Creationism

Creationism, broadlyunderstood, includes the whole range of (usually conservative) Christianattempts to reconcile nature and the Bible on origins. In a narrower sense it means a specificsubset B the view that God created the world just a fewthousand years ago. As the broaderuse includes the narrower, we discuss both. For the theology related to origins, see Creation.

1.Historical background

2.The fundamentalist-modernist controversy

3.Basic models to reconcile nature with Scripture

a.Young-earth creation

b.Old-earth creation

c.Theistic evolution

4.Theintelligent design movement

1. Historical Background.

Traditional Christianinterpretation of the biblical account in Genesis by such theologians asAmbrose (339-97), Thomas Aquinas (1225-74), Martin Luther (1483-1546), and JohnCalvin (1509-64) saw the cosmos as created in a literal week only a fewthousand years ago. Though a fewhad speculated with Augustine (354-430) that the creation may have beeninstantaneous and the week just God=sway of explaining this to humans, no one had seen any need for a more ancientcreation nor a longer time-span for this to happen.

But in the late 1700ssystematic study of the geologic record by Abraham Gottlob Werner (1749-1817),William Smith (1769-1839) and James Hutton (1726-97) began raising problems forthis traditional view. By the1840s most geologists had concluded the earth was far older than a few thousandyears, and a number of Christian thinkers had proposed models for interpretingthe Genesis account along these lines. Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847) and William Buckland (1784-1856) proposedwhat came to be called the Gap or Restitution theory. Here the earth and universe are very old (as evidenced bygeology), but the biblical creation account narrates a recent restoration ofthe earth and the recreation of life following a great catastrophe which haddesolated the planet. As modifiedby George H. Pember (1837-1910), this view came to be widely disseminated inthe older editions of the Scofield Reference Bible. It wasprobably the dominant view among evangelicals until the 1960s.

Another old-earth model wasthe Day-Age theory. Here thebiblical account and the geologic record refer to the same events, but the daysof Genesis are long periods rather than 24 hours. A number of geologists,including James Dwight Dana (1813-95), J. William Dawson (1820-99) and HughMiller (1802-56) came to advocate this view, along with numerous theologianssuch as Franz Delitzsch (1813-90), John Peter Lange (1802-84), Charles Hodge(1797-1878) and Alexander Maclaren (1826-1910).

Others, however, resistedthese moves as unnecessary accommodations to scientific speculation andabandonment of the plain teaching of the Bible. Theologians Robert L. Dabney (1820-98), Presbyterian,and Francis Pieper (1852-1931), Lutheran, are representative of this response.

Meanwhile, by the early1800s, philosopher David Hume (1711-76) had convinced many that miracles wereincredible, that enlightened people should seek to understand nature andhistory without them. In his Originof Species (1859), Charles Darwin(1809-82) presented a theory to eliminate miracles from biologicalorigins. His proposal produced astorm of controversy which has continued to this day. But by the end of the 19^th century, mostbiologists accepted some form of evolution, though many had reservations aboutDarwin=s particular mechanism. Darwin thus added another factor to the origins debate B what parts did God, miracle, and evolution have to playin all this? A number ofevangelical Christians sought to harmonize evolution with the Genesis account,producing models invoking both evolution and God. Early proponents of such theistic evolution includedbotanist Asa Gray (1810-88), geologist James Dwight Dana (1813-95),theologian-geologist George Frederick Wright (1838-1921), and theologianAugustus Hopkins Strong (1836-1921).

2. TheFundamentalist-Modernist Controversy.

The impact of Hume and Darwinwidened the rift between conservatives and liberals in Christendom, leading tothe Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the 20^th century. Thisstruggle pitted Modernists, who sought to reshape Christianity alongnon-miraculous lines, against Fundamentalists, who believed that God really haddone such miracles as narrated in the Bible. In response to liberal teachings, conservatives issued aseries of pamphlets entitled The Fundamentals (1910-15), which were sent to every pastor in theUS. One of the teachings to whichthe series reacted was Darwinism. Yet the main threat seen here was clearly atheistic forms of evolution,as two of the four authors responding to Darwinism were the theisticevolutionists James Orr (1844-1913) and G. Frederick Wright.  From about 1890 to 1940 the mainlinedenominations in the US were the battleground between the two camps.  But by the outbreak of World War 2,most of these denominations had come under the control of the Modernists.

The famous Scopes Trial of1925 was one battle in this war, but it was fought in the public square ratherthan in the churches, for the fight concerned how biology should be taught inthe public schools. Though thetrial resulted in a technical victory for the conservatives, its long-term effectwas to establish a Darwinian monopoly on teaching biology in publiceducation.

The Fundamentalists retiredto lick their wounds, but proceeded to found a number of organizationsconcerned with science and Scripture on origins. Several groups lasted for a few years, but the two whichhave survived to the present are the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA)founded in 1941, and the Creation Research Society (CRS) founded in 1963. The ASA had a broadly evangelicalstatement of faith and included proponents of all the basic models notedbelow. But by the early 1960s, itsleadership had come to be dominated by theistic evolutionists, so a number ofyoung-earth creationists withdrew to form the CRS. Other current organizations which promote one of the basicmodels include the Institute for Creation Research, the Bible-ScienceAssociation (both young-earth), the Interdisciplinary Biblical ResearchInstitute, and Reasons to Believe (both old-earth).

