geology. In numerous booksand articles he promoted this concept, focusing his attack on the sequence of the geologic time scale as "the devil's counterfeit ofthe six days of Creation as recorded in the first chapter of Genesis."[74] Today, many young Earth creationists still contend thatthe fossil record can be explained by the global flood.[75]

In The Genesis Flood (1961) Henry M. Morris reiterated Price's arguments, and wrote that because there had been no deathbefore the Fall of Man, he felt "compelled to date all the rock strata which contain fossils of once-living creatures as subsequentto Adam's fall", attributing most to the flood. He added that humans and dinosaurs had lived together, quoting Clifford L. Burdickfor the report that dinosaur tracks had supposedly been found overlapping a human track in the Paluxy River bed Glen RoseFormation. He was subsequently advised that he might have been misled, and Burdick wrote to Morris in September 1962 that"you kind of stuck your neck out in publishing those Glen Rose tracks." In the third printing of the book this section wasremoved.[76]

Following in this vein, many young Earth creationists, especially those associated with the more visible organizations, do notdeny the existence of dinosaurs and other extinct animals present in the fossil record.[77] Usually, they claim that the fossilsrepresent the remains of animals that perished in the flood. A number of creationist organizations further propose that Noah tookthe dinosaurs with him in the ark,[78] and that they only began to disappear as a result of a different post-flood environment. TheCreation Museum in Kentucky portrays humans and dinosaurs coexisting before the Flood while the California roadsideattraction Cabazon Dinosaurs describes dinosaurs as being created the same day as Adam and Eve.[79] The Creation EvidenceMuseum in Glen Rose, Texas, has a "hyperbaric biosphere" intended to reproduce the atmospheric conditions before the Floodwhich could grow dinosaurs. The proprietor Carl Baugh says that these conditions made creatures grow larger and live longer, sothat humans of that time were giants.[80]

As the term "dinosaur" was coined by Richard Owen in 1842, the Bible does not use the word "dinosaur". Some creationistorganizations propose that the Hebrew word tanniyn (תנין, pronounced [tanˈnin]), mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old

Testament, should be considered a synonym.[81] In English translations, tanniyn has been translated as "sea monster" or"serpent", but most often it is translated as "dragon". Additionally, in the Book of Job, a "behemoth" (Job 40:15–24) is describedas a creature that "moves his tail like a cedar"; the behemoth is described as ranking "first among the works of God" and asimpossible to capture (vs. 24). Biblical scholars have alternatively identified the behemoth as either an elephant, a hippopotamus,or a bull,[82][83][84] but some creationists have identified the behemoth with sauropod dinosaurs, often specifically theBrachiosaurus according to their interpretation of the verse "He is the chief of the ways of God" implying that the behemoth isthe largest animal God created.[81] The leviathan is another creature referred to in the Bible's Old Testament that somecreationists argue is actually a dinosaur. Alternatively, more mainstream scholars have identified the Leviathan (Job 41) with theNile crocodile or, because Ugarit texts describe it as having seven heads, a purely mythical beast similar to the LernaeanHydra.[85]

Flood geology, the fossil record, and dinosaurs

A subset of adherents of the pseudoscience of cryptozoology promote Young Earth creationism, particularly in the context of so-called "living dinosaurs". Science writer Sharon A. Hill observes that the Young Earth creationist segment of cryptozoology is"well-funded and able to conduct expeditions with a goal of finding a living dinosaur that they think would invalidateevolution."[86] Anthropologist Jeb J. Card says that "Creationists have embraced cryptozoology and some cryptozoologicalexpeditions are funded by and conducted by creationists hoping to disprove evolution."[87] Young Earth creationists occasionallyclaim that dinosaurs survived in Australia, and that Aboriginal legends of reptilian monsters are evidence of this,[88] referring towhat is known as Megalania (Varanus priscus). However, Megalania was a gigantic monitor lizard, and not a dinosaur, as itsdiscoverer, Richard Owen, realized that the skeletal remains were that of a lizard, and not an archosaur.

Young Earth creationism is most famous for an opposition to the theory of evolution, but believers also are on record opposingmany measurements, facts, and principles in the fields of physics and chemistry, dating methods including radiometric dating,geology,[89] astronomy,[90] cosmology,[90] and paleontology.[91] Young Earth creationists do not accept any explanation fornatural phenomena which deviates from the veracity of a plain reading of the Bible, whether it be the origins of biologicaldiversity, the origins of life, or the origins of the universe itself. This has led some young Earth creationists to criticize othercreationist proposals such as intelligent design, for not taking a strong stand on the age of the Earth, special creation, or even theidentity of the designer.

Young Earth creationists disagree with the methodological naturalism that is part of the scientific method. Instead, they assert theactions of God as described in the Bible occurred as written and therefore only scientific evidence that points to the Bible beingcorrect can be accepted. See Creation-evolution controversy for a more complete discussion.

As a position that developed out of the explicitly anti-intellectual side of the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy in the earlyparts of the twentieth century, there is no single unified nor consistent consensus on how creationism as a belief system ought toreconcile its adherents' acceptance of biblical inerrancy with empirical facts of the Universe. Although Young Earth Creationismis one of the most stridently literalist positions taken among professed creationists, there are also examples of biblical literalistadherents to both geocentrism[92] and a flat Earth.[93] Conflicts between different kinds of creationists are rather common, butthree in particular are of particular relevance to YEC: Old Earth Creationism, Gap creationism, and the Omphalos hypothesis.

Young Earth creationists reject old Earth creationism and day-age creationism on textual and theological grounds. In addition,they claim that the scientific data in geology and astronomy point to a young Earth, against the consensus of the general scientificcommunity.

Young Earth creationists generally hold that, when Genesis describes the creation of the Earth occurring over a period of days,this indicates normal-length 24 hour days, and cannot reasonably be interpreted otherwise. They agree that the Hebrew word for"day" (yôm) can refer to either a 24-hour day or a long or unspecified time; but argue that, whenever the latter interpretation isused, it includes a preposition defining the long or unspecified period. In the specific context of Genesis 1, since the days are bothnumbered and are referred to as "evening and morning", this can mean only normal-length days. Further, they argue that the 24-hour day is the only interpretation that makes sense of the Sabbath command in Exodus 20:8–11. YECs argue that it is a glaringexegetical fallacy to take a meaning from one context (yom referring to a long period of time in Genesis 1) and apply it to acompletely different one (yom referring to normal-length days in Exodus 20).[94]

Attitude towards science

Compared to other forms of creationism

Old Earth creationism

Hebrew scholars reject the rule that yôm with a number or an "evening and morning" construct can only refer to 24-hour days.[95]

Hugh Ross has pointed out that the earliest reference to this rule dates back to young-earth creationist literature in the 1970s andthat no reference to it exists independent of the young-earth movement.[96]

The "gap theory" acknowledges a vast age for the universe, including the Earth and solar system, while asserting that life wascreated recently in six 24-hour days by divine fiat. Genesis 1 is thus interpreted literally, with an indefinite "gap" of time insertedbetween the first two verses. (Some gap theorists insert a "primordial creation" and Lucifer's rebellion into the gap.) Young EarthCreationist organizations argue that the gap theory is unscriptural, unscientific, and not necessary, in its various forms.[97][98]

Many young Earth creationists distinguish their own hypotheses from the "Omphalos hypothesis", today more commonly referredto as the apparent age concept, put forth by the naturalist and science writer Philip Henry Gosse. Omphalos was an unsuccessfulmid-19th century attempt to reconcile creationism with geology. Gosse proposed that just as Adam had a navel (omphalos isGreek for navel), evidence of a gestation he never experienced, so also the Earth was created ex nihilo complete with evidence ofa prehistoric past that never actually occurred. The Omphalos hypothesis allows for a young Earth without giving rise to anypredictions that would contradict scientific findings of an old Earth. Although both logically unassailable and consistent with aliteral reading of scripture, Omphalos was rejected at the time by scientists on the grounds that it was completely unfalsifiable andby theologians because it implied to them a deceitful God, which they found theologically unacceptable.

Today, in contrast to Gosse, young Earth creationists posit that not only is the Earth young but that the scientific data supports thatview. However, the apparent age concept is still used in young Earth creationist literature.[99][100][101] There are examples ofyoung Earth creationists arguing that Adam did not have a navel.[102]

Young Earth creationists adhere strongly to a concept of biblical inerrancy, and regard the Bible as divinely inspired and"infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical aswell as moral and theological".[103] Young Earth creationists also suggest that supporters of modern scientific understanding withwhich they disagree are primarily motivated by atheism. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters ofevolutionary theory are religious believers, and that major religious groups, such as the Roman Catholic Church, EasternOrthodox Church, and Church of England, believe that concepts such as physical cosmology, chemical origins of life, biologicalevolution, and geological fossil records do not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Critics also point out that workers in fieldsrelated to biology, chemistry, physics, or geosciences are not required to sign statements of belief in contemporary sciencecomparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by creationist organizations, contrary to the creationist claim that scientistsoperate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles.[104]

Creationists also discount certain modern Christian theological positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist andpaleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired hisfaith in the cosmic Christ; or those of Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and ecotheologian, that the cosmological 13-billion-year"Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions with a single account by which the divine has made its presence in theworld.[105]

Proponents of young Earth creationism are regularly accused of quote mining, the practice of isolating passages from academictexts that appear to support their claims, while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary.[106] For example,scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of mysteries about the Universe left to be solved, and scientists actively

Gap creationism

Omphalos hypothesis

Criticism

working in the fields who identify inconsistencies or problems with extant models, when pressed, explicitly reject creationistinterpretations. Theologians and philosophers have also criticized this "God of the gaps" viewpoint.[107]

In defending against young Earth creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", scientists and skeptics have offeredrejoinders that every challenge made by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science.[108]

Few modern theologians take the Genesis account of creation literally. Even many Christian evangelicals who reject the notion ofpurely naturalistic Darwinian evolution, often treat the story as a nonliteral saga, as poetry, or as liturgical literature.[109]

Genesis contains two accounts of the Creation: in chapter 1 man was created after the animals (Genesis 1:24-26), while in chapter2 man was created (Genesis 2:7) before the animals (Genesis 2:19).[110][111] Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggestthat Genesis 1 was a litany from the Priestly source (possibly from an early Jewish liturgy), while Genesis 2 was assembled fromolder Jahwist material, holding that, for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and Godwould have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24 hour period. Creationists responding to this pointattribute the view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translationsof the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in the King James Version and New International Version).[112]

Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that, where scientific or historicquestions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. Forinstance, in a publication entitled The Gift of Scripture, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales comments that, "Weshould not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true inpassages relating to human salvation, but, "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters".[113][114]

While the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible's message is without error, it does not consider it always to be literal.[115] Bycontrast, young Earth creationists contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historicalaccuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge.[116]

Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, young Earth creationism also stands in opposition to the creationmythologies of other religions (both extant and extinct). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the Universe andhumanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).[117] Marshaling supportfor the Judeo-Christian creation myth versus other creation myths after having rejected much of the scientific evidence is largely,then, done on the basis of accepting on faith the veracity of the biblical account rather than the alternative.

The vast majority of scientists refute young Earth creationism. Around the start of the 19th century mainstream scienceabandoned the concept that Earth was younger than millions of years.[118] Measurements of archeological, biological, chemical,geological, and cosmological timescales differ from YEC's estimates of Earth's age by up to five orders of magnitude (that is, byfactor of a hundred thousand times). Scientific estimates of the age of the earliest pottery discovered at 20,000 BCE, the oldestknown trees before 12,000 BCE, ice cores up to 800,000 years old, and layers of silt deposit in Lake Suigetsu at 52,800 years old,are all significantly older than YEC estimate of Earth's age. YEC's theories are further contradicted by scientists' ability toobserve galaxies billions of light years away.

Spokespersons for the scientific community have generally regarded claims that YEC has a scientific basis as being religiouslymotivated pseudoscience, because young Earth creationists only look for evidence to support their preexisting belief that theBible is a literal description of the development of the Universe. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5 percentof U.S. adults with professional degrees in science took a young Earth creationist view. In the aforementioned poll, 40 percent ofthe same group said they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this

Theological considerations

Scientific refutation

process, a view described as theistic evolution, while 55 percent held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which no God took partin this process.[119] Some scientists (such as Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder) who believe in creationism are known tosubscribe to other forms, such as old Earth creationism, which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions ofyears ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind.

Amish Mennonites[120][121]

Evangelical Lutheran Synod[122]

Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church[123]

Protestant Reformed Churches in America[124]

Seventh-day Adventist Church[125]

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod[126][127]

AntediluvianBiblical cosmologyBiblical literalismBiblical literalist chronologyChronology of the BibleChronology of the universeCosmogonyCosmological argumentCreator deityDating creation

Generations of NoahGeoscience Research InstituteHigher criticismHistory of creationismInternational Conference on CreationismTemplate:Human timelineTemplate:Nature timelineTheismYom

1. "The Age of the Earth – Creationism and a Young Earth: Professor Heaton" (http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/creationism_young_earth.html). apps.usd.edu. Retrieved 11 April 2019.

2. Numbers 2006, p. 8

3. Ruse, Michael (Winter 2018). Edward N. Zalta (ed.). "Creationism (First published Sat Aug 30, 2003; substantiverevision Fri Sep 21, 2018)" (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/creationism/). StanfordEncyclopedia of Philosophy (2018 ed.).

4. Scott, Eugenie Carol (with foreword by Niles Eldredge) (2004). Evolution vs. Creationism: an Introduction (https://books.google.com/books?id=03b_a0monNYC&pg=PR12#v=snippet&q=%22religious%20belief%22&f=false).Berkeley & Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. p. xii. ISBN 978-0-520-24650-8. Retrieved3 June 2014. "Creationism is about maintaining particular, narrow forms of religious belief – beliefs that seem totheir adherents to be threatened by the very idea of evolution."

5. James-Griffiths, P. "Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition" (http://creation.com/creation-days-and-orthodox-jewish-tradition). Creation. 26 (2): 53–55. Retrieved 3 July 2007.

