Creationism

{{silver}}
[[File:Creación de Adán (Miguel Ángel).jpg|thumb|300px|''The Creation of Adam'' by Michelangelo]]{{crenav}}
{{cquote|Several thousand years ago, a small tribe of ignorant near-savages wrote various collections of [[myth]]s, wild tales, [[lie]]s, and gibberish. Over the centuries, the stories were embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled. Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively. The resultant [[Bible|text]], creationists feel, is the best guide to this complex and technical subject.|||Tom Weller<ref>''Science Made Stupid'' by Tom Weller (1985) Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0395366461.</ref>{{rp|65}}}}
'''Creationism''' is the [[belief]] that asserts a [[God]] or gods created [[reality]] (the [[Universe]] and/or its contents) [[Goddidit|through divine will]]. This is opposed to the [[scientific consensus]] that the universe arose through (at least apparently) [[methodological naturalism|purely natural]] [[Big Bang|processes]]. As a result, creationism is a [[pseudoscience]]<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080602213726/http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298 Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design] (11 Apr 2006)</ref><ref>[https://ncse.ngo/scientific-creationism-pseudoscience "Scientific" Creationism as a Pseudoscience] (Summer 1986) ''Creation/Evolution Journal'' 6(2).</ref><ref>[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267227/ Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?] BY Mark Greener (2007) ''EMBO Reports'' 8(12):1107-1109. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401131</ref> and [[anti-intellectual]].<ref>[https://kappanonline.org/anti-intellectualism-anti-evolutionism-science-teachers-hofstadter-branch/ Anti-intellectualism and anti-evolutionism: Lessons from Hofstadter] by Glenn Branch (Mar 26, 2020) ''Kappan''.</ref><ref>''Anti-intellectualism in American Life'' by Richard Hofstadter (1963) Alfred A. Knopf.</ref> Practitioners of Creationism are referred to as "creationists" by their fellow cultists, and as "Primate Change Deniers" by anyone with even a modicum of understanding of science.

"Creationism" is often used as a synonym of [[Young Earth creationism]], but the two are not identical. Due to the existence of many and varied religious beliefs ''and'' due to varied attempts to make [[Creation science|creationism into something "scientific"]], creationism takes many forms. The two major strains are:
*[[Old Earth creationist]]s, who accept [[deep time]] for the Universe but may reject [[evolution]], [[common descent]], or deep time specifically for the [[Earth]]
*[[Young Earth creationist]]s, who insist that the universe is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, assert the [[Biblical literalism|historical truth of the Bible]] (including [[The Fall]] and a [[global flood]]), and almost always reject evolution

Despite [[intelligent design]] proponents' ([[Wedge Document|dishonest]]) protests, [[Religion|religious]] [[faith]] in the (often [[Biblical literalism|literal]]) [[truth]] of [[Holy book|holy texts]], such as [[Genesis]], is the foundation of creationism. Literalism is a tenet shared by [[fundamentalist]]s and creationists of [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], [[Islam]], [[Hinduism]], and other religions. It also goes without saying that the entity that created everything is ''always'' the one of the creationist's faith and not any other.

Because of the assertion of [[theism|divine involvement]], many people who agree with [[science]] on deep time and [[evolution]] but think that a [[God of the gaps]] created the Universe or influenced [[reality]] at some crucial instances (e.g. [[argument from first cause|caused]] the [[Big Bang]] or kickstarted [[abiogenesis]]) are most certainly creationists under the broad definition of the term, though they are frequently included under other labels such as believers in [[theistic evolution]] or other toned-down positions.

==Categories==
Creationists can be categorized according to the specifics of their belief, including:
*'''{{sl|Age of the Universe}} (and its contents)''': Creationists hold the age of the Universe to be anywhere from the scientifically-accepted 13.8 billion to the Biblically-obtained 6,000 years.
*'''{{sl|Religion}}''': Creationists can be of virtually any religious stripe (and {{sl|None|allegedly, none at all}}).
*'''{{sl|Acceptance of evolution}}:''' Some creationists think that no [[genetic]] change can happen; others accept evolution wholeheartedly, but with the intervention of a deity. Probably a plurality are in between, [[Microevolution and macroevolution#Microevolution.2C according to the creationists|accepting evolution at the small scale but denying it on the large scale]], usually drawing the line at [[speciation]].

===Age of the Universe===
{{main|Evidence against a recent creation}}
From oldest to youngest.

====Old Earth creationism====
{{main|Old Earth creationism}}
Old Earth creationism (OEC) accepts deep time and the methods used to reach this figure. Nevertheless, OECs believe that life was deliberately created/guided/etc. by a religious deity. OECs generally fall into five categories:
#[[Theistic evolution]] asserts that God caused [[abiogenesis]] and/or guided the process of evolution.<ref name="eugenie scott">[https://web.archive.org/web/20210726003944/https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eugenie-Scott/publication/234147790_Antievolution_and_Creationism_in_the_United_States/links/54c6a76b0cf289f0cecbcda3/Antievolution-and-Creationism-in-the-United-States.pdf Antievolution and Creationism in the United States] by Eugenie Carol Scott (2003) ''Annual Review of Anthropology'' 26:263-289. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.26. (archived from July 26, 2021).</ref>
#[[Day-age creationism]] is a literal interpretation of [[Genesis]] concluding that creation took place as claimed in Genesis, but that each of the "days" represents a vast period of time.<ref name="eugenie scott"/>
#The framework interpretation of Genesis, advanced by biblical scholar Meredith Kline,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210520052824/https://www.opc.org/OS/html/V9/1c.html The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary] by Lee Irons (2000) ''Ordained Servant'' 9(1). Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Archived from May 20, 2021.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200922182906/https://meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/because-it-had-not-rained/ Because it had not Rained] by ''Meredith G. Kline'' (archived from September 22, 2020).</ref> is a literal interpretation of Genesis that posits that the Genesis account is not to be taken as a historical or scientific description of creation, but as an allegorical and theological one. (Leaving it apparently in the rather odd state of being both "literal" and "allegorical".)
#[[Progressive creationism]] is predicated on accepting mainstream scientific findings regarding the [[age of the Earth]], but positing that God progressively created new creatures over the course of millions of years.<ref name="eugenie scott" />
#[[Gap creationism]] asserts that God created the Universe and Earth, but then laid waste to Earth and remade it as described in {{bible|Genesis|1|2}} over the course of six, 24-solar-hour days.<ref name="eugenie scott" />