3. Basic models to reconcilenature with Scripture.

The major views by whichevangelicals and fundamentalists have sought to relate the biblical data tothat of modern science can be classified in various ways, but a threefolddivision (with considerable variety within each) is the most common: (1)young-earth creation, (2) old-earth creation, and (3) theistic evolution.

a. Young-earth creation.

Sometimes called recentcreation, creation science, or scientific creationism, this view proposes thatthe universe and all its contents were created a few thousand years ago(suggestions range from six to twenty thousand years). Everything was created in the span ofsix consecutive 24-hour days, the simplest reading of the Genesis account.  The geologic strata and the fossilsfound in them are not a history of millions of years, but the result of aworldwide flood at the time of Noah which destroyed all animal life not on theArk. Proponents of this viewdiffer on what part of the current diversity among animals was originallycreated vs. what has developed since the flood. An important early proponent of the idea that the floodcould explain the geological strata was George McCready Price (1870-1963).  Henry M. Morris (1918-) and John C.Whitcomb (1924-) popularized this approach in The Genesis Flood (1961), and within a decade it had nearly replacedthe Gap Restitution theory as the preferred evangelical view on origins.  Other recent proponents of this viewinclude Stephen A. Austin, Thomas Barnes, Leonard Brand, Wayne Frair, RobertGentry, Duane Gish, Ken Ham, Russell Humphreys, Paul Nelson, and Barry Setterfield..

b. Old-earth creation.

Sometimes called progressivecreation, this view accepts the standard dating provided by geology for theearth and its strata, and by astronomy for the universe, so that the cosmos isseen as some 15 billion years old, the earth perhaps 4.5 billion, with theearliest living things appearing as soon as the earth has cooled enough tosupport life, perhaps 3.8 billion years ago. Proponents disagree on how to understand the days of Genesis(whether ages, days separated by long gaps, days on which the account wasrevealed to Moses, or a literary device with no chronological significance).Old-earth creationists differ from theistic evolutionists (below) in denyingthat the scientific evidence favors macroevolution B the gradual development of all life=s diversity from a single primordial creature, feelinginstead that God has intervened in some way or other at various times inhistory to provide new life forms that would otherwise never have arisen.  Small-scale evolution (microevolution)of varieties within the created kinds is typically affirmed. Old-earthcreationists agree that Adam and Eve are special creations of God rather thannatural developments from the apes, but disagree considerably on how far backin the past humans were created. Recent proponents of this view include Gleason L. Archer, JamesMontgomery Boice, Norman L. Geisler, Alan Hayward, Russell W. Maatman, RobertC. Newman, Pattle P. T. Pun, Hugh Ross, John L. Wiester, and Daniel E.Wonderly.

c. Theistic evolution.

One proponent calls this viewAfully-gifted creation.@ Like old-earth creation,this view accepts the standard scientific dating for the universe, the earth,the various geologic strata and the fossils within them. Unlike old-earth creation, theisticevolutionists believe that macroevolution (gradual, natural change to produceall the variety of living things) has actually occurred, but that this was nota random, mindless, unguided process as many secular evolutionists (such asStephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett) believe.  Instead God guided the process by meansof his providential oversight of all that happens. Theistic evolutionists disagree whether creation involvedany miraculous intervention besides the origin of the universe, but a numberput such intervention at the creation of life and of humans, while others seethe origin of life and the development of humans from the apes as divinelyguided natural processes. Proponents of this view include Henri Blocher, Richard H. Bube, MichaelDenton, Keith B. Miller, George L. Murphy, John Polkinghorne, Howard J. VanTill, and David L. Wilcox.

4. The Intelligent DesignMovement

A recent development in thecontroversy over origins has come to be labeled the intelligent design movement.Following a resurgence of conservative Christianity beginning in the 1960s, aculture war has been heating up between materialists and theists. Materialists believe that reality isbasically matter-energy and impersonal forces, with minds being only a latedevelopment in the history of the universe. Theists believe that behind physical reality is a Mind whichhas designed and produced all that we see.

In 1982 and 1985, a pair ofcourt decisions in Arkansas and Louisiana struck down new laws in those stateswhich permitted teaching of creation alongside evolution in publicschools. The US Supreme Courtconcurred in 1987. Yet a number ofobservers felt that these decisions were flawed. (1) A narrow definition ofcreation was used in the decisions which made creation a religious view whileevolution was not; and (2) a narrow definition of science was used which ruledout in advance any evidence that might point to agency from beyond nature.