6. Numbers 2006, pp. 10–11

7. Eugenie Scott (13 February 2018). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum" (https://ncse.com/library-resource/creationevolution-continuum). NCSE. Retrieved 24 April 2019.

8. McIver, Tom (Fall 1988). "Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism" (http://www.ncseprojects.org/cej/8/3/formless-void-gap-theory-creationism). Creation/Evolution. 8 (3): 1–24. "We can allow geology the amplest time . . .without infringing even on the literalities of the Mosaic record"

9. " "Scientific" Creationism as a Pseudoscience - NCSE" (http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/scientific-creationism-as-pseudoscience). 15 December 2008.

Adhering church bodies

See also

Notes

10. Trollinger, Susan L.; Trollinger, Jr., William Vance (2017). "Chapter 31:The Bible and Creationism" (https://books.google.com/books?id=23o7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA223). In Gutjahr, Paul (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of the Bible inAmerica. Oxford University Press. pp. 217ff. ISBN 9780190258856.

11. "IAP Statement on the teaching of evolution" (http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx) (PDF). theInteracademy Panel on international issues. 2006. Retrieved 23 December 2010.

12. Overton, William R. (5 January 1982). "McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html). McLean v. Arkansas. TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 10 May 2011.

13. Planck Collaboration (2016). "Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters (See Table 4 on page 31 ofpfd)". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 594: A13. arXiv:1502.01589 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01589).Bibcode:2016A&A...594A..13P (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..13P). doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 (https://doi.org/10.1051%2F0004-6361%2F201525830).

14. Bennett, C.L. (2013). "Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps andResults". The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series. 208 (2): 20. arXiv:1212.5225 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5225). Bibcode:2013ApJS..208...20B (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208...20B). doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20 (https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0067-0049%2F208%2F2%2F20).

15. "In US, Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low" (http://www.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx). Gallup. 22 May 2017.

16. Branch, Glenn (2017). "Understanding Gallup's Latest Poll on Evolution". Skeptical Inquirer. 41 (5): 5–6.

17. Cherry, S (2006). "Crisis management via Biblical Interpretation: Fundamentalism, Modern Orthodoxy, andGenesis". In Cantor, Geoffrey; Swetlitz, Marc (eds.). Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism. Universityof Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-09277-5.

18. "Bishop James Ussher Sets the Date for Creation: 23 October 4004 B.C." (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html) Law2.umkc.edu. Retrieved 19 September 2011.

19. William Hales New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, History and Prophecy, vol. 1, 1830, pp. 210–215.

20. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible, 1879, 8th Edition, 1939—entry under 'Creation', quotingWilliam Hales New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, History and Prophecy, Vol. 1, 1830, p. 210

21. Epoch of Creation according to various authorities in Pre-Adamites by Walter Winchell, 1880

22. "Philo's writings" (https://web.archive.org/web/20080529141839/http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/).Archived from the original (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/) on 29 May 2008. Retrieved19 September 2011.

23. Calvin, John (1554). Genesis (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-01/cvgn1-04.txt). ISBN 978-0-8204-3992-1. "I have said above, that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, towhom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us inthe consideration of his works."

24. Calvin, John (2001). Institutes of the Christian Religion (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-01/cvgn1-04.txt). ISBN 978-0-87552-182-4. Retrieved 17 December 2010. "Nor will they abstain from their jeers whentold that little more than five thousand years have elapsed since the creation of the world."

25. Luther, Martin (1958). Jaroslav Pelikan (ed.). Luther's Works vol. 1: Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1–5. FortressPress. "...the Decalog(Ex. 20:11) and the entire Scripture bear witness that in six days God made heaven andearth and everything in them. (pg. 6)"; "We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000years ago. (pg. 3)"

26. Young & Stearley 2008, pp. 44–46

27. Shakespeare's (1599) line given to Rosalind addressing Orlando in As you like it (IV, 1:90).

28. 'Theory of the Earth', a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society ofEdinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785; cited with approval in ArthurHolmes, Principles of Physical Geology, second edition, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pp. 43–44,1965.

29. James Hutton. "Theory of the Earth (1788 version)" (https://web.archive.org/web/20030729055405/http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Hutton/Hutton.htm). Archived from the original (http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/hutton/hutton.htm) on 29 July 2003. Retrieved 12 October 2011.

30. Dana, James Dwight (1856–1857). Science and the Bible, a review of and the six days of creation of Prof. LewisTaylor (http://www.farlang.com/gemstones/dana-science-bible/page_001). Bibl. Soc.

31. "Bible.org, Darwinism and New England Theology" (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2054#P52_10723).2004. Retrieved 8 July 2007.

32. The Great Devonian Controversy, Martin J. S. Rudwick, 1988, ISBN 0-226-73102-2, pp 42–44

33. McNatt, Jerrold L. (September 2004). "James Clerk Maxwell's Refusal to Join the Victoria Institute" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120707132916/http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2004/PSCF9-04McNatt.pdf) (PDF).Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 56 (3): 204–215. Archived from the original (http://www.asa3.org/asa/pscf/2004/PSCF9-04McNatt.pdf) (PDF) on 7 July 2012. Retrieved 8 November 2009.

34. Numbers 2006, pp. 97–100.

35. Numbers 2006, pp. 88–119

36. Marston, P & Forster, R (2001). Reason Science and Faith. Monarch Books. ISBN 978-1-57910-661-4.

37. Radiocarbon Dating and American Evangelical Christians (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Yang.html). Asa3.org. Retrieved 20 May 2012.

38. Whitcomb, JC (1960). The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. P&R Publishing.ISBN 978-0-87552-338-5

39. (Gilkey, 1998, p. 35; quotations from Henry Morris).

40. Myers, PZ (18 June 2006). "Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?" (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/18/ann-coulter-no-evidence-for-ev/). Pharyngula. scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 7 November 2015.

41. The National Science Teachers Association's position statement on the teaching of evolution. (http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20030419055650/http://www.nsta.org/159%26psid%3D10) 19 April 2003 at the Wayback Machine

42. IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx) Joint statementissued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDFfile)

43. From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society:2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf) (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml)

44. Almquist, Alan J.; Cronin, John E. (1988). "Fact, Fancy, and Myth on Human Evolution". Current Anthropology.29 (3): 520–522. doi:10.1086/203672 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F203672). JSTOR 2743476 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2743476).

45. As reported by Newsweek: "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 theorythat complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."Martz & McDaniel 1987, p. 23

46. Finding the Evolution in Medicine (http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm)Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20081122022815/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm) 22 November 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, 28 July 2006.

47. "Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation" (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm).

48. "Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution - NCSE" (http://ncse.com/rncse/17/6/many-scientists-see-gods-hand-evolution). 2 March 2016.

49. Isaak, Mark (2005). "CA325: Creationists publishing" (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA325.html).TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 10 May 2011.

50. Isaak, Mark (2004). "CA320: Scientists challenging established dogma" (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA320.html). TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 10 May 2011.

51. Philip Porvaznik. "Dialogue on Evolution versus Creationism" (http://www.catholicintl.com/scienceissues/dialogue-evolution1.htm). Catholic Apologetics International. Retrieved 10 October 2007.

52. Michael Le Page (19 April 2008). "Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution" (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826523.000-evolution-myths-it-doesnt-matter-if-people-dont-grasp-evolution.html).New Scientist. 198 (2652): 31. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0262-4079%2808%2960984-7).

53. Jeff Hecht (19 August 2006). "Why doesn't America believe in evolution?" (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9786-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolution.html). New Scientist. 191 (2565): 11. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0262-4079%2806%2960136-X).

54. Newport, Frank (1 June 2012). "In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins" (http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx). Gallup.

55. Bishop, George F; Thomas, Randall; Wood, Jason A; Gwon, Misook (2010). "Americans' Scientific Knowledgeand Beliefs about Human Evolution in the Year of Darwin" (http://ncse.com/rncse/30/3/americans-scientific-knowledge-beliefs-human-evolution-year-). National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 6 September 2014.

56. Jones, Jeffrey M. (8 July 2011). "In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally" (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx). Gallup.

57. "What Kind of Creationism?" (http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/earthhistory/creawhat.html). AddressingCreationism.

58. Numbers 2006, pp. 219

59. Numbers 2006, pp. 58

60. Morris, HM (2000). "The Origin and History of the Earth" (https://books.google.com/books?id=wcNY44euja0C&pg=PT25#v=onepage&q=origin%20of%20the%20earth&f=false). The Long War Against God: The History andImpact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict. Master Books. ISBN 978-0-89051-291-3.

61. Morris, HM (2000). Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches About Creation & the Flood.Master Books. ISBN 978-0-89051-293-7.

62. John Baumgardner (2002), "Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood" (http://creation.com/catastrophic-plate-tectonics-the-geophysical-context-of-the-genesis-flood), Journal of Creation

63. Answers In Genesis, Noah's Flood - Where did the water come from? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/flood-waters.asp)

64. "Claim CD010: Radiometric dating gives unreliable results" (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html).TalkOrigins Archive. 18 February 2001. Retrieved 28 September 2010.

65. "Claim CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates" (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html).TalkOrigins. 4 June 2003. Retrieved 28 September 2010.

66. "Oklo: Natural Nuclear Reactors" (https://web.archive.org/web/20091114215053/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml). U.S. Department of Energy. November 2004. Archived from the original (http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml) on 14 November 2009. Retrieved 28 September 2010.

67. Henke, K. R. (24 November 2005). "Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates" Fallacies Based on BadAssumptions and Questionable Data" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html). TalkOrigins. Retrieved28 September 2010.

68. Meert, J. G. (6 February 2003). "R.A.T.E: More Faulty Creation Science from The Institute for Creation Research"(http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm). Gondwana Research. Retrieved 28 September 2010.

69. Wiens, R. C. (2002). "Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective" (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2020). American Scientific Affiliation. Retrieved 28 September 2010.

70. Isaac, Randy (June 2007). "Assessing the RATE project" (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm).American Scientific Affiliation. Retrieved 24 September 2015.

71. Ken Ham, Don Batten & Carl Wieland, One Blood (https://web.archive.org/web/20090422012019/http://creation.com/one-blood-chapter-1-cain-s-wife), Creation Ministries International, archived from the original (http://creation.com/one-blood-chapter-1-cain-s-wife) on 22 April 2009, retrieved 15 April 2014

72. Harold Hunt with Russell Grigg (1998), The sixteen grandsons of Noah (http://creation.com/the-sixteen-grandsons-of-noah)

73. Pennock, Robert T. (2000). Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism (https://books.google.com/?id=aC1OccYnX0sC&dq=Tower+of+Babel:+The+Evidence+Against+the+New+Creationism). Bradford Books.ISBN 9780262661652.

74. Numbers (2006) pages=79–81

75. "Evolution Resources from the National Academies" (http://www.nas.edu/evolution/CreationistPerspective.html).

76. Numbers (2006) pages=202–203

77. Powell, Michael (25 September 2005). "In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401262.html). The Washington Post.

78. "Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark: US museum" (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/05/27/1934224.htm).ABC News (Australia). 26 May 2007. Retrieved 6 November 2007.

79. Powers, Ashley. Los Angeles Times, 27 August 2005. "Adam, Eve and T. Rex: Giant roadside dinosaurattractions are used by a new breed of creationists as pulpits to spread their version of Earth's origins." Page 1,(http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/27/local/me-dinosaurs27)page 2, (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/27/local/me-dinosaurs27?pg=2)page 3, (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/27/local/me-dinosaurs27?pg=3)page 4,(http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/27/local/me-dinosaurs27?pg=4)page 5. (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/27/local/me-dinosaurs27?pg=5) Retrieved on 29 December 2009.

80. "Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, Texas" (http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/8196), RoadsideAmerica. "Creationism Alive and Kicking in Glen Rose" (http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A283058), by Greg Beets, 5 August 2005, Austin Chronicle. Retrieved 16 July 2013.

81. "Dinosaurs and the Bible" (http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml). Clarifying Christianity'. 2005.Retrieved 14 March 2007.

82. Bright, Michael (2006). Beasts of the Field: The Revealing Natural History of Animals in the Bible. London:Robson. pp. 26–27. ISBN 978-1-86105-831-7.

83. "CH711: Behemoth a Dinosaur" (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH711.html). Retrieved 13 September2007.

84. Pennock, Robert T. (2000). Tower of Babel: the evidence against the new creationism. Cambridge, Mass: MITPress. ISBN 978-0-262-66165-2.

85. "Claim CH711.1: Leviathan as a dinosaur" (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH711_1.html). TalkOriginsArchive. Retrieved 3 June 2014.

86. Hill, Sharon A. 2017. Scientifical Americans: The Culture of Amateur Paranormal Researchers, pp. 66.McFarland. ISBN 9781476630823

87. Card, Jeb J. 2016. "Steampunk Inquiry: A Comparative Vivisection of Discovery Pseudoscience" in Card, Jeb J.and Anderson, David S. Lost City, Found Pyramid: Understanding Alternative Archaeologies andPseudoscientific Practices, p. 32. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 9780817319113

88. Driver, Rebecca. "Australia's Aborigines ... did they see dinosaurs?" (http://creation.com/australias-aborigines-did-they-see-dinosaurs). Creation. 21 (1). Retrieved 14 March 2007.

89. "Talk Origins Archive – Claim CH210: Age of the Earth" (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html). 2October 2004. Retrieved 11 April 2011.

90. "Talk Origins Archive – Claim CH200: Age of the Universe" (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH200.html).24 February 2005. Retrieved 11 April 2011.

91. "Talk Origins Archive – Claim CH200: Age of the Universe" (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html).13 June 2003. Retrieved 11 April 2011. "...there is an approximately sixty-four-million-year gap in the fossil recordwhen there are neither dinosaur nor human fossils."

92. Numbers 2006, p. 237

93. Schadewald RJ (24 November 2008). "Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists can't answer" (http://ncse.com/cej/3/3/six-flood-arguments-creationists-cant-answer). National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 24 April 2010.