====Young Earth creationism====
{{main|Young Earth creationism}}
Young Earth creationism (YEC) rejects the [[scientific consensus]] on the age of the Earth and universe in favour of dating creation via the [[Bible]], using Bishop [[James Ussher]]'s biblical genealogies and accepting [[Genesis]] as history. In order to justify their literalism, YECs must [[Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism|reject numerous branches of science]] and ignore significant [[evidence against a recent creation]].

YECs fall into a few categories on the age of creation:
*The universe and earth were created 6,000-10,000 years ago over 6 days, and show [[evidence]] of that age (common, utterly unscientific).
*The Universe and earth were created 6,000-10,000 years ago over 6 days, [[Omphalos hypothesis|but was designed to look old to test believers' faith]].<ref>Price, Robert. [https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/CEJ/pdfs/CEJ_02.pdf#page=28 The Return of the Navel, The "Omphalos" Argument in Contemporary Creationism.] National Center for Science Education. 1980.</ref> (uncommon, [[unfalsifiable]])
*The Universe was created 13.5 billion years ago, but the Earth (and sometimes the [[Solar System]]) was/were specially created 6000 years ago. (uncommon, less unscientific).

And on evolution:

*Some YECs accept [[#Theistic evolution|theistic evolution]] or [[Intelligent design#|intelligent design]], despite the (contradictory) requisite billions of years. (uncommon)
*[[#Rapid speciation|Animals rapidly speciated after The Flood, from a few original "kinds"]]. (common)
*[[#Microevolution only|Only "microevolution" (evolution without speciation) occurs]]. (common)
*[[#No evolution|No evolution (not even heritable mutation) occurs]]. (uncommon)

YECs created "[[creation science]]" to bolster their biblical claims regarding the age of the Earth and their opposition to the [[theory of evolution]]. When that wasn't "sciency" enough to [[Teach the controversy|teach in schools]], they produced "[[#None|intelligent design]]".

===Religion===
Pick a god, any god.

====Buddhism====
Insofar as it is a religion, [[Buddhism]] sees no requirement for any type of deity, creator god or no. So in this respect, Buddhism is [[agnostic]] when it comes to the creation of the universe, and any beliefs regarding creation are left to the individual Buddhist practitioner's discretion. In some cases, Buddhism is held to teach that the universe has ''no'' creator, having existed eternally.

====Judaism and Christianity====
[[Image:Creation.jpg|thumb|upright|You saw it here first!]]
Particularly in the [[United States]], the most prevalent YEC belief stems from the Jewish and Christian [[mythology]] laid out in the [[Old Testament]]. This includes interpreting the various stories scattered throughout the book as historically accurate, such as those of the [[Tower of Babel]] and the [[global flood]].

Ordinarily, Creationism does not sit well with [[Judaism]], and in fact, a large number of Jews, even [[Orthodox Judaism | Orthodox]], reject the concept of creationism. This is because Jewish teaching stresses a more compressive and edificatory interpretation of [[Scripture]] as opposed to a literal interpretation. This is the case especially with the Book of Genesis, most Jewish scholars affirm that it is in fact a fable or at worst an embellishment of [[pseudohistorical]] events. This does not, however, preclude the fact that numerous Jews, albeit rather a minority, do indeed subscribe to a creationist ideology. 

Creationism appears most prominently within [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] and [[evangelical]] [[Protestant]] churches. While the [[Roman Catholic Church]] officially states that evolution is compatible with the Bible, many conservative Catholics still reject evolution. Even the Church's acceptance is somewhat half-hearted, insisting that the "spiritual [[soul]]" (which equates to the human higher mental faculties) was directly created as it could not have evolved (contrary to mainstream evolutionary scientific findings), while [[Adam and Eve]] literally existed because The Fall could not have occurred otherwise; without it there wouldn't be any [[Original sin]] (oh no, how horrible!). 

There are several problems with Christian creationism:
*Flawed [[Biblical literalism]]
*[[Biblical contradictions]] (especially during [[Creation Week]])
*[[Biblical scientific errors]] (and lack of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]])
*[[Failed Biblical prophecies]]