Meanwhile, evidence had beenaccumulating that our universe and the life within it looks strangelydesigned. As early as 1913Lawrence J. Henderson=s book The Fitness of the Environment noted many unusual features of chemistry that werejust right for life to exist. Bythe 1950s, physicists had noticed a number of unusual relationships between thebasic constants of nature. Thispicture has sharpened since then as many striking examples of Afine-tuning@have been discovered in cosmology, physics, chemistry and biology, summarizedin such books as Paul Davies= AccidentalUniverse (1982), John Barrow andFrank Tipler=s The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986), Hugh Ross= TheCreator and the Cosmos (1993) andMichael Denton=s Nature=s Destiny (1998). To many these features point to aMind behind the universe. To others,they merely indicate that intelligent life will only exist in those universeswhere everything is just right, so there must be a lot more universes whereeverything is not all right and consequently there is no life.

In biology, Darwin=s theory has long been thought to have explained awayapparent design. It is merely theresult of natural selection rather than the work of a Designer.  But Michael Denton=s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986) and Michael Behe=s Darwin=s Black Box(1996) drew attention to numerous features in living things that suggest theycould not have arisen by chance. Materialists have responded that perhapsnature itself has (impersonal) forces that produce the kind of order needed.

Berkeley law professorPhillip E. Johnson has been a prime mover in the intelligent design movement,beginning with his book Darwin on Trial (1991), followed up with additional books and extensive speaking andwriting. Mathematician-philosopherWilliam A. Dembski has provided a rigorous account of how to distinguish designfrom randomness or law-bound behavior in his book The Design Inference (1998). A sketch of this approach may be seen in Dembski (1998, 1999) in thebibliography following.

How everything came to be isone of the most basic and debated questions we can ask. Evangelicals andfundamentalists contend that both the Bible and nature indicate the universe iscreated and God is its creator. When this occurred and how it happened are disputed. That the universe has not always been,and that the universe and life are strikingly designed, continues to look moreand more certain as scientists probe to the edges of the universe and to thedepths of cells, molecules and elementary particles.

Robert C. Newman

Bibliography

Ackerman, Paul D. (1986). It=s aYoung World After All: Exciting Evidences for Recent Creation. GrandRapids, MI: Baker.

Behe, Michael (1996). Darwin=s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. NewYork: Free Press.

Brand, Leonard (1997). Faith, Reason, and Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth andBiological Origins by Intelligent Design. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews UniversityPress.

Dembski, William A. (1999). Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science &Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Dembski, William A., ed. (1998). Mere Creation: Science, Faith &Intelligent Design. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Denton, Michael (1998). Nature=s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe. NewYork: Free Press.

Gillespie, Charles Coulston (1951). Genesis and Geology: The Impact ofScientific Discoveries upon Religious Beliefs in the Decades Before Darwin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard; reprinted 1959, New York: Harper & Row.

Hagopian, David, ed. (2001). TheGenesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation. Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press.

Livingstone, David N. (1987). Darwin=s Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter BetweenEvangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought. Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans and Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Academic Press.

McIver, Tom (1988). Anti-Evolution: A Reader=s Guide to Writings before and after Darwin. Jefferson, NC: McFarlandand Co.; reprinted 1992, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Moreland, J. P. and John Mark Reynolds, eds. (1999). ThreeViews on Creation and Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Newman, Robert C. and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr.(1977). Genesis One and theOrigin of the Earth. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity;reprinted 2000, Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute(IBRI).

Newman, Robert C. and John L. Wiester, with Janet andJonathan Moneymaker (2000). What=s Darwin Got to Do With It?  A Friendly Conversation about Evolution. DownersGrove, IL: InterVarsity.

Numbers, Ronald L. (1992). TheCreationists. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Numbers, Ronald L., gen. ed. (1995). Creationism in Twentieth-CenturyAmerica. 10 vols. New York: Garland Press.

Price, David; John L. Wiester; and Walter R. Hearn(1986), Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy: A View from theAmerican Scientific Affiliation. Ipswich, MA: ASA.

Ross, Hugh (1995). The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest ScientificDiscoveries of the Century Reveal God. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

Wells, Jonathan (2000). Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?  Why Much of What We Teach AboutEvolution is Wrong. Washington, DC: Regnery.

Whitcomb, John C., Jr. and Henry M. Morris (1961). TheGenesis Flood. Philadelphia: Presbyterian andReformed.

Wiester, John L. (1983). The Genesis Connection. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.Reprinted 1992, Hatfield, PA: IBRI.

Wonderly, Daniel E. (1987). Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Comparedwith Young-Earth Creationist Writings. Hatfield, PA: IBRI.

Van Till, Howard (1986). The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens AreTelling Us about the Creation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Van Till, Howard; Robert E. Snow; John H. Stek; andDavis A. Young (1990). Portraitsof Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the World=s Formation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Young, Davis A. (1982). Christianity and the Age of theEarth. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,

Youngblood, Ronald F. ed. (1986). The GenesisDebate: Persistent Questions about Creation and the Flood. Nashville: Thomas Nelson; reprinted 1990, Grand Rapids: Baker.

This article has beenpublished as ACreationism@ inEncyclopedia of Fundamentalism. Ed. Brenda E. Brasher (New York:Routledge, 2001). Religion andSociety Series, David Levinson, gen. ed.