94. Russell Grigg. "How long were the days of Genesis 1?" (http://creation.com/how-long-were-the-days-of-genesis-1). Creation. 19 (1): 23–25.

95. Whitefield, Rodney (12 June 2006). "The Hebrew Word "Yom" Used with a Number in Genesis 1" (http://godandscience.org/youngearth/yom_with_number.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 24 September 2015.

96. Ross, Hugh (1 February 2005). "Creation update #259" (http://www.reasons.org/cu-archives/cu-outline-2005)(Interview). Retrieved 24 September 2015.

97. Henry M. Morris (December 1987). "The gap theory – an idea with holes?" (http://creation.com/the-gap-theory-an-idea-with-holes). Creation. 10 (1): 35–37. Retrieved 14 February 2007.

98. Don Batten (June 2004). " 'Soft' gap sophistry" (http://creation.com/soft-gap-sophistry). Creation. 26 (3): 44–47.Retrieved 14 February 2007.

99. Apologetics Press – Apparent Age (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1674). Apologeticspress.org.Retrieved 20 May 2012.

100. The Apparent Age Argument (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/apparent_age.html). Don-lindsay-archive.org (2 January 1999). Retrieved 20 May 2012.

101. Appearance of Age – theology overview & web-links (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/aa.htm).Asa3.org. Retrieved 20 May 2012.

102. Parker, Gary. (1996-06-01) Did Adam have a belly-button? (http://creation.com/did-adam-have-a-belly-button).Creation 18:3 p6. Retrieved 20 May 2012.

103. "Foundational Principles" (http://www.icr.org/tenets/). Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved 2 May 2014.

104. [none] (1998). "Amazing admission" (http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote). Creation. 20 (3):24.

105. See references and further information given at Objections to evolution, Atheism for support of this paragraph.

106. Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html). Talkorigins.org. Retrieved 20 May 2012.

107. Robert Larmer. "Is there anything wrong with "God of the gaps" reasoning?" (https://web.archive.org/web/20071024045851/http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm). Archived from the original (http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm) on 24 October 2007. Retrieved 26 June 2009.

108. "TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy" (http://www.talkorigins.org).

109. Olson, Roger E. (2004). The Westminster handbook to evangelical theology (https://books.google.com/?id=MBtFlW8vxuwC&pg=PA166#v=onepage&q=theologians%2C%20%22literal%20interpretation%22%2C%20genesis&f=false) (First ed.). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 166. ISBN 978-0-664-22464-6.

110. Cf. Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2002) [2001]. "Introduction: Archaeology and the Bible" (https://books.google.com/books?id=lu6ywyJr0CMC&pg=PA11). The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology's New Vision of AncientIsrael and The Origin of Its Sacred Texts (https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869128) (First Touchstone Edition 2002 ed.). New York: Touchstone. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-684-86913-1."The first question was whether Moses could really have been the author of the Five Books of Moses, since thelast book, Deuteronomy, described in great detail the precise time and circumstances of Moses' own death. Otherincongruities soon became apparent: the biblical text was filled with literary asides, explaining the ancient namesof certain places and frequently noting that the evidences of famous biblical events were still visible "to this day."These factors convinced some seventeenth century scholars that the Bible's first five books, at least, had beenshaped, expanded, and embellished by later, anonymous editors and revisers over the centuries. By the late eighteenth century and even more so in the nineteenth, many critical biblical scholars had begun todoubt that Moses had any hand in the writing of the Bible whatsoever; they had come to believe that the Biblewas the work of later writers exclusively. These scholars pointed to what appeared to be different versions of thesame stories within the books of the Pentateuch, suggesting that the biblical text was the product of severalrecognizable hands. A careful reading of the book of Genesis, for example, revealed two conflicting versions ofthe creation (1:1–2:3 and 2:4–25), two quite different genealogies of Adam's offspring (4:17–26 and 5:1–28), andtwo spliced and rearranged flood stories (6:5–9:17). In addition, there were dozens more doublets andsometimes even triplets of the same events in the narratives of the wanderings of the patriarchs, the Exodus fromEgypt, and the giving of the Law."

111. Hyers, Conrad (25 September 2003). "Comparing Biblical and Scientific Maps of Origin" (https://books.google.com/books?id=-5utmq5m7TAC&pg=PA22). In Miller, Keith B. (ed.). Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. Wm. B.Eerdmans Publishing. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-8028-0512-6.

Numbers, Ronald (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (https://books.google.com/?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&pg=PA578#v=onepage&q&f=false). Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-02339-0.

Young, Davis A.; Stearley, Ralph F. (2008). The Bible, Rocks, and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of theEarth (https://books.google.com/books?id=TRKtFWlSrRsC). Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic. ISBN 978-0-8308-2876-0.

National Center for Science Education. Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism (http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism)Berg, Randy S. "References for the Age of the Earth" (http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/age%20of%20earth%20references.htm). Retrieved 25 November 2011.

112. "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed." —Genesis 2:8 KJV "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed." —Genesis 2:8 (https://www.biblica.com/bible/?osis=niv:Genesis.2:8–2:8) NIV

113. Bishops' Conference of England and Wales (2005). The Gift of Scripture (http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Scripture/GoS.pdf) (PDF). Catholic Truth Society. ISBN 978-1-86082-323-7. Retrieved 13 January 2011.

114. Gledhill, Ruth (5 October 2005). "Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible" (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html). The Times. London.

115. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 May 2017. <http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm>.

116. Jonathan Sarfati. "But Genesis is not a science textbook" (http://creation.com/but-genesis-is-not-a-science-textbook). Creation. 26 (4): 6.

117. Leeming, D.A.; Leeming, M.A. (1996). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. Oxford Paperbacks. ISBN 978-0-19-510275-8.

118. Johnston, Ian (May 2000). ". . . And Still We Evolve: A Handbook on the History of Modern Science" (http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect2.htm). Vancouver Island University. Retrieved 2 June 2014.

119. "Gallup Poll 1997" (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm).

120. "Susan Trollinger — Amish Studies" (http://groups.etown.edu/amishstudies/experts/susan-trollinger/).Elizabethtown College Groups. 19 August 2015. Retrieved 29 July 2018.

121. "Creation Science Resources: Church Denominations and Old-Earth Belief" (http://www.oldearth.org/denominationlistcd.htm). Old Earth Ministries. Retrieved 29 July 2018.

122. "We Believe, Teach and Confess" (http://els.org/beliefs/we-believe-teach-and-confess/). els.org.

123. "Constitutional Documents of The Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church, Article of Alliance, AffirmationsNo. 13" (https://web.archive.org/web/20110726034858/http://www.erpchurch.org/files/ConsitutionalDocuments.pdf) (PDF). erpchurch.org. 2011. p. 3. Archived from the original (http://www.erpchurch.org/files/ConsitutionalDocuments.pdf) (PDF) on 26 July 2011. Retrieved 14 October 2011.

124. Dykstra, Brian. "Considering God's Wisdom and Understanding" (http://www.cprf.co.uk/audio/bulletin/dec2307.htm#Godswisdom). Covenant Protestant Reformed Church. Retrieved 28 September 2016. "Proverbs 3:19 speaksof God’s wisdom founding the earth and His understanding establishing the heavens, not His patience overbillions of years as He directed slow changes in the works of His hands."

125. "The Official Site of the Seventh-day Adventist world church, Fundamental Beliefs" (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). adventist.org. 2011. Retrieved 14 October 2011.

126. "Questions Listed Under Creation" (http://www.wels.net/what-we-believe/questions-answers/creation). wels.net.

127. "Questions Listed Under Creation" (http://www.wels.net/what-we-believe/questions-answers/creation?page=1).wels.net.

References

External links

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/17/evolution-versus-creationism-sciencehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/25/teach-evolution-creationism-britonshttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4410927/Poll-reveals-public-doubts-over-Charles-Darwins-theory-of-evolution.html

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&oldid=905588276"

This page was last edited on 10 July 2019, at 02:03 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By usingthis site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the WikimediaFoundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Creationist cosmologiesCreationist cosmologies are explanations of the origins and form of the universe in terms of the Genesis creation narrative(Genesis 1), according to which God created the cosmos in eight creative acts over the Hexameron, six days of the "creationweek":[1]

Day 1: Creation of light, separation of light from darkness;Day 2: Creation of the firmament, separation of waters above the Earth from waters below;Day 3: Separation of waters below the firmament from the dry land; the Earth is commanded to producevegetation;Day 4: Creation of "lights" (Sun, Moon and stars) in the firmament;Day 5: Creation of fish and birds to populate the sea and sky;Day 6: Creation of animals (followed by) creation of mankind.

Young Earth creationists interpret the six days as six 24-hour periods; old Earth creationists allow for millions or even billions ofyears within the "creation week". Both regard the Genesis story as history, although some old earth creationists do not conflatethe creation of the Earth and the universe, (i.e. they hold that the two are equally old and were created together).

Basis of creationist cosmology

Age of the Earth

Origin (cause) of the universe

Form

Purpose: the universe and God

Creationist cosmology and scienceStarlight problemStellar evolution

See also

References

Bibliography

Further reading

External links

Cosmology is the study of the origin, evolution and ultimate fate of the universe.[2] Scientific cosmology uses the scientificmethod, which means forming theories or hypotheses which make specific predictions that can be tested with observations;depending on the outcome of the observations, the theories will be abandoned, revised or extended to accommodate the data.[3]

The scientific model of the origin and evolution of our universe is the Big Bang.[3] The Bang was not like a conventionalexplosion, in which fragments of a bomb are thrown outwards, but rather was an explosion of space within itself; all the matterand energy of the universe had been contained in a single point, and at the Bang all of the particles of the embryonic universebegan rushing away from each other.[4] The "bang" occurred approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus the age of theuniverse.[5]

Contents

Basis of creationist cosmology

Creationism is premised on belief in the inerrancy of a literal interpretation of the bible.[6] According to prominent young Earthadvocate Ken Ham, president of creationary ministry Answers in Genesis, their interpretation of the Book of Genesis cannot bequestioned, lest the entire bible be compromised: "Refute or undermine in any way the biblical doctrine of origins, and the rest ofthe bible is compromised."[7] Ham continues: "Genesis is the only book that provides an account of the origins of all the basicentities of life and the universe: the origin of life, of man, of government, of marriage, of culture, of nations, of death, of thechosen people, of sin, of diet and clothes, of the solar system..."[8] The first chapter of Genesis describes God creating the worldthrough divine command over six days:[1]

Day 1: Creation of light, separation of light from darkness;Day 2: Creation of the firmament, separation of waters above the Earth from waters below;Day 3: Separation of waters below the firmament from the dry land; the Earth is commanded to producevegetation;Day 4: Creation of "lights" (Sun, Moon and stars) in the firmament;Day 5: Creation of fish and birds to populate the sea and sky;Day 6: Creation of animals (followed by) creation of mankind.

The age of the Earth is one of the most polarizing issues within the evangelical Christian community today.[9] Young Earthcreationists hold that the world is no older than about 10,000 years – a belief apparently shared by 47% of Americans and taughtin 10% of American colleges.[10] This is based on the comprehensive Biblical chronology built into the Old Testament, ratherthan on the six days of creation (the belief that creation took place over six days does not automatically lead to a 10,000-year-oldEarth). The creationist website Answers in Genesis, for example, has an outline of world history from an Old Testamentperspective in which the period from Abraham to Jesus is listed as "approximately 1992 years"; this period, plus the 2,000 yearsfrom Christ to the modern day, "is not in question," and the debate focuses on the centuries-long lifespans of Methusaleh andother figures from Genesis 1-11.[11] This approach has a deep history in Christian thought: prior to the mid-18th century, the ageof the Earth was calculated partly or wholly on the basis of the bible and religious theory.[12] Using these methods, the 17thcentury scholar Archbishop Ussher arrived at the conclusion that the Earth was created in 4004 BC, exactly four thousand yearsbefore the birth of Christ, giving the universe an age of some six thousand years.[13] Ussher's date was still being printed as amarginal note in many bibles until the early part of the 20th century.[13]

Old Earth creationists accept that the Earth is old, while (mostly) still holding the events of Genesis 1 to be historical.[14] In thelate 19th century Christian apologists accommodated the Biblical creation within emerging scientific geology and paleontology(the study of fossils) by interpreting vast ages for Earth history within immensely long biblical "days" (day-age creationism). It isimplausible that the authors of Genesis intended the "creation week" to be understood in this way: the "days" are parts of a week,"evening" and "morning" are emphasised, and in any case the order of events conflicts with science, having trees appearingbefore marine creatures and the first morning and evening before the sun and moon are created.[15]) Modern Old Earthcreationism recognises that a 6,000-year-old universe contradicts the scientific evidence that the Earth is four and a half billionyears old,[16] and favours separating Genesis into two creations, one "in the beginning" and a second Edenic creation in sixdays.[17]

Space and time (spacetime) are properties of the universe, so that to talk about a time before the universe began "would be likeasking for a point south of the South Pole" (Stephen Hawking).[18] Creationist cosmology, however, holds that the cause of theuniverse does lie outside time and space: a 1981 law from the US state of Arkansas setting out six cardinal tenets of "creationscience", described the first as the principle that the universe, energy and life were the result of "sudden creation ... from

Age of the Earth

Origin (cause) of the universe

nothing."[19] The idea that God created the world "out of nothing" has been a fundamental tenet of Christian theology since the2nd century,[20] but scholars agree that the idea is not actually in Genesis, nor in the entire Hebrew Bible, and is found no earlierthan later Judaism.[21][22]

The biblical cosmology is that of the ancient Near East: a flat Earth, heavens above, and the underworld below.[23] Surroundingthis were the "waters of chaos", the cosmic sea, home to mythic monsters defeated and slain by God (Exodus 20:4 warns againstmaking an image "of anything that is in the waters under the Earth").[24] There were waters above the Earth, and so the solidbowl-shaped firmament of the second day was necessary to keep them from flooding the world.[25] Young Earth creationists denythis, and hold that the Bible describes a spherical Earth hanging in empty space,[26] and most teach that the Earth goes round thesun (although the Association for Biblical Astronomy holds that the Earth is stationary and the sun moves around it). This is thestandard modern scientific picture of the cosmos, but its elements are comparatively recent – the fact that the Earth circles thesun, for example, was only established in the 16th century, and the existence of separate galaxies not bound to our own wasconfirmed only in the 1920s.[27] Creationist cosmologies thus credit the biblical authors with cosmological knowledge well inadvance of their contemporaries in the ancient world.

