´óÏó´«Ã½

Introduction

Virtually all religions include an explanation for life on Earth in their scriptures. In the UK, and even more so in the USA, the creationism debate largely involves Christians.

In March 2006, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, joined the evolution versus creationism debate when he said in an interview with the Guardian newspaper that he did not believe that creationism - the scriptural account of the origins of the world - should be taught in schools.

So what is creationism all about - what does it mean, and why does it matter so much to many religious people? And what is intelligent design and how does it differ from creationism?

Creationism

The main points of creationism are these:

• All life was created by the actions of God
  • Some Creationists say God did this in a single creative event
  • Some Creationists don't limit creation to one event
• All the forms of life existing today were created by the actions of God
• The organisms created by God can't produce new forms of organism - only God can do this
• The most common theory follows the accounts in the Biblical Book of Genesis, but most religions have their own creation story
• Modern creationism uses scientific evidence to support scripture
• Most scientists say the creationism theory is false and unscientific

Intelligent design (also called neo-Creationism)

• The current state of life on Earth has come about through the actions of an intelligent Designer
• This is because
  • Some living things contain certain types of complexity that are best explained as the result of an intelligent cause
  • Some aspects of the universe show positive evidence of having been designed by some form of intelligence
• This designer need not be God but most proponents of intelligent design seem to have God in mind
• This theory has been accused of being creationism in disguise
• Although a few scientists have supported intelligent design, the majority of those working in the field regard the theory as false and unscientific

Creationism in depth

Creationism teaches that:

• everything in the universe has God as its ultimate cause
• the nature of life on Earth is the direct result of God's creative actions

An alternative way of putting the same idea is:

• the universe and everything in it could not have come into being without a supreme being causing it to happen

Creationism is largely based on religious belief, but gains much support from what its protagonists see as the failures of other theories to explain the evidence properly.

Different religions and cultures have different creation theories, but this article deals with the Jewish/Christian version.

Forms of creationism

Forms of creationism

Creationism teaches that life on Earth is the result of God's creative action, and not the result of blind scientific processes. Creationism doesn't attempt to explain how God did this:

It comes in a variety of forms, and the most common are listed below. But there are other forms of Creationism which include different combinations of the ideas mentioned:

Young Earth creationism

Young Earth creationism teaches that:

• The Book of Genesis is literally true
• the Earth and all forms of life were created by God in 6 days, around 10,000 years ago.

Scientists are almost unanimous in saying that as the Earth is 4 billion years old, and that the Young Earth theory is false.

Old Earth creationism

Old Earth creationism teaches that:

• The Earth is as old as scientists say (around 4 billion years)
• The universe, Earth, and life were created by processes in which God played an active part
• There have been countless divine acts of creation throughout history
• God acts both by direct creation and by guiding the processes he created
• Humanity was directly created by God
  • The difference between this theory and Theistic Evolution is that in Theistic Evolution God doesn't play an active part after the original creation of the universe and the forces that operate in it.

Gap creationism

Gap creationism adds a new idea:

• There were two creations - one before Adam, and a second one, which included Adam and Eve, after a lengthy time gap
• This theory reconciles the age of the Earth with the story in Genesis

Most scientists say that the geological evidence shows that this theory is false.

Day-Age creationism

Day-Age creationism adds an element that reconciles the long period of time shown by the fossil record with the story in Genesis.

• Each 'day' in the Biblical '6 days' of creation wasn't really a day, but a period of millions of years
• The theory is supported by Biblical references that show that one of 'God's days' is a lot longer than 24 hours

Progressive creationism

Progressive creationism accepts the scientific timetable of creation, and gives evolution a small part to play in the story of life.

• God created the various 'kinds' (some people would say 'species' but other categories have been suggested) of plant and animal one after another - according to the timetable shown by the fossil record
• The scientific timetable of creation reflects the timetable that God used to create life on earth
• God created each kind of organism as we find it
• Different forms of organism are separate creations, not the result of evolution from an earlier form
• Some created organisms do become extinct
• Micro-evolution can take place within a kind of organism to produce subtle variations
  • Lions, tigers and cats within the cat family
  • Different sizes of beak within the Galapagos finches

Islamic Creationism

Creationism is not just a Christian issue. Muslim creationists base their thinking on similar scientific arguments and on passages such as this in the Qur'an:

Intelligent design

Intelligent design

The Intelligent Design theory claims that some sort of supernatural designer was involved in the creation of life on Earth. It differs from Creationism because it divorces Creationist ideas from their roots in Scripture.

The argument in favour of Intelligent Design has two parts:

• Evolutionary theory doesn't fully explain the origin and development of life on Earth
• Life on Earth - and more generally the universe - shows so much order, purpose and design that there must have been a designer

The important part of the Intelligent Design theory is "design", and the idea that the Universe and life must somehow be designed is a very old one, going right back to Aristotle.

Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century used the argument to try and prove the existence of God:

• wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer
• nature is complex
• therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer

Most intelligent design arguments avoid any reference to scripture and try to eliminate anything that might look as if it was derived from religious belief.

This may be partly to ensure that the theory doesn't fall foul of the separation of Religion and State in the US constitution, since there seems no inherent reason why the designer shouldn't be 'God'.

In this discussion, Harry McDonald, President of Kansas Citizens for Science defends Darwinism, and Doctor William Harris, a medical academic, attacks the theory:

In the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover (USA 2005) the key issue was whether intelligent design was or was not science, because if it wasn't science then it would be a religious theory like creationism, and so could not be taught in US publically funded schools under the constitutional provision of the separation of religion and state. Judge John E Jones III ruled that ID was not science.

The modern concept of intelligent design owes much to Phillip Johnson, an American professor of Law. Johnson published the book Darwin on Trial (1991), and in 1996 established the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute.

Johnson put ID forward not as a creationist theory, but as a theory that acknowledged that there was more to the development of life on Earth than could be explained by a totally naturalistic account.

The theoretical foundations of ID were provided by Michael Behe (author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, 1996), William Dembski and others.

The implications

Why is this subject important for Religion and Ethics?

This subject has a number of implications for religious beliefs and ethics.

In the US and UK, significant groups of Christians believe that evolution is an unproved theory which may devalue religious belief, and want schools to teach pupils that creationism or intelligent design are alternative theories that should be considered.

USA

This argument is very important in the USA because publicly funded schools must be religiously neutral under the Constitution, and so neither creationism nor intelligent design can be taught in such schools if they amount to religious theories.

Proponents of intelligent design and creation science have made several attempts to get these theories taught in school science lessons as alternatives to evolution, but American court decisions have generally concluded that both creationism and intelligent design are religious theories rather than scientific ones, and so are barred from the school system.

Creationism might be losing the battle in the courts, but it's very much alive in other aspects of US life. One example: the $25m Creation Museum in Kentucky.

UK

A poll for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Horizon programme in January 2006 revealed that fewer than 50% of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life.

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons.

Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:

• 22% chose creationism
• 17% opted for intelligent design
• 48% selected evolution theory
• and the rest did not know.

Some Christian schools in the UK teach creationism as well as evolution.

In 2006 one UK examination board admitted that a biology course due to be introduced that September would encourage schools to consider alternatives to the theory of evolution.