====Islam====
[[File:Flat Earth Wonders of Creation.jpeg|thumb|upright|right|The ''original'' Islamic creationism. Behold: an angel supporting a fish supporting a goat supporting a [[flat earth]].]]
{{main|Islamic creationism}}
Although certain culturally blinkered groups may usually associate creationism with fundamentalist Christianity, the [[Islamic]] world has its own version of creationism.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210610102552/https://www.learnreligions.com/creation-of-the-universe-2004201 Creation of the Universe and Evolution in Islam] by Huda (Updated January 17, 2019) ''Learn Religions'' (archived on July 10, 2021).</ref> Unlike the Christian {{sl|Young Earth creationism|YEC movements}}, few Muslim creationists insist that the world was created in a matter of days a few thousand years ago, largely because the [[Qur'an]] is less explicit about the subject, making Islamic creationists into {{sl|Old Earth creationism|Old Earth creationists}}.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210814164703/https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/science/03islam.html Creationism, Minus a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World] by Kenneth Chang (November 2, 2009) ''The New York Times'' (archived on August 14, 2021).</ref> However, many Muslims reject the idea of evolution,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210826105614/https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-science-and-popular-culture/ Chapter 7: Religion, Science and Popular Culture] In: ''The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society'' (April 30, 2013) Pew Research Center (archived on August 26, 2021).</ref> and the vast majority reject the concept of common descent.<ref>[https://archive.org/details/islam-and-evolution-al-ghazali-and-the-modern-evolutionary-paradigm ''Islam and Evolution: Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm''] by Shoaib Ahmed Malik (2021) Routledge. ISBN 9781000405255. "Jalajel (2018) uniquely divorces the connection between the ''creation of Adam'' with the ''start of humanity''. … In this narrative, when Adam descended to earth from heaven (as opined by most scholars), the Qur'an doesn't affirm nor negate the idea of there being already-existent humans on earth. … there is equally the possibility of … there being human beings before Adam's descent … allowing for all people thereafter to share in common descent with all life on Earth as well as a lineage going back to Adam."</ref>{{rp|135}}

There are additional issues with Islamic creationism:
* [[Qur'anic contradictions]]
* [[Qur'anic scientific errors]] (and the lack of [[Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge]])

====Hare Krishna====
{{main|Hindu creationism}}
[[Hare Krishna]] creationism (HKC), based on a literal interpretation of the [[Vedas]] (which actually depict the origin of the universe in a manner that lines up frighteningly well with modern science even when taken at face value, but not so much the origin of humanity), has grown with the rise of [[Hindu nationalism]] and has been embraced by some writers, such as [[Michael Cremo]]. HKC asserts that humanity has existed for one-two ''billion'' years, has not evolved, and points to "[[out of place artifacts]]" and [[paranormal]] reports for evidence. HKC has been dismissed by the scientific community as [[pseudoscience]]. However, Hinduism is not so much a single religion as it is a loose, fuzzy category comprising many distinct, but related (if only barely at times) [[sect]]s. Some denominations of Hinduism are, or rather, ''were'', [[agnostic]] and/or [[atheist]] about the existence of deities and the creation of the universe, such as the {{wpl|Ājīvika}} sect of Hindu philosophy, thereby making Ājīvika more aligned with something like [[Jainism]] or [[Buddhism]] than orthodox Hinduism.{{efn|Notice that all three of the mentioned religions, Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, are Dharmic religions derived from the same common source, Indo-Aryan mythology, which itself ultimately derives from the same root as [[Zoroastrianism|various]] [[Norse mythology|other]] [[Greco-Roman religion|disparate]] [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] mythologies, that is, the [[wp:Proto-Indo-European mythology|religion]] of the [[wp:Proto-Indo-Europeans|Proto-Indo-Europeans]].}}

====Raëlism====
{{main|Raëlism}}
Raëlian creationism is a form of creationism practiced by the followers of the Raëlian religion. Raëlian creationism believes that the world and all life on it, including humans, were created by the scientists of a humanoid [[alien]] race called the Elohim which Raëlians believe early humans mistook for gods.<ref>[https://sites.pitt.edu/~dash/rael.html The Creation of Life on Earth] by  D. L. Ashliman (January 8, 2003) ''University of Pittsburgh''.</ref><ref>[https://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=relighp Science Replacing Supernatural: The Raëlian Movement and their Reinterpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible] by Claire S. Gould (2010) ''Religious Studies Honors Papers'' 3. Connecticut College.</ref>

====Dreamtime====
Michael Connolly, a Kullilla and Muruwari Aboriginal artist and "Indigenous Australian Ambassador",<ref>[https://www.kullillaart.com.au/about_us/Michaels_Biography Michael's Biography] ''Dreamtime Kullilla-Art''.</ref> claimed in 2007 that the ancestors of Indigenous Australians coexisted with the galloping ancestors of modern-day kangaroos, based on a Dreamtime story from New South Wales, which tells of originally quadrupedal kangaroos having been cursed to hop on their hind legs.<ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-13/dreamtime-expert-backs-galloping-roo-claims/986836 Dreamtime expert backs galloping roo claims] (12 Dec 2007) ''ABC News''.</ref> Never mind that these galloping kangaroos lived 25 million years ago, well before any humans.<ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-06/roos-broke-into-a-gallop-not-a-hop-study/979532 Roos broke into a gallop, not a hop: study] by Barbara Miller (5 Dec 2007) ''ABC News''.</ref>

====None====
{{main|Intelligent design}}
Intelligent design (ID) proponents, as part of an attempted "mainstreaming" of creationism, have argued that "design" isn't an inherently religious argument, but instead can operate under the [[secular]] framework of science.