The universe has no edge; it is not known whether it is finite or infinite, but we can only observe a finite amount of it (theobservable universe).[28] It has no centre: the Big Bang should not be visualised as an explosion outwards from a central point,but as an equal expansion at all points within itself.[29] This expansion still continues: a useful analogy for the shape of theuniverse is therefore the surface of an expanding balloon, on which every point is moving away from every other point (butbearing in mind that the universe has at least three dimensions, while the skin of the balloon has only two).[29] Creationistcosmologies have no single position on these questions, but there seems to be a bias towards a universe which is curved ratherthan flat, bounded rather than unbounded, and finite rather than infinite. Most strikingly, there seems to be a common hypothesisthat the universe has a centre and the Earth is at or near it (Galactocentrism): "A creationist cosmology requires a finite universethat is most likely spherically symmetric about our galaxy ."[30]

Creationist Jonathan Sarfati describes God as "by definition ... the uncreated creator of the universe" (italics in original).[31] Theexistence of the universe thereby serves as proof of the existence of God, expressed by theologian William Lane Craig as thekalam cosmological argument: "Given ... that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we have been led to concludethat the universe has a cause of its existence. ... [T]his cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, andimmaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore ... I concludethat it is rational to believe that God exists."[32] The demonstrated existence of God in turn leads into God's purpose in creatingthe cosmos, which is mankind: "The observations that place the Earth near the centre of the universe are consistent with God’sfocus on mankind."[30]

For many centuries, the geocentric model, a description of the cosmos which posited Earth as the center of all celestial bodies,was widely accepted by a variety of different civilizations. The geocentric model was developed primarily by Greek philosopherAristotle and Greco-Egyptian astronomer Ptolemy.[33] The geocentric model was challenged by clergyman astronomer andmathematician Nicolaus Copernicus in his book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium published in 1543.[34] Copernicus'astronomical model Copernican heliocentrism, led to the development and general acceptance of the Copernican principle in themajority of succeeding astronomical models. The case for the Copernicus principle was further bolstered early in the 20thcentury, by the discovery that the Solar System is far from the center of the Milky Way.[35]

Form

Purpose: the universe and God

Creationist cosmology and science

The young Earth creationist website Answers in Genesis dismisses the Big Bang as "entirely fiction",[36] "nothing more than anattempt by men ... to try and explain how they think we might have been created without a Creator."[37]

One of the most common creationist criticisms of the Big Bang concerns the horizon problem and supposed problems with theinflationary theory of the early universe.[38] Creationists have claimed that dark matter and dark energy are doubtful conceptsinvented by Big Bang theorists in order to uphold the theory.[39][40][41][42] Creationists also point to the Baryon asymmetryproblem, i.e., that the Big Bang is expected to have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter.[43]

One of the largest problems facing the young Earth creationist theory is the starlight problem, which runs as follows: (1) there aregalaxies billions of light-years from Earth, meaning it would take light from their stars billions of years to reach us; (2) we cansee these galaxies, so their starlight has already arrived; (3) therefore the universe must be billions of years old.[44] Alternativeexplanations are advanced by young Earth supporters. One is that God created starlight when he created the universe six thousandyears ago and the age of distant starlight is skewed because the Bible refers to God stretching the universe (e.g. Isaiah 51:13).Those who do not accept the biblical explanation of God stretching the universe consider the age of distant starlight as deceptiveand the explanation is not entirely satisfactory, as the first implies a God who deceives.[44] A second, posed by Barry Setterfield,states that the speed of light was faster in the past than it is now (the theory is called C-decay, from the cosmological symbol Crepresenting the speed of light).[44] Setterfield's theory, however, would produce consequences which have not been observed,[44]

and has been refuted by other creationists such as Russell Humphreys.[45]

In standard Big Bang cosmology, the universe has no center and no edge.[46] A third idea for potentially solving the distantstarlight problem, put forward by Russell Humphreys in 1994 and refined by others since, sets this assumption aside and proposesthat the Earth is located near the center of a finite and bounded (i.e. spherical) universe. Time dilation would have allowedbillions of years of time to elapse at the edge of the universe in its own reference frame, while only a few days passed on Earth.Humphreys also finds a place for the "waters above (and below) the Earth," locating them at the edge ("above") and the centre("below") of the universe.[47][48]

Russell Humphreys and John Hartnett have both been criticized by members of their own ranks, to which both have submittedrebuttals. In his remarks, Hartnett says he is "under no illusion" and is well aware that his cosmology uses an "unknown" (namely,the introduction of a fifth spacetime dimension) to help solve another "unknown" – dark matter. When challenged about apossible horizon problem in his model, Hartnett deferred to an inability to understand the problem posed by his critic and did notoblige an answer.[49] Humphreys' critic pointed out that the well-known equation for gravitational redshift/blueshift maycountermand his model's efforts to achieve today’s observed redshift from cosmic sources, to which Humphreys countered byterming the gravitational redshift equation a "flawed equation" and became dismissive in his remarks about any potentialapplicability to his model.[50] Since Humphreys relies heavily on the anomalous sunward acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft tounderscore a fundamental component of his cosmology, his critic was obliged to cite the findings of researchers from the JetPropulsion Laboratory in California who attributed the apparent anomaly to the thermal recoil force acting on the spacecraft.[51]

In response, Humphreys adopted a wait-and-see attitude.[50]

Young Earth creationists typically reject standard accounts of stellar evolution and observational evidence of recent starformation.[52] In particular, creationists dispute the widely accepted nebular hypothesis for star formation.[53][54][55]

AstronomyAstrophysics

Starlight problem

Stellar evolution

See also

Biblical inerrancyFlood geologyIntelligent designHuman timelineLife timelineOmphalos hypothesis

1. Hendel 2012, p. 35-37.

2. Wollack 2010, p. Cosmology

3. Wollack 2010, p. Cosmology.

4. LaRocco & Rothstein, p. The Big Bang.

5. Wollack 2010, p. Age.

6. Rosenhouse 2012, p. 34

7. Rosenhouse 2012, p. 35

8. Rosenhouse 2012, p. 35.

9. Greene 2012, p. A Biblical Case for Old-Earth Creationism.

10. Gebel 2008, p. 9.

11. McGee 2012, p. Creation Date of Adam from the Perspective of Young-Earth Creationism.

12. Dalrymple 1994, p. 1.

13. Dalrymple 1994, p. 23.

14. Rosenhouse 2012, p. 165.

15. Wilkinson 2009, p. 136.

16. Dalrymple 2004, p. 1-2.

17. Numbers 1992, p. x.

18. Hawking 2010, p. The Origin of the Universe.

19. Numbers 2006, p. 272.

20. May 2004, p. 179.

21. Nebe 2002, p. 119.

22. Walton 2006, p. 183.

23. Aune 2003, p. 119.

24. Wright 2002, p. 53.

25. Ryken 1998, p. 170.

26. Schneider 2001, p. Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth?.

27. Harrison 2000, p. 67-71.

28. Castelvecchi 2011, p. What Do You Mean, The Universe Is Flat?, Part 1.

29. Gibbs 1997, p. Where is the centre of the universe?.

30. Hartnett, p. A creationist cosmology in a galactocentric universe.

31. Sarfati, & If God created the universe, then who created God?.

32. Craig, & The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe.

33. Lawson, Russell (2004). Science in the Ancient World: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 29–30.ISBN 1851095349.

34. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1985). The Copernican Revolution—Planetary Astronomy in the Development of WesternThought. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674171039.

35. "Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial" (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm).

36. Lisle 2010, p. Chapter 10: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?.

References

Aune, David E. (2003). "Cosmology". Westminster Dictionary of the New Testament and Early ChristianLiterature (https://books.google.com/?id=nhhdJ-fkywYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dictionary+New+Testament#v=onepage&q=cosmology&f=false). Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 9780664219178.

37. Berg, 2013 & The Big Bang and the Age of the Earth.

38. Lisle, Jason (1 September 2003). "Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp). Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2010-03-30. ("Robert Newton" is a pseudonym"Dr Jason Lisle, Ph.D. Creationist Astrophysicist Institute for Creation Research (ICR), USA Biography" (http://creation.com/dr-jason-lisle). Creation Ministries International. Retrieved 2013-08-07.

39. Hartnett, John (8 September 2006). "Has 'dark matter' really been proven?" (http://creation.com/has-dark-matter-really-been-proven). Creation Ministries International.

40. Oard, Michael (1 April 1995). "Astronomical problems" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/astronomy.asp).Answers in Genesis.

41. Gitt, Werner (1 June 1998). "What about the big bang?" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n3/big-bang). Answers in Genesis.

42. Oard, Michael; Sarfati, Jonathan (April 1999). "No dark matter found in the Milky Way Galaxy" (http://creation.com/no-dark-matter-found-in-the-milky-way-galaxy). Journal of Creation. 13 (1).

43. Oard, Michael (1 December 1998). "Missing antimatter challenges the 'big bang' theory" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/antimatter.asp). Answers in Genesis.

44. Lisle, 2007 & Does distant starlight...

45. Humphreys, Russell (1996). Starlight & Time. Master Books. p. 28. ISBN 0890512027.

46. "Cosmology FAQ: Where is center of the Big Bang?" (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html).

47. Williams & Hartnett 2005, p. unpaginated.

48. Williams, Alex; Hartnett, John (2005). Dismantling the Big Bang: God's Universe Rediscovered (https://books.google.com/books?id=EvN9Gfbox74C). New Leaf Publishing Group. p. 178. ISBN 978-0-89051-437-5.

49. Letter to the editor (April 2013). "Starlight, time and the new physics" (http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-271).Journal of Creation. 27 (1).

50. Letter to the editor (August 2013). "Russell Humphreys' cosmology" (http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-272).Journal of Creation. 27 (2).

51. Turyshev, S. G.; Toth, V. T.; Kinsella, G; Lee, S. C.; Lok, S. M.; Ellis, J (June 2012). "Support for the ThermalOrigin of the Pioneer Anomaly" (http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.241101). Physical ReviewLetters. 108 (241101): 241101. arXiv:1204.2507 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507).Bibcode:2012PhRvL.108x1101T (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvL.108x1101T).doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.241101 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevLett.108.241101). PMID 23004253 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23004253).

52. Spencer, Wayne (19 November 2008). "Star Formation and Creation" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/star-formation-and-creation). Answers in Genesis.

53. Lisle, Jason (18 September 2007). "The Stars of Heaven Confirm Biblical Creation" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/stars-of-heaven-confirm). Answers in Genesis.

54. Parsons, T.; Mackay, J. (1 August 1980). "Pièrre Simon Laplace: The nebular hypothesis" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i3/ideas.asp). Answers in Genesis.

55. Spencer, Wayne R. (1 April 2001). "The existence and origin of extrasolar planets" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/extrasolar.asp). Answers in Genesis. "Though a great deal of theoretical work has been done andmuch observational data is available on our solar system, weaknesses remain in planetary origins theories thatexclude any supernatural creation. Certain difficulties encountered in such research for the planets in our solarsystem would also apply to any planet in any other solar system. Many mathematical models and computersimulations have been done that attempt to work out portions of the planet formation process, but the entireprocess cannot be modeled and many aspects of the theory cannot be tested experimentally."

Bibliography

Bandstra, Barry (2008). Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (https://books.google.com/?id=vRY9mTUZKJcC&pg=PA26&dq=the+Priestly+source#v=onepage&q&f=false). Cengage Learning.ISBN 0495391050.Castelvecchi, Davide (July 25, 2011). "What Do You Mean, The Universe Is Flat?, Part 1" (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/degrees-of-freedom/2011/07/25/what-do-you-mean-the-universe-is-flat-part-i/). Degrees ofFreedom: The boundless dimensions of math and physics. Scientific American.Craig, William Lane (1991). "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe" (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html/). LeadershipU.Dalrymple, G. Brent (2004). Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of Earth and Its Cosmic Surroundings (https://books.google.com/?id=TNxo_TDGpH0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ancient+Earth,+Ancient+Skies:+The+Age+of+Earth+and+Its+Cosmic+Surroundings#v=onepage&q=Ancient%20Earth%2C%20Ancient%20Skies%3A%20The%20Age%20of%20Earth%20and%20Its%20Cosmic%20Surroundings&f=false). Stanford University Press.ISBN 9780804749336.Dalrymple, G. Brent (1994). The Age of the Earth (https://books.google.com/?id=a7S3zaLBrkgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false). Stanford University Press. ISBN 9780804723312.Enns, Peter (January 14, 2010). "The Firmament of Genesis 1 is Solid but That's Not the Point" (http://biologos.org/blog/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-thats-not-the-point). Biologos.Gebel, Oliver (2008). Creationism and Intelligent Design (https://books.google.com/?id=segJQbCfOgUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Creationism+and+Intelligent+Design). GRIN. ISBN 9783640117277.Gibbs, Philip (1997). "Where is the centre of the universe?" (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html). University of California at Riverside.Greene, Brian (2011). The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the UltimateTheory. Random House. ISBN 9781446477779.Greene, Jon W. (2 August 2012). "A Biblical Case for Old-Earth Creationism" (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/old_earth_creationism.html). Evidence for God.Harris, J.F. (2002). Analytic philosophy of religion (https://books.google.com/books?id=Rx2Qf9ieFKYC&pg=PA128). Springer. ISBN 9781402005305.Harrison, Peter (2010). The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (https://books.google.com/?id=0mSCHC0QMUgC&pg=PA9). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521712514.Hartnett, John (2005). "A creationist cosmology in a galactocentric universe" (http://creation.com/galactocentric-cosmology). Creation Ministries International.Hawking, Stephen (10 December 2010). "The Origin of the Universe" (http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html/).Hendel, Ronald (2012). The Book of Genesis: A Biography (https://books.google.com/?id=xBPpIHwcZMUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Book+of+Genesis:+A+Biography). Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691140124.Hughes, Jeremy (1990). Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology (https://books.google.com/?id=vPg2cvQLwHAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Secrets+of+the+Times:+Myth+and+History+in+Biblical+Chronology#v=onepage&q=Secrets%20of%20the%20Times%3A%20Myth%20and%20History%20in%20Biblical%20Chronology&f=false). Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 9780567629302.Johnson, Gaines. "Contrasting The Major Creation Models: Logical Faults and Strengths" (https://web.archive.org/web/20130115201632/http://www.kjvbible.org/major_models.html). The Bible: Genesis and Geology.kjvbible.org. Archived from the original (http://www.kjvbible.org/major_models.html) on 2013-01-15.LaRocco, Chris; Rothstein, Blair. "The Big Bang" (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm). Universe 101: BigBang Theory. University of Michigan.Lisle, Jason (December 13, 2007). "Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove). The New Answers Book. Answers in Genesis.Lisle, Jason (April 15, 2010). "Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/does-big-bang-fit-with-bible). The New Answers Book 2. Answers in Genesis.McGee, David (2012). "Creation Date of Adam from the Perspective of Young-Earth Creationism" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v5/n1/age-of-adam). Universe 101: Big Bang Theory. Answers in Genesis.North, John (2008). Cosmos: An Illustrated History of Astronomy and Cosmology (https://books.google.com/?id=qq8Luhs7rTUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Cosmos:+An+Illustrated+History+of+Astronomy+and+Cosmology).University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226594415.Numbers, Ronald L. (1992). The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (https://books.google.com/?id=aDmZ5_iUixgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Creationists#v=onepage&q=The%20Creationists&f=false).University of California Press. ISBN 9780520083936.Numbers, Ronald L. (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (https://books.google.com/?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false). University of California Press.ISBN 9780674023390.

Pennock, Robert T. (February 28, 2000). Tower of Babel, The Evidence against the New Creationism. The MITPress. pp. 451 pages. ISBN 0-262-66111-X.Rosenhouse, Jason (2012). Among the Creationists: Dispatches from the Anti-Evolutionist Front Line (https://books.google.com/?id=Izs3Ix-tTs8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Among+the+Creationists:+Dispatches+from+the+Anti-Evolutionist+Front+Line). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199744633.Ryken, Leland; Wilhoit, Jim; Longman, Tremper, eds. (1998). "Cosmology". Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (https://books.google.com/?id=qjEYEjVVEosC&pg=PA172&dq=biblical+firmament#v=onepage&q=biblical%20firmament&f=false). InterVarsity Press. ISBN 9780830867332.Safarti, Jonathan. "If God created the universe, then who created God?" (http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god/).Schadewald, Robert J. (2008). Worlds of Their Own: A Brief History of Misguided Ideas (https://books.google.com/?id=m9BM6DzFGGwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Worlds+of+Their+Own:+A+Brief+History+of+Misguided+Ideas). Xlibris Corporation. ISBN 9781462810031.Schneider, Robert J. (September 2001). "Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth?" (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html). American Scientific Affiliation.Ska, Jean Louis (2012). "The History of Israel: Its Emergence as an Independent Discipline". In Saebo, Magne(ed.). Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Part I: The Nineteenth Century - aCentury of Modernism and Historicism (https://books.google.com/?id=BYQOoIx79Z0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hebrew+Bible+/+Old+Testament.+III:+From+Modernism+to+Post-Modernism). Stanford University Press.ISBN 9783525540213.Wilkinson, David (2009). "Reading Genesis 1-3 in the Light of Modern Science". In Barton, Stephen C.;Wilkinson, David (eds.). Reading Genesis After Darwin (https://books.google.com/?id=6QCaceP7RFYC&pg=PA127&dq=Reading+Genesis+1-3+in+the+light+of+modern+science#v=onepage&q=Reading%20Genesis%201-3%20in%20the%20light%20of%20modern%20science&f=false). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195383362.Walton, John H. (2006). Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual Worldof the Hebrew Bible (https://books.google.com/?id=rhb20fH7cZYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ancient+Near+Eastern+Thought+and+the+Old+Testament:+Introducing+the+Conceptual+World+of+the+Hebrew+Bible#v=onepage&q&f=false). Baker Academic. ISBN 9781585582914.Wollack, Edward J. (10 December 2010). "Cosmology: The Study of the Universe" (https://web.archive.org/web/20110514230003/http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/). Universe 101: Big Bang Theory. NASA. Archived from theoriginal (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/) on 14 May 2011.Wright, J. Edward (2002). The Early History of Heaven (https://books.google.com/?id=lKvMeMorNBEC&pg=PA42&dq=Mesopotamian#v=onepage&q&f=false). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195348491.

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/). National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edn (1999)Donald B. DeYoung, Astronomy and the Bible: Questions and Answers. Baker Books, 2nd edn, April 2000Danny R. Faulkner, Universe by Design. Master Books, September 2004John Hartnett, Starlight, Time and the New Physics. Creation Book Publishers, 2007Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time. Master Books, 1994

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy (http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com.au), W. T.BridgmanGentry's cosmology: A New Redshift Interpretation (http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-redshift.pdf),Gentry's cosmology : A New Cosmic Center Model (http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-022.pdf).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationist_cosmologies&oldid=896700168"

This page was last edited on 12 May 2019, at 09:22 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By usingthis site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the WikimediaFoundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Further reading

External links

Adnan Oktar

Born Adnan Oktar February 2, 1956 Ankara, Turkey

Residence Turkey

Other names Harun Yahya, AdnanHoca

Occupation Cult leader

Known for Islamic creationism,opposition toevolution (anti-Darwinism), Anti-Zionism, Anti-Masonry (formerly)

Website www.harunyahya.com (http://www.harunyahya.com)

Adnan OktarAdnan Oktar (born 2 February 1956), also known as Harun Yahya,[1] is aTurkish religious cult leader as well as an Islamic creationist.[2] In 2007, he sentthousands of unsolicited copies of his book, The Atlas of Creation,[3] whichadvocates Islamic creationism, to American scientists, members of Congress,and science museums.[4] Oktar runs two organizations of which he is also theHonorary President: Bilim Araştırma Vakfı (BAV, literally, "Science ResearchFoundation", established 1990), which promotes creationism and Milli DeğerleriKoruma Vakfı (literally, "National Values Preservation Foundation", established1995) which works domestically on a variety of moral issues.[5]

In more recent years, Adnan Oktar has performed televangelism on his TVchannel, A9 TV, which featured 'kittens', his female devotees.[6] Hisorganization is commonly referred to as a cult,[7] and he has been described byVICE magazine as the "most notorious cult leader in Turkey."[8] Oktar filedmore than 5,000 lawsuits against individuals for defamation from 2005 to2015,[9] which led to the blocking of a number of prominent websites in Turkey.

Life and careerEarly life and educationCreating a communityLater careerJuly 2018 arrest and criminal charges

WritingCreationism

The Atlas of CreationConspiracy theoriesHolocaust denial and affirmationBibliography

Other legal issues

Blocking of Internet sites

Television broadcasting

References

External links

Contents

Life and career

Early life and education

Adnan Oktar was born in Ankara, Turkey, in 1956, and raised there through his high school years, where he studied the works ofIslamic scholars like Said Nursi,[10][11] a Muslim Kurdish scholar who wrote Risale-i Nur, an extensive Qur'anic commentarywhich includes a comprehensive political and religious ideology.[12]

In 1979, Oktar came to Istanbul and entered Mimar Sinan University.[13] These years were marked with violence and repressionwhich led to the installation of a military junta following the coup of September 1980. The environment in Turkey was one ofpolitical and cultural instability, threatened by Cold War politics, and a clash between Kemalist secular modernisers and a risingtide of Islamic militancy.[11] In this environment he regularly attended the Molla Mosque in Fındıklı locality, close to theacademy of fine arts where he studied interior architecture,[14][15] to pray regardless of threats.[13] Edip Yüksel, who knew himduring those years, described him as a "Sunni zealot."[10]

In the early 1980s, Oktar gathered young students around him to share his views of Islam. These students belonged to socially-active and prosperous families of Istanbul.[10] From 1982 to 1984, a group of 20 to 30 was formed. They were joined by privatehigh school students who were from socially active and well-known families with a high economic status who had become newlyreligious.[13] Yüksel said Oktar presented his teachings "gently and in a modern fashion to the children of the privileged class,without intimidating them ... a refined and urbanized version of Said Nursi."[10] In his religious teachings, Oktar argued againstMarxism, communism and materialistic philosophy. He attached special importance to refuting the Theory of Evolution andDarwinism[16] because he felt that it had been turned into an ideology used to promote materialism and atheism, and numerousderivative ideologies. He personally funded a pamphlet entitled the Theory of Evolution[13] which combined "mysticism withscientific rhetoric."[10][11]

In 1986 he enrolled in the Philosophy Department of Istanbul University. Oktar appeared as the cover story of Nokta (The Point)magazine, reporting how he gathered with his friends and held lectures in a mosque. Many university students, mostly fromBosphorus University, one of the most prestigious universities of Turkey, started to participate. Adnan Oktar's name began toappear regularly in the press, sometimes in the headlines. Later that year he published a 550-page book titled Judaism andFreemasonry based on conspiracy theories that state offices, universities, political groups and media were influenced by a"hidden group"[13] "to erode the spiritual, religious, and moral values of the Turkish people and make them like animals."[17]

Adnan Oktar later qualified those remarks (see "Conspiracy Theories" below). Oktar was arrested, charged with promoting atheocratic revolution for which he served 19 months, though he was never formally charged.[10][11] In 1986, Oktar spent 10months in a mental hospital, but he complains that he was not mentally ill but a political "prisoner" who was punished because ofthe publication of his book, Freemasonry and Judaism.[15][18]

Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, Oktar built up his community. His followers were especially active recruiting at summerresorts along the Sea of Marmara. The social organization within the group became more hierarchical and took on a Messianicnature.[11] Oktar says that due to the anarchy and terror in those years, he was unable to continue his studies. He had alreadybegun working on his books, so when he left school he devoted his energy to his books.[19]

In 1990, he founded the Science Research Foundation (SRF, or, in Turkish, Bilim Araştırma Vakfı, or BAV). Oktar founded theScience Research Foundation to hold conferences and seminars for scientific activities "that target mass awareness concerningwhat the real underlying causes of social and political conflicts are",[20] which he describes to be materialism and Darwinism,though some media describe the BAV as "a secretive Islamic sect"[21] and "cult-like organization, that jealously guards the secretsof its considerable wealth".[22] Members of the BAV are sometimes referred to as Adnan Hocacılar ("Adherents of Adnan theHodja") by the public.[23]

Creating a community

Later career

In 1994 the Islamist Welfare Party (Refah Partisi), the predecessor of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), won control ofthe municipalities of Istanbul and Ankara. The new mayors (in Istanbul this was Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, now Turkey's President)sought broader support. The journalist and editor Fatih Altaylı wrote that Oktar made business agreements with municipalitiesunder the control of the Welfare party. This accusation was denied by Oktar, and resulted in libel suits against Fatih Altaylı withvarious results. In 1995, Oktar founded Foundation for Protection of National Values (FPNV or in Turkish Millî DeğerleriKoruma Vakfı), through which he networks with other conservative Turkish nationalist organizations and individuals based on theideology of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey. In 1997, after another military intervention, the"bloodless coup" of 1997, the government of Erbakan stepped down and the Welfare Party disbanded. According to the NewHumanist, the current AKP government avoids political connections with Oktar and his organization.[11] According to LucaSteinmann, who writes in the HuffPost,[24] there is no discrepancy between the Islam that Oktar preaches and Erdoğan promotessince Erdoğan's progressive change for Turkey correlates with Oktar's cultural point of view.[25]

In September 1999 Adnan Oktar was arrested and charged with using threats for personal benefit and creating an organizationwith the intent to commit a crime (see "Legal issues" below).[26] After a court case lasting two years, the charges were dismissed.After the World-Trade-Center attacks of September 11th, 2001, he published a book, titled Islam Denounces Terrorism.[27]

Between that time and the present, BAV has organized hundreds of conferences on creationism in Turkey[28][29] andworldwide.[30][31] He built a large publishing enterprise[32] with publications sold though Islamic bookstores worldwide.[33] Heis one of the most widely distributed authors in the Muslim world.[33] His television show is viewed by many in the Arabworld.[34]

Oktar has been preaching about the "Turkish-Islamic Union", which would bring peace to the entire Muslim world under theleadership of Turkey.[11] In 2007 he sent out thousands of unsolicited copies of his Atlas of Creation advocating Islam andcreationism to schools and colleges in several European countries and the USA.[4] In 1999, the case was reopened by anothercourt (see "Legal issues" below). Oktar was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.[26] But the verdict was appealedand in May 2010 it was overturned. During these years he engaged in numerous libel suits with various results (See "LegalIssues" below). In some cases he was successful in blocking high-profile websites in Turkey for slander (see "Blocking InternetSites" below), including that of Richard Dawkins, as well as the entirety of WordPress.com.