ID proponents generally raise two arguments for ID's secularity:
*The designer need not be the [[Christian]] [[God]]<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210808100621/https://intelligentdesign.org/faq/ Frequently Asked Questions] ''Intelligent Design''. Discovery Institute (archived on August 8, 2021).</ref> (and the favored "secular" explanation is [[directed panspermia]]).
*[[Irreducible complexity]] requires a designer, [[God of the gaps|because science can't explain how something evolved]].<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210122220801/https://intelligentdesign.org/articles/a-slightly-technical-introduction-to-intelligent-design/ A Slightly Technical Introduction to Intelligent Design] by Casey Luskin (2016) ''Intelligent Design''. Discovery Institute (archived on January 22, 2021).</ref>

In turn, this nonreligiousness would [[Teach the controversy|allow ID into the classroom]]. Yet ID proponents are almost always Christian fundamentalists, and don't hide it well; consequently, ID proponents often effectively rule out anything but a religious explanation (e.g., rejecting directed panspermia). Mishaps such as [[cdesign proponentsists]] have only made this more apparent. This has led intelligent design to be "politely" referred to as creationism in a cheap suit.

===Acceptance of evolution===
From most to least.

====Deistic evolution====
{{main|Deistic evolution}}
[[Deism|Deistic]] evolution asserts a range of ideas:
*Natural history is true and God is the non-intervening and disinterested creator of the Universe. (Like someone who accidentally created a universe, didn't know what to do with it, and put it in storage.)
*Natural history is true and God is the non-intervening but interested creator of the Universe. (Like a scientist observing an experiment they can't or won't control.)
*Natural history is true and God is the non-intervening creator who nevertheless set up the Universe [[Teleology|to work towards a certain end]]. (Like a watchmaker.)

The more 'severe' forms of deistic evolution are often indistinguishable from mild theistic evolution.

====Theistic evolution====
{{main|Theistic evolution}}
Theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism) holds that evolution happened, but God guided it somehow. Many theistic evolutionists hold that God somehow made humans "special", via addition of a soul, [[morality]], [[consciousness]], etc., somewhere along the evolutionary path. Others assert that God ensured the evolution of life, of intelligent life, and/or of humans specifically, either via merely setting up the environments, through ensuring the proper [[mutation]]s via undetectable manipulation of [[electron]]s, via directly "inserting" mutations, or even via controlling individuals of a species. The most extreme forms of theistic evolution are indistinguishable from intelligent design.

====Intelligent design====
{{main|Intelligent design}}
Intelligent design is the same as theistic creationism, but argues that not only did God intervene, but God's intervention was ''necessary'' for some aspect(s) of life (e.g. irreducible complexity). Such arguments are almost always based on personal [[incredulity]]. Interestingly, all "arguments" for ID currently consist of attempting to pick holes in evolution, rather than positive evidence for design. However, principles of [[emergence]] or complexity theory are fundamentally incompatible with ID, as they explain complex structures under [[Methodological naturalism|naturalism]], without a designer.

====Rapid speciation====
{{main|Baraminology}}
Some creationists, in order to fit the history of the Earth into 6000 years, and in order to allow a massively smaller number of species/kinds necessary to fit on the Ark, or in order to explain the existence of carnivores and other animals that couldn't be part of the [[Garden of Eden]], argue that speciation rapidly occurred after the Fall or after the Flood, allowing the current diversity of life. 

At least they accept evolution ''happened'', even if it would be more of a '''hyper'''evolution.  Few of them appreciate the irony of that, however.

====Microevolution only====
{{main|Microevolution and macroevolution}}
Some creationists assert that (macro)evolution is impossible, meaning that no new species/"kinds" can be created. Instead, either (a) only mutations happen, which allows microevolution, meaning in-species evolution happens and stuff like different-colored fur is possible, or (b) mutations can only reduce "information content" of the [[genome]], and so all evolution is merely the breaking down of lifeforms. Sometimes this is tied in with the supposed decline of humans since The Fall, as reflected in the ages attained by people in Genesis over time.

====No evolution====
Lastly, some assert that no mutation or genetic change occurs whatsoever. This type of creationism is mostly dead, but had some followers until the discovery of [[genetics]] and [[DNA]].

==History==
Creationism as a distinct, important belief did not originate until the development of modern science from the late 1600s onward. Before then, the assumption of a young Earth was almost universal in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East, because of religiosity (whether Christian or Muslim or Jewish) and because of a lack of counter-evidence. As such, many believers believed in a young Earth solely on subjective faith (and no reason to think otherwise), not on objective scientific grounds.

===Church fathers===
Even among the church fathers there was doubt regarding the six-day creation. [[Augustine of Hippo]] was one of the first Church leaders to question a literal Genesis creation and Flood.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060820125605/http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/saintaugustine.htm Saint Augustine] by Ken Smith (archived from August 20, 2006).</ref> No one was certain of how old the Earth was back then. Their guess about the planet's age and how long a day was when God created the universe (which, in some cases, is based on a [[Bible]] verse in {{bible|2 Peter|3|8}} that refers to the day of the Lord being like a thousand years) is about as good as it can get. However, during the 18<sup>th</sup> and 19<sup>th</sup> centuries, scientists, [[Christian]] and non-Christian alike, began to uncover evidence that points to Earth being much, much older than thousands of years. This scientific evidence points to the age of our planet being in the billions of years, thus giving people the true age of the Earth.

Even historically, there have been many writers within the Christian tradition (historically at least as important as the actual text of the Bible) who did not hold the Genesis account as literal. The oldest commentary, by [[Philo]], which was written even before the birth of [[Christ]], holds to an allegorical view of the text.<ref>Philo. [https://web.archive.org/web/20210424055201/http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book1.html On The Creation] Translated by Yonge. ''The Works of Philo''. Early Christian Writings (archived on April 24, 2021).</ref> There is only one Church father who is known to have held to a view which is even somewhat literal, St. Basel, and there are a plethora who are known to have held to an allegorical interpretation (Augustine of Hippo, St. Ignatius of Antioch, [[Origen]],<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210722011035/https://iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/ Origen of Alexandria (185—254 C.E.)] by Edward Moore, ''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (archived on July 22, 2021).</ref><ref>''The Bible: The Book That Bridges the Millennia'' by Maxine Clark Beach (1988). General Board of Global Ministries. Part 2.</ref>{{rp|33-36}} etc.). Also, in {{bible|Galatians|4|24}}, [[Paul of Tarsus]] presents the relationship between [[Abraham]], Sarah, and Hagar allegorically for the purpose of instructing the church at Galatia, which means it is possible that he applied this allegorical interpretation to the entire story of Abraham, though the text of [[Galatians]] does not state or imply that.