In 2010, Oktar was selected as one of the top fifty of The 500 Most Influential Muslims in the World by the Royal IslamicStrategic Studies Centre of Jordan for his dissemination of creationism in an Islamic context, and other extensively distributedpublications on Islamic topics.[35]

On 11 July 2018, the financial crimes section of the Turkish police detained Oktar and over 160 of his associates on chargesincluding forming a criminal enterprise, financial fraud and sexual abuse.[36] Other charges Oktar faces are sexual intercoursewith minors, kidnapping children, sexual harassment, blackmail, holding people captive, menacing, political and militaryespionage, perpetrating fraud by exploiting religious feelings and beliefs, money laundering, violation of privacy, forgery ofofficial documents, opposition to anti-terror laws, coercion, slander, alienating citizens from mandatory military service, generalinsults, false incrimination, perjury, aggravated fraud, opposition to laws against smuggling, opposition to tax regulation laws,bribery, preventing one's right to an education and violation of civil rights, torture, illegal recording of personal data, andviolating the law on the protection of family and women.[37] On 19 July 2018, Adnan Oktar was remanded into custody pendingtrial along with 168 of his associates.[38] In addition, after Oktar's initial arrest, over 45 people from over six countries, includingtwo children, have pressed charges against him.[39]

July 2018 arrest and criminal charges

Writing

Oktar has written numerous books under the pen name Harun Yahya. "Harun" refers to the biblical Aaron and "Yahya" refers tothe New Testament John the Baptist.[40]

His publications argue against evolution. They assert that evolution denies the existence of God, abolishes moral values, andpromotes materialism and communism.[41] Oktar argues that Darwinism, by stressing the "survival of the fittest", has inspiredracism, Nazism, communism and terrorism: an argument not unexpected in Turkey when during the political turmoil before a1980 military coup, communist bookshops touted Darwin's works as a complement to Karl Marx.[42]

Truman State University physicist Taner Edis, who was born in Turkey, says the secret to BAV's success is the huge popularity ofthe Harun Yahya books. "They're fairly lavishly produced, on good-quality paper with full-color illustrations all over the place,"he says. "They're trying to compete with any sort of science publication you can find in the Western world. And in a place likeTurkey, Yahya books look considerably better-published than most scientific publications."[43] Many of his books have beenmade into high-resolution videos which are freely downloadable on the Internet.[44]

The spread of organized Christian creationism to Islam began in the 1980s, when the Muslim minister of education in Turkeyturned to the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), a Christian institution then located near San Diego, California, for help indeveloping twofold curriculum that would teach evolution and creationism side by side. In 1990, the Science ResearchFoundation (BAV in Turkish) was formed in Istanbul, headed by Oktar.[45]

For many years Oktar drew on the writings of young earth Christian creationists to develop his case against evolution. However,Islam does not require belief in Young Earth creationism, and making use of the fact that earth may have existed for billions ofyears, Oktar later produced material which was more similar to Intelligent Design. In fact, Harun Yahya's website was listed as an"Islamic intelligent design" website by the Discovery Institute.[45] However Oktar does not embrace use of the term 'IntelligentDesign' due to its lack of specific mention of God, calling it 'another of Satan's snares'.[45][46]

In early 1998, the BAV launched its first campaign against evolution and Darwinism.[11] Thousands of free copies of Oktar'sbook, The Evolution Deceit,[47] and the booklets based on this book were distributed throughout Turkey.[48] They regularly ranfull-page ads against evolution in daily Turkish newspapers and even ran an ad in the U.S. magazine TIME.[5] The funding of thecampaigns is unknown.[15] BAV spearheaded an effort to confront Turkish academics who taught evolutionary biology[49] Anumber of faculty members were harassed, threatened and slandered in fliers, leading to legal action against BAV (see "LegalIssues" below).

In 2005, Professor Ümit Sayın summed up the effect of the BAV's campaign when he said to The Pitch:[43]

In 1998, I was able to motivate six members of the Turkish Academy of Sciences to speak out against thecreationist movement. Today, it's impossible to motivate anyone. They're afraid they'll be attacked by the radicalIslamists and the BAV.

In September 2008 Oktar issued a challenge offering "10 trillion Turkish lira to anyone who produces a single intermediate-formfossil demonstrating evolution". He has stated: "Not one [fossil] belongs to strange-looking creatures in the course ofdevelopment of the kind supposed by evolutionists." Dr Kevin Padian at the University of California has criticized the notion thatsuch fossils do not exist, stating that Oktar "does not have any sense of what we know about how things change through time. Ifhe sees a fossil crab, he says, 'It looks just like a regular crab, there's no evolution.'"[50]

Taner Edis has said "there is nothing new in the Yahya material: scientifically negligible arguments and outright distortions oftencopied from Christian anti-evolution literature, presented with a conservative Muslim emphasis" concluding it "has no scholarlystanding whatsoever".[51] According to Richard Dawkins, Oktar "doesn't know anything about zoology, doesn't know anything

Creationism

about biology. He knows nothing about what he is attempting to refute".[15]

In France, scientists spoke out against the book, and American scientists are unimpressed.[52]

Oktar published volume 1 of his Yaratılış Atlası (The Atlas of Creation), withGlobal Publishing, Istanbul, Turkey in October 2006.[53] Volumes 2 and 3followed in 2007. A dedicated website (yaratilisatlasi.com, Englishatlasofcreation.com) registered to Global Yayıncılık (Global Publishing),Istanbul, went online also in 2007.

At 28 cm x 43 cm and nearly 5.5 kg, with a bright red cover and almost 800glossy pages, most of them lavishly illustrated, "Atlas of Creation" is accordingto the New York Times "probably the largest and most beautiful creationistchallenge yet to Darwin’s theory, which Yahya calls a feeble and pervertedideology contradicted by the Koran".[4] Tens of thousands of copies of the bookwere sent—unsolicited—to schools, prominent researchers and researchinstitutes throughout Europe and the United States.[4][54]

Biologist Kevin Padian from the University of California, Berkeley, said peoplewho had received copies were "just astounded at its size and production valuesand equally astonished at what a load of crap it is." adding that "[Oktar] does notreally have any sense of what we know about how things change throughtime."[4]

Gerdien de Jong, one of five biologists at Utrecht University who received acopy of the book, has described its reasoning as "absurdly ridiculous".[55]

Biologist PZ Myers wrote: "The general pattern of the book is repetitious and predictable: the book shows a picture of a fossil anda photo of a living animal, and declares that they haven't changed a bit, therefore evolution is false. Over and over. It gets old fast,and it's usually wrong (they have changed!) and the photography, while lovely, is entirely stolen."[56]

The Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe wrote in a report that"None of the arguments in this work are based on any scientific evidence, and the book appears more like a primitive theologicaltreatise than the scientific refutation of the theory of evolution."[57]

Oktar propagates a number of conspiracy theories, beginning with his 1986 Yahudilik ve Masonluk (Judaism and Freemasonry).The book suggests that the principal mission of Jews and Freemasons in Turkey was to erode the spiritual, religious, and moralvalues of the Turkish people and, thus, make them like animals, as stated in what Oktar refers to as their use of "DistortedTorah."[13][58] Oktar asserts that "the materialist standpoint, evolution theory, anti-religious and immoral lifestyles wereindoctrinated to the society as a whole" by Jews and Freemasons.[13]

His theory of a global conspiracy of Freemasonry is expounded in his book Global Masonluk (English Global Freemasonry) andon his websites Masonluk[59] and Global Freemasonry.[60] According to Oktar, Freemasonry is "the main architect of the worldsystem based on materialist philosophy, but which keeps that true identity concealed."[60] Oktar called the theory of evolution aMasonic conspiracy initiated by the Rosicrucians.

The Atlas of Creation

Cover of the English edition ofvolume 1 of The Atlas of Creation(Global Publishing, Istanbul, 2006)

Conspiracy theories

Oktar's recent publications declare Darwinism and Materialism to be conspiracies responsible for anti-semitism andterrorism.[11][61] In recent publications and interviews (since 2004).[62] Oktar qualifies his condemnations of Zionism andFreemasonry by adding the word atheist before them, as in atheist Zionists[63] and atheist Freemasons.[64]

In 1996, BAV distributed its first book, originally published the previous year, entitled Soykırım Yalanı (The Holocaust Deceptionor The Holocaust Lie).[65][66] The publication of Soykırım Yalanı sparked controversy.[67] This book claims that "what ispresented as Holocaust is the death of some Jews due to the typhus plague during the war and the famine towards the end of thewar caused by the defeat of the Germans."[68]

A Turkish painter and intellectual, Bedri Baykam, published a strongly worded critique of the book in Ankara's daily newspaper,Siyah-Beyaz ("Black and White"). A legal suit for slander was brought against him. During the trial in September, Baykamexposed the real author of The Holocaust Lie as Adnan Oktar.[67] The suit was withdrawn in March 1997.[69][70]

In 2001, the Stephen Roth Institute, of Tel-Aviv University, listed Oktar as a Holocaust denier due to the publication of TheHolocaust Lie.[71] Three years later the Stephen Roth Institute expressed the opinion that Oktar had increased his tolerancetoward others, asserting that "he now works towards promoting inter-religious dialogue".[62] calling upon all Muslims to have "atolerant and friendly attitude toward other religions".[72]

In 2006, BAV published a book affirming the Holocaust, called The Holocaust Violence. The Holocaust Violence states "TheNazis subjected European Jews to indisputable and unforgivable cruelty during World War II. They humiliated, insulted anddegraded millions of Jewish civilians, forcing them from their homes and enslaving them in concentration camps under inhumanconditions... Certainly the Jewish people, of whom 5.5 million died in concentration camps, were the worst victims of the Nazibarbarity."[73]

In a 2007 interview with The Guardian, Oktar denied writing The Holocaust Lie, a claim that The Guardian stated was "hard tobelieve."[74] The next year in an interview with Der Spiegel, Oktar claimed The Holocaust Lie had been written by a friend whohad published his own essays using Oktar's pen-name, "Harun Yahya", on his own. Oktar disclaimed the first book, and said thesecond book reflected his own opinions.[66]

In 2009, Oktar expressed his new views on Jews in his own words, "hatred or anger toward the line of the Prophet Abraham iscompletely unacceptable. The Prophet Abraham is our ancestor, and the Jews are our brothers. We want the descendants of theProphet Abraham to live in the easiest, pleasantest and most peaceful manner. We want them to be free to perform their religiousobligations, to live as they wish in the lands of their forebears and to frequently remember Allah in comfort and security."[75]

Nevertheless, that year the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) described Yahya as "an anti-Semitic Turkish writer whose articlesdemonize Jews who support Israel as "godless" and blames them for committing atrocities." The ADL also argued that Yahyaquotes Holocaust-denier Roger Garaudy and still cites The Holocaust Deception in the articles on his site.[76]

Oktar has written many articles which have expressed his stance against anti-Semitism. Some of these articles were published bynoted Israeli news sources, including the Jerusalem Post,[77] the Times of Israel,[78] the Jewish Journal,[79] and JerusalemOnline. In addition, in books,[80] websites,[81] and articles,[82] he has expressed the opinion that anti-Semitism is racism and isagainst the Quran.

Oktar's books and brochures appear in Turkish published by "Vural Yayıncılık" ("Global Publishing") of Istanbul. Englishtranslations of his books are published by Ta-Ha Publishers in London, Global Publishing of Istanbul, Al-Attique Publishers inToronto, and Goodword Books of New Delhi, India.

Holocaust denial and affirmation

Bibliography

Publication media includes: Books, booklets, pamphlets, children's books, journals, documentaries, audio books, CDs, postersand over a hundred websites. The total number of books and brochures published by Oktar number in the hundreds.[83] Theworks are lavishly produced, on good-quality paper with full-color illustrations[43] and sold in Islamic bookstores worldwide.[33]

In addition to the slander trial over The Holocaust Lie, Oktar has been involved in other cases. Although most are unrelated tocreationism or religion, a BAV spokesperson says Oktar is being persecuted "because of his ideas." Physicist Taner Edis ofTruman State University, who has followed the case closely, says given the political pressures on Turkey's justice system, that's"not entirely implausible."[84]

In the summer of 1986, Oktar was arrested for his statement "I am from the nation of Abraham and Turkish ethnicity" in anewspaper interview.[85] Oktar was arrested for promoting a theocratic revolution for which he served 19 months, though he wasnever formally charged.[11]

In 1991, Oktar was arrested for possession of cocaine,[86] which he claimed had been planted in one of the books in his library bythe security forces, who, he said, also spiked his food with cocaine.[87] He was later acquitted.[86]

A number of faculty members who taught evolution were harassed, threatened and slandered in flyers that labeled them"Maoists". In 1999, six of the professors won a civil court case against the BAV for defamation and were each awarded$4,000.[43]

In 1999, Oktar was arrested and charged with using threats for personal benefit and creating an organization with the intent tocommit a crime.[26] BAV's lawyers claimed there were several human rights violations during this police operation, as well as theuse of violence during the arrest and afterwards.[88] The judicial process lasted over two years, during which most of thecomplainants retracted their claims. As a result, cases against Oktar and other BAV members were dismissed.[49]

The 1999 case was reopened by another court in 2008. The indictment from the prosecutor's office, made public by Cumhuriyet,claimed blackmail and extortion. Among other things, it claimed that BAV used its female members to attract young scholarsfrom rich families with the promise of sexual favors in exchange for attending events. It was claimed that the sexual activities ofthousands of people were videotaped with hidden cameras for the purpose of blackmail. Members who wanted to leave the groupwere threatened that the tapes would be made public.[11][89] In the face of all these allegations against BAV, the Chairman of theCourt announced in the hearing on 29 February 2008, that testimonies obtained through unlawful means may not be considered asevidence based on article 148 of the criminal code.[90]

Oktar was convicted of creating an illegal organization for personal gain. He and 17 other members of his organisation weresentenced to three years in prison.[26][91][92][93] Oktar appealed the verdict.[94][95] In May 2010, the Court of Appeals overturnedthe conviction and dismissed the charges.[96]

Since 2007 Oktar has successfully had the Turkish government block public access to several websites. In April 2007, Oktar fileda libel lawsuit against the owners of Ekşi Sözlük, a virtual community similar to everything2. The court reviewed the complaintand ordered the service provider to close the site to public access. The site was temporarily suspended so the entry on Oktar[97]

could be expunged and locked. Then access to Süper Poligon, a news website, was also restricted following Oktar'scomplaint.[98] In August 2007, Oktar got a Turkish court to block WordPress.com throughout Turkey. His lawyers argued thatblogs on WordPress.com contained libelous material, which WordPress.com was unwilling to remove.[99]

Other legal issues

Blocking of Internet sites

Edip Yuksel, a Turkish writer who knew Oktar in the 1980s, had his own website banned in Turkey due to Oktar's complaints.[86]

In addition, Yuksel wrote a Turkish-language book, The Cult of the Antichrist, but has yet to find "a publisher willing to brave Mr.Oktar's lawyers."[86]

On 19 September 2008, a Turkish court banned Internet users in Turkey from viewing the official Richard Dawkins website afterOktar claimed its contents were defamatory, blasphemous and insulting to religion, arguing that his personality was violated bythis site. The ban was lifted on 8 July 2011.[92][100][101][102][103]

In September 2008, a complaint by Oktar led to the banning of the internet site of the Union of Education and ScientificWorkers.[104][105] This was followed by a block of the country's third-biggest newspaper site, Vatan, inOctober.[100][102][103][106][107]

On 21 March 2011, Oktar started television broadcasting on A9 satellite channel where his interviews and night lectures arebroadcast live.[108] His TV programs have gotten considerable attention from both Turkish and international media for its'weirdness',[109] and in particular for featuring what is referred to as his 'kittens', his female devotees.[110] They wear heavymake-up and tight Versace T-shirts, undergo plastic surgery, and are usually wealthy socialites.[8][111] They and Adnan Oktarhave discussions about Islam, fossils that supposedly discredit evolution, and Oktar himself.[112]

1. "Harun Yahya" (https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20110224090517/http://www.harunyahya.com/).harunyahya.com. Archived from the original (http://www.harunyahya.com) on 24 February 2011. Retrieved26 December 2011.

2. "Seeing the light – of science" (https://web.archive.org/web/20090114085246/http://www.salon.com/books/int/2007/01/02/numbers/index3.html). Salon.com. Archived from the original (http://www.salon.com/books/int/2007/01/02/numbers/index3.html) on 14 January 2009.

3. Yahya, Hârun; Rossini, Carl Nino; Evans, Ron; Mossman, Timothy (2006). "Atlas of creation". Global Publishing.OCLC 86077147 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/86077147).

4. Dean, Cornelia (17 July 2007). "Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World" (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/17book.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin). New York Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20150424030735/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/17book.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin) from the original on 24 April 2015. Retrieved 17 July 2007.

5. Songün, Sevim (27 February 2009). "Turkey evolves as creationist center" (http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/11102743.asp). Hurriyet Daily News. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090305021610/http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/11102743.asp) from the original on 5 March 2009. Retrieved 17 March 2009.

6. Nicholas McCallum (14 November 2015). "A look at Turkey's 'feminist cult', headed by creationist, evolutionaryconspiracy theorist" (https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/30088428/a-look-at-turkeys-feminist-cult-headed-by-creationist-evolutionary-conspiracy-theorist/). Yahoo7.

7. William Armstrong (2 October 2014). "The Mahdi wears Armani: The bizarre world of Adnan Oktar" (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/the-mahdi-wears-armani-the-bizarre-world-of-adnan-oktar.aspx?pageID=238&nID=72412&NewsCatID=474). Hürriyet Daily News.

8. Broadly Staff (14 November 2015). "Inside the Weird World of an Islamic 'Feminist' Cult" (https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/video/inside-the-weird-world-of-an-islamic-feminist-cult). Vice News.

9. "Adnan Hoca'ya 'cezai ehliyet' şoku" (http://www.milliyet.com.tr/adnan-hoca-ya-cezai-ehliyet-soku-gundem-2024926/). Milliyet. 8 March 2015.

10. "Harun Yahya or Adnan Oktar: the Promised Mahdi? by Edip Yüksel" (https://web.archive.org/web/20050221142255/http://19.org/index.php?id=14%2C194%2C0%2C0%2C1%2C0). 21 February 2005. Archived from theoriginal (https://19.org/index.php?id=14,194,0,0,1,0) on 21 February 2005. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

Television broadcasting

References

11. "Sex, Flies and Videotapes: the secret lives of Harun Yahya" (http://newhumanist.org.uk/2131). New Humanist.October 2009. Retrieved 17 March 2009.

12. "Risâle-i Nur Collection" (http://www.nur.org/treatise/collection/index.htm). Nur.org. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

13. "Life Story Of Adnan Oktar" (https://web.archive.org/web/20051109042622/http://www.jamiat.org.za/whatsnew/hyahya.html). 9 November 2005. Archived from the original (http://www.jamiat.org.za/whatsnew/hyahya.html) on 9November 2005. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

14. "Kim Kimdir? (Who is Who?)" (http://www.kimkimdir.gen.tr/kimkimdir.php?id=5133). Kimkimdir.gen.tr. 4 December2007. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

15. Higgins, Andrew (17 March 2009). "The Wall Street Journal, "An Islamic Creationist Stirs a New Kind ofDarwinian Struggle", 17 March 2009" (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123724852205449221). The Wall StreetJournal. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

16. "Turkish book traces terror's origin to Darwin's theory" (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/turkish-book-traces-terrors-origin-to-darwi/17167). The Indian Express. 24 November 2006. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

17. Armstrong, William (19 January 2015). "The Mahdi wears Armani: The bizarre world of Adnan Oktar" (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/the-mahdi-wears-armani-the-bizarre-world-of-adnan-oktar.aspx?pageID=238&nID=72412&NewsCatID=474). Hürriyet Daily News. Istanbul, Turkey. Retrieved 11 November 2014.

18. Butt, Riazat (22 December 2008). "Muslim creationist Adnan Oktar challenges scientists to prove evolution" (https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2008/dec/22/atlas-creationism-adnan-oktar-harun-yahya). The Guardian.Retrieved 10 April 2012.

19. Syed Akbar Kamal (10 June 2009). "Scoop Independent News, New Zealand" (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0906/S00102.htm). Scoop.co.nz. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

20. "About the SRF" (https://web.archive.org/web/20020203123714/http://www.srf-tr.org/about.htm). Srf-tr.org.Archived from the original (http://www.srf-tr.org/about.htm) on 3 February 2002. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

21. Aslaneli, Hakan (19 July 1999). "Ciminli Case Turns into a War" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101114010101/http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/h.php?news%3Dciminli%2Dcase%2Dturns%2Dinto%2Da%2Dwar%2D1999%2D07%2D18). Turkish Daily News. Archived from the original (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/h.php?news=ciminli-case-turns-into-a-war-1999-07-18) on 14 November 2010.

22. Birch, Nicholas (24 May 2007) TURKEY: SCIENTISTS FACE OFF AGAINST CREATIONISTS (http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav052407.shtml) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20080222052913/http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav052407.shtml) 22 February 2008 at the WaybackMachine

23. "Which Justice?" (http://www.hri.org/news/turkey/anadolu/1999/99-11-21.anadolu.html). Hri.org. Retrieved10 April 2012.

24. "Luca Steinmann" (http://www.huffingtonpost.it/author/luca-steinmann/). L’Huffington Post.

25. "Tra laicità e creazionismo: dentro la Turchia di Erdogan" (http://www.reset.it/reset-doc/dentro-turchia-erdogan).

26. Grove, Thomas (9 May 2008). "Turkish Islamic author given 3-year jail sentence" (https://www.reuters.com/article/artsNews/idUSL0992091620080509?sp=true). Reuters. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20080513192058/https://www.reuters.com/article/artsNews/idUSL0992091620080509?sp=true) from the original on 13 May2008. Retrieved 9 May 2008.

27. Harun Yahya. "Islam denounces terrorism" (https://archive.is/20130103103412/http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/7EZU2FZ0164/productId/1162/ISLAM_DENOUNCES_TERRORISM). Archived from the original (http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/7EZU2FZ0164/productId/1162/ISLAM_DENOUNCES_TERRORISM) on 3 January 2013.

28. "US" (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkish-scientists-confront-creationists-theory-457164.html).

29. "Islamic Scientific Creationism" (http://ncse.com/rncse/19/6/islamic-scientific-creationism). Ncse.com. Retrieved10 April 2012.

30. "Turkish Creationist Movement Tours American College Campuses" (http://ncse.com/rncse/26/5/turkish-creationist-movement-tours-american-college-campuses). Ncse.com. 1 February 2007. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

31. "Turkey evolves as creationist center" (http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/11102743.asp). Hurriyet DailyNews. Turkey. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

32. Heneghan, Tom (19 June 2008). "Harun Yahya preaches Islam, slams Darwin and awaits Jesus" (http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/06/19/harun-yahya-preaches-islam-slams-darwin-and-awaits-jesus). Blogs.reuters.com.Retrieved 10 April 2012.

33. Heneghan, Tom (19 June 2008). "Harun Yahya is one of the most widely distributed authors in the Muslim world"(http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL2926092420080619). Reuters. Uk.reuters.com. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

34. "Israeli Delegation to Interfaith Dialogue in Turkey"(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/178876). Israelnationalnews.com. 19 January 2010.Retrieved 10 April 2012.

35. "The 500 Most Influential Muslims" (http://rissc.jo/docs/new/Muslim500-2010-Third-Edition-001.pdf) (PDF). TheRoyal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan. 2010. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

36. Reuters July 11, 2018. Turkish police launch raids to detain Islamic figure, followershttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-operation/turkish-police-launch-raids-to-detain-islamic-figure-followers-idUSKBN1K10GT

37. "Turkish televangelist Adnan Oktar arrested over sexual abuse, fraud charges" (http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkish-televangelist-adnan-oktar-detained-1121597380).

38. "Court remands Turkish televangelist pending trial" (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkey/court-remands-turkish-televangelist-pending-trial/1208055).

39. https://www.sozcu.com.tr/2018/gundem/adnan-oktar-yapisina-sikayet-yagiyor-2522103/

40. "Frequently Asked Questions" (https://archive.is/20160818021859/http://www.harunyahya.com/bilgi/faq). HarunYahya. Archived from the original (http://www.harunyahya.com/bilgi/faq) on 18 August 2016. Retrieved 4 June2016. "His pen-name, Harun Yahya, is formed from the names Harun (Aaron) and Yahya (John) in the esteemedmemory of the two Prophets who struggled against infidelity."

41. Numbers, Ronald (2009). Galileo Goes to Jail. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p. 222. ISBN 978-0674033276.

42. "Reuters: Turks: Atheism Is the 'Root of Terrorism' " (https://web.archive.org/web/20120527131348/http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/22/115532.shtml). Archive.newsmax.com. 22 November 2006. Archived fromthe original (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/22/115532.shtml) on 27 May 2012. Retrieved10 April 2012.

43. Ortega, Tony. Your OFFICIAL program to the Scopes II Kansas Monkey Trial (http://www.pitch.com/kansascity/your-official-program-to-the-scopes-ii-kansas-monkey-trial/Content?oid=2177607) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20130309072759/http://www.pitch.com/kansascity/your-official-program-to-the-scopes-ii-kansas-monkey-trial/Content?oid=2177607) 9 March 2013 at the Wayback Machine, The Pitch, 5 May 2005.

44. "Harun Yahya official website" (http://harunyahya.com/html/m_video_index.htm).

45. Harrison, Peter (2010). The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (https://books.google.com/?id=0mSCHC0QMUgC). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 141. ISBN 978-0521712514.

46. Yahya, Harun (2008). "INTELLIGENT DESIGN: A NEW AGE THEORY" (https://archive.is/20090523134000/http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/8382/INTELLIGENT_DESIGN:_A_NEW_AGE_THEORY__). harunyahya.com. Archived from the original (http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/8382/INTELLIGENT_DESIGN:_A_NEW_AGE_THEORY__) on 23 May 2009. Retrieved 28 May 2009.

47. Harun Yahya. "The Evolution Deceit" (http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/).

48. "Cloning Creationism in Turkey" (http://ncse.com/rncse/19/6/cloning-creationism-turkey). RNCSE. 19 (6): 30–35.November–December 1999. Retrieved 17 May 2007.

49. Koenig, Robert (18 May 2001). "Creationism Takes Root Where Europe, Asia Meet" (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5520/1286). Science. Retrieved 17 March 2009.

50. Green, Toby (29 September 2008). "Creationist offers prize for fossil proof of evolution" (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/creationist-offers-prize-for-fossil-proof-of-evolution-945289.html). The Independent. London.Retrieved 17 May 2007.

51. Taner Edis (2008). "Islamic Creationism: A Short History" (https://web.archive.org/web/20110716061337/http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2008/NewsletterJanuary2008Creationism.html). History of ScienceSociety, Newsletter. 37 (1). Archived from the original (http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2008/NewsletterJanuary2008Creationism.html) on 16 July 2011.

52. "Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World", The New York Times, 17 July 2007 (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/17book.html)

53. "ATLAS OF CREATION" (https://swap.stanford.edu/20090418073046/http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_01.php). Archived from the original (http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_01.php) on 18 April 2009.

54. "In the beginning" (http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9036706). The Economist. 19April 2007. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20070430075912/http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9036706) from the original on 30 April 2007. Retrieved 28 April 2007.

55. Enserink, Martin (2007). "FAITH AND SCIENCE: In Europe's Mailbag: A Glossy Attack on Evolution". Science.315 (5814): 925a. doi:10.1126/science.315.5814.925a (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.315.5814.925a).PMID 17303725 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17303725).

56. "PZ Myers, "Well fly fishing is a science" " (https://web.archive.org/web/20111217065747/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/well_fly_fishing_is_a_science.php). Scienceblogs.com. Archived from the original (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/well_fly_fishing_is_a_science.php) on 17 December 2011. Retrieved10 April 2012.

57. Lengagne, Guy (8 June 2007). "The dangers of creationism in education" (https://web.archive.org/web/20070813201055/http://www.assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FWorkingDocs%2FDoc07%2FEDOC11297.htm). Council of Europe. Archived from the original (http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm) on 13 August 2007. Retrieved 23 November 2011.