===Plutonism and Neptunism===
At around the year 1750, a division took form on the view of which forces had shaped the Earth's [[geology]]. The two camps became known as Plutonism and Neptunism. Plutonists believed that igneous rock soldified from magma, while Neptunists believed that [[water]]&nbsp;— and in particular, the [[Great Flood]]&nbsp;- was the primary force shaping the world, with rock layers crystallizing out over time.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210926011934/https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Neptunism.html Neptunism.] ''Chemeurope.com'' (archived on September 26, 2021).</ref><ref>[https://www.britannica.com/science/geochronology/The-principle-of-superposition-of-rock-strata The principle of superposition of rock strata] ''Britannica''.</ref><ref>[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plutonist Plutonist] ''Merriam-Webster''.</ref>

As one might have guessed, the two groups got their names from two Roman deities: [[Pluto]], who ruled the underworld, and [[Neptune]], who ruled the seas. Interestingly, even the Neptunists were saying that the Earth was older (placing it at about 75,000 years) than [[Age of the Earth#Early Christian and modern Young Earth Creationist Views|the 6000 years that had been calculated from the Bible]] (and even today, the oldest age that [[YEC]] Bible scholars can get is 20,000 years).

====Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism====
In both of these groups, there were people who felt that the Earth had changed in the past, as it did in the present, while others held that a series of catastrophes - both small and large - had shaped the Earth (a model that would allow for shorter timespans). By the year 1790, this division solidified into what would later be known as Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism.

Based on Uniformitarianism, the Earth was turning out to be far older than even the Neptunists had figured - on the order of ''millions'' of years older.<ref>[https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2cjms0 ''Fit to Rule, Darwin's Revolution: Day the Universe Changed''] by James Burke (1985)</ref> It was at around this time that Creationism itself schismed into Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism, though the latter would largely go unnoticed until brought back into the discussion in the late 1960s, thanks to W. Dennis Burrowes.

Uniformitarianism on its own was creating a host of problems with Young Earth Creationism:

#Young Earth Creationism did not agree with observations based on Uniformitarianism Geology (1787)
#Young Earth Creationism could not explain the placement of fossils and rocks in layers (1794)
#Young Earth Creationism got overly complicated beginning with Cuvier’s double flood theory (1813) and ended up with 6 “Gardens of Eden”
#Young Earth Creationism could not explain alterations of fresh and sea water animals in stata as had been explained in ''Principles of Geology'' (1830–1833)
#No amount of mathematics could keep Noah’s Ark from sinking even at the Genus level (c1840s) and you had the issue of how the various animals got from the Ark to their various locations around the world.

By the time Darwin (and Alfred Russel Wallace) came up with the idea of evolution through natural selection in the late 1860s Young Earth Creationism was already in trouble.

==The war against evolution==
It had been widely thought by paleontologists of the second half of the 20<sup>th</sup> century that the opening shot against evolution by creationists was cast in 1871 with the destruction of what was to be the first [[paleontology]] museum which was to be called "Paleozoic Museum"), located in Central Park in [[New York City]]. The museum was to feature life-size models of dinosaurs created by pioneer paleoartist {{wpl|Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins||.}} Alas, further research reported in 2023, makes the claim that the destruction was due to creationist ideology unlikely.<ref name=kreier>[https://www.sciencenews.org/article/dinosaur-paleontology-central-park The real culprit in a 19th century dinosaur whodunit is finally revealed: Creationism wasn’t to blame for the destruction of Central Park’s dinos] by Freda Kreier (January 9, 2024 at 8:00 am) ''Science News''.</ref><ref>[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016787823000366 The curious case of Central Park's dinosaurs: The destruction of Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins' Paleozoic Museum revisited] by Victoria Coules & Michael J. Benton (2023) ''Proceedings of the Geologists' Association'' 134(3):344-360. doi:10.1016/j.pgeola.2023.04.004.</ref> Without this anecdote from 1871, the generally accepted view now is that creationist attacks on evolution began in earnest beginning in the 20<sup>th</sup> century.<ref name=kreier/>

===Seventh-day Adventism===
However, according to Ronald L. Numbers' book ''The Creationists'' (University of California Press, 1993), the [[Seventh-day Adventism|Seventh-day Adventists]] spawned the YE [[dogma]]tic cult (even [[Henry Morris]] (1918-2006), the so-called "father of the modern creationism movement" as mentioned below, has acknowledged this) in response to [[Charles Darwin]]'s so-called "dangerous idea" as told in his book, ''On The Origin of Species Through Natural Selection'', published in 1859. While most Christians observe the Sabbath Day as a day of worship on Sunday, this religious sect observes their Sabbath from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset in honor of the Creation Week which occurred as told in [[Genesis]] 1 of the [[Bible]] in a six-day, 24-hour (somewhat) time period according to their interpretations of it. When they heard about Charles Darwin's revolutionary new idea that theorized that all life evolved through natural selection, they became disturbed by it. This new teaching did not fit into their religious preconceptions. But then, their mistress and founder, [[Ellen G. White]], (1827-1915) a self-proclaimed prophetess and a cult leader, claimed, in one of her writings from 1864, that she had seen a vision from God who showed her how He created the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] in a six-day period, and that the [[fossil|fossils]] were all the result of plants and animals that had perished during the Great Flood of [[Noah]]. To her disciples, this alleged vision solved the whole problem and they began to take her visions and her teachings to heart. 