58. YAHUDİLİK VE MASONLUK (http://www.harunyahya.org/KITAP/YahudilikveMasonluk/yvm2.html#top) Archived(https://web.archive.org/web/20110726142116/http://www.harunyahya.org/KITAP/YahudilikveMasonluk/yvm2.html#top) 26 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine (in Turkish), Harun Yaha

59. "Harun Yahya" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120330153103/http://masonluk.net/). Masonluk.net. Archived fromthe original (http://masonluk.net) on 30 March 2012. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

60. Harun Yahya: GlobalFreemasonry.com (http://www.globalfreemasonry.com) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20140220160038/http://www.globalfreemasonry.com/) 20 February 2014 at the Wayback Machine – A websitebased on the works of Harun Yahya

61. "Islam Denounces Antisemitism.com" (https://web.archive.org/web/20180327111439/http://islamdenouncesantisemitism.com/). Islam Denounces Antisemitism.com. Archived from the original (http://islamdenouncesantisemitism.com) on 27 March 2018. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

62. "Stephen Roth Institute: Antisemitism And Racism" (https://www.webcitation.org/60wMgxP5X?url=http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2004/turkey.htm). Tau.ac.il. Archived from the original (http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2004/turkey.htm) on 14 August 2011. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

63. "HarunYahya.com: In your works you distinguish between religious Zionism and atheist Zionism" (http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/23782/THE_SECTIONS_ABOUT_THE_SANHEDRIN_AND_THE_PALACE_OF_THE_PROPHET_SOLOMON_(AS)). Us1.harunyahya.com. 3 May 2010. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

64. "HarunYahya.com: What form must the struggle against atheist freemasonry take?" (https://archive.is/20110705070939/http://us3.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/24265/WHAT_FORM_MUST_THE_STRUGGLE_AGAINST_ATHEIST_FREEMASONRY_TAKE). Us3.harunyahya.com. 10 May 2010. Archived from the original(http://us3.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/24265/WHAT_FORM_MUST_THE_STRUGGLE_AGAINST_ATHEIST_FREEMASONRY_TAKE) on 5 July 2011. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

65. "Harun Yahya and Holocaust Revisionism" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/organizations/harunyahya.html).Talkorigins.org. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

66. Steinvorth, Daniel (23 September 2008). " 'All Terrorists Are Darwinists': Interview with Adnan Oktar" (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,580031,00.html). Der Spiegel. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20081026182424/http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0%2C1518%2C580031%2C00.html) from the original on 26October 2008. Retrieved 13 November 2008.

67. "AXT 1996 report on antisemitism in Turkey" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120519190843/http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive1/turkey/turkey.htm). Axt.org.uk. Archived from the original (http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive1/turkey/turkey.htm) on 19 May 2012. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

68. "The Holocaust Deception" (https://web.archive.org/web/20111205123834/http://members.fortunecity.com/vural/bks/HOLOCAUST.HTML). Members.fortunecity.com. Archived from the original (http://members.fortunecity.com/vural/bks/HOLOCAUST.HTML) on 5 December 2011. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

69. "AXT 1998 report on antisemitism in Turkey" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120519184740/http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive2/turkey/turkey.htm#Parties). Axt.org.uk. Archived from the original (http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive2/turkey/turkey.htm#Parties) on 19 May 2012. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

70. Udesky, Laurie (27 March 1997). "American Jewish organization sees emergence of 'Holocaust denial' in Turkey"(https://web.archive.org/web/20081113010101/http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/h.php?news%3Damerican%2Djewish%2Dorganization%2Dsees%2Demergence%2Dof%2Dholocaust%2Ddenial%2Din%2Dturkey%2D1997%2D03%2D27). Turkish Daily News. Archived from the original (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/h.php?news=american-jewish-organization-sees-emergence-of-holocaust-denial-in-turkey-1997-03-27) on 13 November 2008.

71. Stephen Roth; Stephen Roth Institute (1 January 2003). Antisemitism Worldwide, 2000/1 (https://books.google.com/?id=Db7i1y806WUC). U of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-5945-4. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

72. Antisemitism Is Racism Totally Contrary to Islam (https://archive.is/20100117163509/http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/32terrorism_antisemitism_soc06.php), Harun Yahya

73. "The Holocaust Violence excerpts" (http://www.harunyahya.com/books/social/holocaust/holocaust_violence_foreword.php). harunyahya.com.

74. Shooting the Messenger. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/aug/20/shootingthemessenger) TheGuardian, 20 August 2007.

75. "Hachrazah 5769 Tamuz 9" (http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php?title=Hachrazah_5769_Tamuz_9).TheSanhedrin.org. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

76. Effort To Educate Americans About Islam Also Links To Anti-Semitic Web Sites (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/5564_12.htm) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20121009053618/http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/5564_12.htm) 9 October 2012 at the Wayback Machine; Anti-Defamation League; Press release, New York,NY, 15 July 2009

77. "Adnan Oktar" (http://www.jpost.com/Author/Adnan-Oktar).

78. "The Muslim Leader Who Quotes the Torah" (http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-muslim-leader-who-quotes-the-torah/).

79. Oktar, by Adnan (31 December 2014). "Anti-Semitism, an atrocious 'trend' — Jewish Journal" (http://jewishjournal.com/opinion/152186/).

80. ENGLİSH, HARUN YAHYA-ADNAN OKTAR. "Global Impact Of The Works Of Harun Yahya - Vol. 2" (https://books.google.com/?id=1G6ABAAAQBAJ&pg=PA439&dq=antisemitism+harun+yahya#v=onepage&q=antisemitism+harun+yahya&f=false). A9 GROUP – via Google Books.

81. "Islam Denounces Antisemitism" (http://www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com).www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com.

82. Yahya, Harun. "Antisemitism is racism totally contrary to Islam - Harunyahya.com" (http://harunyahya.com/en/works/3429/Antisemitism-is-racism-totally-contrary-to-Islam).

83. Harunhaya.net (http://www.harunyahya.net/V2/Lang/en/Pg/WorkList/Work/Book/) as of December 2010 lists 274items in Turkish (dated October 1991 to January 2010), 197 items in English, or 771 items counting alllanguages.

84. Yudhijit Bhattacharjee (23 May 2008). "Newsmakers" (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5879/newsmakers.full). Science. 320 (5879): 995. doi:10.1126/science.320.5879.995a (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.320.5879.995a).

85. Sutun Online: Adnan Oktar´dan çarpıcı açıklamalar (http://www.8sutun.com/haberdetay.asp?tarih=22.02.2011&Newsid=6965&Categoryid=16) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20120315184838/http://www.8sutun.com/haberdetay.asp?tarih=22.02.2011&Newsid=6965&Categoryid=16) 15 March 2012 at the Wayback Machine "İslammilletindenim, Türk kavmindenim"

86. Higgins, Andrew (17 March 2009). "An Islamic Creationist Stirs a New Kind of Darwinian Struggle" (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123724852205449221). Wall Street Journal. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090321044251/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123724852205449221.html) from the original on 21 March 2009. Retrieved30 March 2009.

87. Ronald L. Numbers (2006). "The Creationists," Expanded Edition, Ronald L. Numbers, 2006 (https://books.google.com/?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC). Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-02339-0. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

88. "Official Journal of the European Communities" (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2001:046E:0215:0216:EN:PDF). Retrieved 10 April 2012.

89. Tres años de cárcel para el autor del polémico 'Atlas de la creación' (http://www.elperiodico.com/es/noticias/sociedad/20080511/tres-anos-carcel-para-autor-del-polemico-atlas-creacion/72414.shtml), El Periodico (in Spanish)

90. "Turk Time, "İşte BAV Gerçeği", 28 April 2008" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120306172139/http://www.turktime.com/haber/Iste-BAV-Gercegi-/19334). Turktime.com. 30 September 2010. Archived from the original (http://www.turktime.com/haber/Iste-BAV-Gercegi-/19334) on 6 March 2012. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

91. " "Harun Yahya" sentenced to prison" (http://ncse.com/news/2008/05/harun-yahya-sentenced-to-prison-002289).National Center for Science Education. 9 May 2008. Retrieved 17 May 2008.

92. Ozimek, John (22 September 2008). "The Turkish court bans Dawkins' website" (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/22/turkey_bans_dawkins_website). The Register. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20080924022250/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/22/turkey_bans_dawkins_website) from the original on 24 September2008. Retrieved 22 September 2008.

93. "Polislerin "Harun Yahya" yargılaması sürüyor" (https://web.archive.org/web/20110812112126/http://bilimteknik.cumhuriyet.com.tr/?im=yhs&hn=4222). Cumhuriyet. 10 September 2008. Archived from the original (http://bilimteknik.cumhuriyet.com.tr/?im=yhs&hn=4222) on 12 August 2011. Retrieved 17 March 2009.

94. "Muslim creationist preaches Islam and awaits Christ" (https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSL2926092420080619?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0). Reuters. 19 June 2008. Retrieved 5 August 2009.

95. Ortega, Tony (20 June 2008). "Muslim creationist preaches Islam, awaits Christ" (https://web.archive.org/web/20081204143610/http://www.christiantoday.com/article/muslim.creationist.preaches.islam.awaits.christ/19677-2.htm).Christianity Today. Archived from the original (http://www.christiantoday.com/article/muslim.creationist.preaches.islam.awaits.christ/19677-2.htm) on 4 December 2008. Retrieved 17 March 2009.

96. "Zaman Newspaper Online: The Court of Appeals overturned the decision of conviction about Adnan Oktar" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120314013557/http://www.zaman.com.tr/haber.do?haberno=948301&keyfield=61646E616E206F6B746172) (in Turkish). Zaman.com.tr. Archived from the original (http://www.zaman.com.tr/haber.do?haberno=948301&keyfield=61646E616E206F6B746172) on 14 March 2012. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

97. "adnan oktar" (http://sozluk.sourtimes.org/show.asp?t=adnan+oktar). ekşi sözlük.

98. "IFEX Alert" (http://www.ifex.org/fr/content/view/full/82758). Ifex.org. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

99. Eteraz, Ali (20 August 2007). "Shooting the messenger" (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/aug/20/shootingthemessenger). The Guardian. London. Retrieved 19 January 2015.

100. Hooper, Rowan (19 September 2008). "Turkey bans evolutionist's website" (https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/09/turkey-bans-dawkins-website.html). New Scientist Blogs. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20080921021658/http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/09/turkey-bans-dawkins-website.html) from the original on 21 September 2008. Retrieved 20 September 2008.

101. Butt, Riazat (19 September 2008). "Missing link: creationist campaigner has Richard Dawkins' official websitebanned in Turkey" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/19/religion.turkey). The Guardian. London.Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20080921075032/http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/19/religion.turkey) from the original on 21 September 2008. Retrieved 20 September 2008.

102. Staff writer (17 September 2008). "Evolutionist Dawkins' Internet Site Banned In Turkey" (https://web.archive.org/web/20080922133223/http://www.bianet.org/english/kategori/english/109778/evolutionist-dawkins-internet-site-banned-in-turkey). Bianet. Archived from the original (http://bianet.org/english/kategori/english/109778/evolutionist-dawkins-internet-site-banned-in-turkey) on 22 September 2008. Retrieved 20 September 2008.

103. Arpa, Yasemin (17 September 2008). "Evrimci yazarın sitesini Adnan Oktar kapattırdı" (http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/459522.asp). NTV-MSNBC (in Turkish). Retrieved 20 September 2008.

104. "Creationist Adnan Oktar Manages To Shut Down Another Internet Site" (https://web.archive.org/web/20090212152131/http://www.bianet.org/english/kategori/english/109951/creationist-adnan-oktar-manages-to-shut-down-another-internet-site). Bianet.org. Archived from the original (http://www.bianet.org/english/kategori/english/109951/creationist-adnan-oktar-manages-to-shut-down-another-internet-site) on 12 February 2009. Retrieved 10 April2012.

Official website (http://www.harunyahya.com/)Taner Edis: Harun Yahya and Islamic Creationism (2003) (http://edis.sites.truman.edu/harun-yahya-and-islamic-creationism/)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adnan_Oktar&oldid=913574369"

This page was last edited on 1 September 2019, at 22:32 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By usingthis site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the WikimediaFoundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

105. "Cached version of the criticized article" (https://web.archive.org/web/20090211220549/http://www.nineberry.de/ExtRef/EgitimSen/egitim.htm). Nineberry.de. Archived from the original (http://www.nineberry.de/ExtRef/EgitimSen/egitim.htm) on 11 February 2009. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

106. "Vatan'ın internet sitesine sansür" (http://www.radikal.com.tr/Default.aspx?aType=Detay&ArticleID=903545&Date=15.10.2008&CategoryID=77). Türkiye. Radikal (in Turkish). 15 October 2008. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20081018141538/http://www.radikal.com.tr/Default.aspx?aType=Detay&ArticleID=903545&Date=15.10.2008&CategoryID=77) from the original on 18 October 2008. Retrieved 15 October 2008. "Her gün 1.5 milyondanfazla ziyaret alan, Türkiye'nin en büyük 3 gazete sitesinden biri olan gazetevatan.com..."

107. Tait, Robert (16 October 2008). "Turkish newspaper website blocked after creationist's complaint" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/16/turkey-pressandpublishing). The Guardian. London. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20081029104804/http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/16/turkey-pressandpublishing) from theoriginal on 29 October 2008. Retrieved 15 October 2008. "A court ruled that Turkish web users should be deniedaccess to the Vatan site after deciding it had insulted Adnan Oktar, a prolific writer who has disputed the theory ofevolution."

108. "Adnan Hoca da TV Kanalı Kurdu" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120321203118/http://www.haber365.com/Haber/Adnan_Hoca_da_TV_Kanali_Kurdu/). Haber365.com. 19 February 2011. Archived from the original (http://www.haber365.com/Haber/Adnan_Hoca_da_TV_Kanali_Kurdu) on 21 March 2012. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

109. Jenna Krajeski (2 May 2013). "The Versace Harem" (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/05/building_bridges_the_sexy_kittens_of_turkish_tv.html). Slate.

110. Marco Werman; Matthew Brunwasser (31 May 2013). "The Barbie-Like Women of Turkey's Creationist TV" (http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-05-31/barbie-women-turkeys-creationist-tv). PRI.

111. Elcin Poyrazlar (14 November 2013). "Creationism, With a Side of Eye Candy" (http://www.vocativ.com/culture/religion/creationism-side-eye-candy/). Vocativ.

112. Pinar and Viola (19 November 2012). "Turkey's anti-evolutionist showgirls" (http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/15089/1/turkeys-anti-evolutionist-showgirls). Dazed.

External links