One of Ellen's disciples, George McCready Price {{lived|1870|1963}}, became so hooked on this idea that he began to endorse it and distribute magazines about this new form of creationism to many people in order to win converts. Then in 1923, Price published a book called ''The New Geology'' which related his ideas about Earth being 6,000 years old, created in six literal 24-hour day periods, and which was later covered with the great flood of Noah, which destroyed everything and turned all of the plants and animals into fossils.<ref>[https://archive.org/details/G.Mcc.PriceTheNewGeologyATextbookForCollegesNormalSchoolsAnd ''The New Geology: A Textbook for Colleges, Normal Schools, and Training Schools, and for the General Reader'' by George McCready Price (1923) Pacific Press Publishing Association.</ref> This concept is strongly based on the writings of Archbishop [[James Ussher]], who concluded, by adding the genealogies and the historical dates of the [[Bible]] and other major events that happened after the Biblical events leading up to Ussher's time, that the earth was created in 4004 BCE on Sunday, October 23.

===Current===
Most people disregarded creationism, but [[Christian fundamentalists]] took it to heart. One was [[Henry Morris]], a civil [[engineer]], who became one of Price's most loyal disciples. In 1960, Morris paired up with John Whitcomb, another YEC advocate, to write and publish ''The Genesis Flood''. The book created a sensation among many fundamentalist Christian groups and started the modern creationism movement that continues to this very day. So, the next time a fundamentalist is insisting to you that YEC is correct, one can chide them about their [[heretical]] Seventh-day Adventist beliefs… except one is more likely to draw a blank stare, since most of them are unaware of the Adventist origins of modern YEC.

Over the years, many organizations sprang up to advocate this questionable dogma. The most notable current creationist groups include the [[Institute for Creation Research]] founded by [[Henry Morris]], [[Answers in Genesis]] founded by [[Ken Ham]], the [[Discovery Institute]], [[Creation Ministries International]], and Creation Science Evangelism founded by [[Kent Hovind]].

The rise of Christian creationist organizations helped spur the rise of [[Islamic creationism|Islamic creationist]] and [[Hindu creationism|Hindu creationist]] movements in their respective religions in the 1980s-1990s to the present.

==Demographics==
Young Earth creationism exists primarily among [[Christian]] and [[Jewish]] fundamentalists, and is most popular in the [[USA]].

===Developed nations===
A 2012 Gallup poll<ref>[https://news.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx In US, 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins, Highly religions Americans most likely to believe in creationism] by Frank Newport (June 1, 2012) ''Gallup''.</ref> reveals that 15% of Americans agree with the statement, "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process" (the option that's actually [[Reality|backed by science]]). 46% believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so" (the [[Fractal wrongness|"YEC compatible"]] option). 38% fall somewhere in the middle and think that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" (the "Sure, evolution is a thing, but [[theistic evolution|I need God to be involved to feel comfortable about it]]" option). While these results would seem to indicate that 46% of Americans are Young Earth creationists, the poll's focus on human beings coming about through evolution ignores the possibility of a belief in [[human exceptionalism|God personally creating mankind]] accompanied with acceptance of evolution in regards to non-human life. What one ''can'' conclude from this poll, however, is that, rather disconcertingly, a whopping 84% of respondents fell back on some form of [[Goddidit]] explanation when the issue of humanity's origin came up. When the poll was repeated in 2017, 19% agreed with the scientific description, and the results were evenly split between the other two options, at 38% each.<ref>[https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low] by Art Swift (May 22, 2017) ''Gallup''.</ref>

A 2006 poll among adults in developed nations showed only 40% of adult Americans as accepting evolution. Only [[Turkey]] had a lower acceptance rate (25%), while acceptance in [[Japan]] and [[Europe]] is typically higher than 60%. Though similar as with the Gallup poll from above, the poll focused on the evolution of humans, asking whether people agreed or disagreed with the statement, "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals."<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution] by Ker Than (August 10, 2006) ''Live Science''.</ref>

Although it has little political traction, creationism exists in the [[UK]].  An article in ''[[The Guardian]]'' in September 2008 put the number of people believing in YEC ideas at 10% of the population.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism  Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design: Teachers need to accommodate the differing world views of students from Jewish, Christian or Muslim backgrounds – which means openly discussing creationism and intelligent design as alternatives to evolutionary theory] by Michael Reiss (11 Sep 2008 11.43 EDT) ''The Guardian''. 10% of UK population creationists.</ref>

===Middle East===
Contrary to popular belief, YEC beliefs are not common in the [[Muslim]] world. Although some Muslim cultures reject the theory of evolution and almost all reject common descent, most accept that the universe was created billions of years ago and do not insist on a six-day creation as young Earth creationists do, and the schools in many Muslim countries include evolution in their biology curricula.{{cn}}

===Not all theists are YECs===
Young Earth creationism and intelligent design are largely limited to more conservative or "fundamentalist" branches of religion. The vast majority of theists worldwide&nbsp;— including Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, some Muslims, deists, and many mainstream Christian churches including the [[Anglican Communion]], the [[United Methodist Church]], and the [[Roman Catholic|Roman Catholic Church]]&nbsp;— will accept the facts of [[evolution]] and even the [[Big Bang]], though they still maintain some belief that [[Theistic evolution|God created everything]].

==Creationist arguments==
{{main|List of creationist claims}}
[[File:1984.jpeg|thumb|right|You are mistaken there are no transitional fossils]]

===Scientists/philosophers were creationist!===
Assertions that [[Isaac Newton]], {{wpl|Abraham ibn Ezra}} (ca. 1089-1164 [[CE]]), or [[Josephus]] (ca. 37-ca. 100 CE) embraced the idea that a young Earth may be true, but without significance. They were creationists because of a lack of an alternative, rather than on its merits. Also, any modern creationist should be aware that any heretical act committed in Europe during the 16<sup>th</sup> or 15<sup>th</sup> centuries would've been [[Inquisition|punishable by death]], so it's no wonder [[Galileo]] never actually ''fell from the faith''.

===Intelligent design===
{{main|Intelligent design}}

===Science is flawed===
{{main|Antiscience}}
Creationists often reject scientific theories and discoveries that go against their ideas&nbsp;— but rather than presenting evidence, they resort to attacking modern science. This is based on not only a misunderstanding of how science develops but also on the [[false dichotomy]] that if science is wrong (in ''any'' way), Christian creationism and Biblical literalism must be true.  Since creationist ideas are based on [[faith]] rather than evidence, they are not falsifiable and are not classed as science. [[Ken Ham]] admits as much, having stated in his [[Bill Nye debates Ken Ham|debate]] with [[Bill Nye]] that "[He's] a Christian, and so no amount of [[reproducibility|independent]], {{wpl|Consilience|consilient}} evidence would ever alter his beliefs in any way."

Popular methods of discrediting modern science include:

*'''[[Quote mining]]''':
::This is the practice of isolating quotes from their original context in order to support a particular view. This often is used in conjunction with the [[argument from authority]]&nbsp;— i.e., an authoritative person said this, so it must be right, even if they were actually saying something ''opposite'' what you're making them out to say. The ellipsis&nbsp;— the omission of intervening text&nbsp;— is one way of quote mining and is often of staggering magnitude (the sections on either side of the ellipsis might be pulled from opposite sides of a book, for instance<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20011211210355/http://www.ooblick.com/text/patton/#Longest%20Ellipsis Quotations about Evolution: The longest ellipsis in the world] by Andrew Arensburger (Last updated Aug 3, 2001) ''Ooblick.com'' (archived from December 11, 2001).</ref>).
*'''[[Politicization of science|Politicization]]''':
::Claiming modern science is politicized and biased because "most scientists are [[liberal]]s or [[moderate]]s." This is, of course, untrue, and even if it ''were'' true, it constitutes a fallacious [[appeal to motive]].
*'''[[FUD|Exaggerating the limits]] of a [[scientific theory]]''':
::Usually the phrase "[[only a theory]]" is passed about without any sense of [[irony]], as creationists themselves sometimes attempt to pass creationism off as a "theory", albeit one unsupported by any evidence. This is also due to a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. Yet for them somehow the Bible is not "only a theory".
*'''Pointing out [[Science was wrong before|science has been wrong before]]''':
::This is often combined with the above method of citing the fact that science is theory. Of course, science has been wrong, but when it is found to be wrong it changes and becomes more accurate. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, by definition doesn't change, maintaining, at best, a constant distance from reality. But since YEC as it's presently articulated is quite a recent phenomenon&nbsp;— [[Henry M. Morris]]' ''The Genesis Flood'' wasn't published until 1961<ref>''The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications'' by John C. Whitcomb, Jr. & Henry M. Morris (1961) Baker Book House.</ref>&nbsp;— in this particular respect fundamentalism has actually gotten ''further'' from reality.{{efn|Morris famously stated that "When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data." Morris and other YECs clearly view themselves as greater authorities on the subject than the Church Fathers, as Augustine of Hippo noted that the purported perfection of scripture means that any apparent disagreement between science and a particular ''interpretation'' of the Bible simply means that the interpretation is not the correct one.}}
*'''Exploiting the existence of [[Uniformitarianism|non-uniformitarian]] views''':
::This can be wide-reaching, from the [[speed of light]] [[c-decay|changing over time]] to support the apparent age of the [[universe]] to bizarre [[hypotheses]] and suggestions that help support a global flood event.
*'''Exploiting [[science fiction]] and [[Popular science|popular culture]]:''' 
::As not all people are experts in all fields of science, a lot of people have to make do with popularised and slightly inaccurate versions of scientific theories. The inaccuracies or dramatisations of these theories which slip into popular culture (such as [[natural selection]] being termed "[[survival of the fittest]]") are easily exploitable. So is saying that [[intelligent design]] is right because it (sort of) happens in [[Stanley Kubrick]]'s film ''2001: A Space Odyssey''. 
*'''Invoking [[divine intervention]]:'''
::This technique solves many problems, like the [[starlight problem]] and explaining why [[incest]] was not an issue for [[Adam]] and [[Eve]]'s offspring as well as for those aboard [[Noah's Ark]]. From a [[materialist]]ic view, these are unsatisfying answers. Often this is abbreviated to "[[goddidit]]." Where this excuse might generate problems, YECs are known to resort to the related but more specific [[Flooddidit]], [[Falldidit]] and [[Satandidit]].
*'''Referring to obsolete sources:'''
::Science thrives on ''change''. When discrediting evolutionary theories, creationists will often cite [[Charles Darwin]]'s original ''[[The Origin of Species]]'' and point out issues which were poorly understood at the time. As all of science is a work in progress, the specific details of the theory of evolution have changed much since Darwin's time and continue to be improved. Evolution is referred to as [[Darwinism]] (often to establish a [[false equivalence]] with religion), ignoring progress since his time. It's also a form of [[special pleading]]: they never refer to [[physicist]]s as [[Isaac Newton|Newtonists]] or [[Albert Einstein|Einsteinists]], nor [[chemists]] as Lavoisierists,<ref>[http://chemistry.about.com/od/historyofchemistry/a/Who-Is-The-Father-Of-Chemistry.htm Who is the Father of Chemistry? It depends on whom you ask] by Anne Marie Helmenstine (Updated February 24, 2020) ''ThoughtCo.''</ref> nor microbiologists as Leeuwenhoekists, optical scientists as [[Ibn al-Haytham|Alhazenists]], or [[mathematicians]] as Archimedeans. Alternatively, creationists say that Darwin was wrong and overlook that [[genetic drift|later]] [[gene-centered view of evolution|theories]] give a [[Modern synthesis|better]] [[punctuated equilibrium|picture]] of evolution.
*'''[[Creation science|Creationist "scientists"]] operating [[Ultracrepidarian|far outside their fields of expertise]]:'''
::For example, a physicist writing about DNA analysis or geologists commenting on biology. In science, this is of course perfectly acceptable, but it does not by default give them authority over someone who has proved themselves as a specialist in an area. This is possibly most apparent in the [[A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism|published list of scientists who disagree with evolution, where only a small handful are qualified biologists]]. [[Denial]] of [[climate change]] uses the [[Oregon Petition|same tactics]]. (To turn it around, would you accept the authority of a biologist about questions in nuclear physics? Maybe tentatively, but if nuclear physicists pointed out that the biologist got the information all wrong, then the biologist was clearly out of their depth.)
*'''Referring to "[[Global flood|the Flood]]" [[flooddidit|for everything]]:''' 
::Similar to divine intervention, The Flood is often cited to explain the presence of [[fossil]]s, sedimentary layers, [[The Grand Canyon]] and to explain why [[radiometric dating]] would be flawed. However, this [[Begging the question|presumes]] a worldwide flood occurred and that it would adequately explain these features of the Earth, which it wouldn't do well even if it was feasible to have occurred. See [[petrified forest]].

Mainstream scientists classify young Earth creationism as a [[pseudoscience]], putting it on par with [[astrology]]. Indeed, at the [[Dover trial]], [[Michael Behe]], arguing that intelligent design should be allowable in public schools, admitted that his definition of science was broad enough to include astrology.

==Problems==
Creationism has several problems which are looked into in detail in this section.

===Specificity of deity===
Almost all arguments for any creationism can be applied to any ''creatio ex nihilo''. [[Wikipedia]] lists at least eight such creation myths besides the story recounted in ''Genesis'':
*{{wpl|Ancient Egyptian creation myths}}
*{{wpl|Islamic mythology#Islamic creation narrative|Islamic creation myth}}
*{{wpl|Baluba mythology#Creation myth of Kabezya-Mpungu|Kabezya-Mpungu}}
*{{wpl|Māori mythology#Myths|Māori myths}}, including:
**{{wpl|Rangi and Papa|Rangi and Papa}}
*{{wpl|Mbombo|Mbombo}}
*{{wpl|Ngai|Ngai}}
*{{wpl|Popol Vuh#Creation Myth|Popol Vuh}}

Many such myths make a standardised claim: "<fill in deity's or deities' name(s)> created the world (or Universe) <fill in preferred number of years> years ago."

One might accordingly feel [[Satan did it|tempted]] to surmise one or more of the following:
*[[Judeo-Christian]] [[missionaries|enlighteners]] have spread the idea of [[divine intervention|Divine Creation]], which then [[Evolution#Non-biological evolution|evolves]] (as in the case of [[Abrahamic religion]] feeding into {{wpl|Biblical and Quranic narratives|Islamic tradition}})
*Judeo-Christian recorders of myths have mined the mythological corpus for obscure details which reflect "correct" or familiar tales{{efn|Compare the "discovery" of a Maori-Polynesian Supreme Being in 1913: {{wpl|Io Matua Kore}}}}
*Human [[psychology]] has a tendency to drift into vague mystical concepts when unscientifically confronting any concept of ultimate origins (as in "[[Turtles all the way down]]").

===Ethical===
{{main|Problem of evil}}
Apart from almost every field of science, creationism based on Biblical literalism also has some ethical criticism to face.

Based on a literal interpretation of the [[Cain#Cain and Abel|Cain and Abel story]], in which [[Mark of Cain|Cain got a "mark" on his skin for being bad]], (mostly) White [[The South|American Southern]] creationists decided that [[African Americans|Black]]s were ''really'' Black because of the Curse of Cain. In turn, this justified [[slavery]] — because all Blacks were nothing but immoral descendants of Cain, and because God specifically stated that Cain's descendants would be subservient.<ref>"'Out of the Realm of Superstition: Chesnutt's 'Dave's Neckliss' and the Curse of Ham'" by John N. Swift & Gigen Mammoser (2009) ''American Literary Realism'' 42(1):1-12.</ref>

One main objection is that, in the ever so lauded [[KJV]] version of {{bible|Genesis|1|28}}, God says to the first humans, "God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the [[fish]] in the sea and the [[birds]] in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Thus, implying that humans can do what they wish to all animals.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100105065547/http://drjimsthinkingshop.com/2009/07/17/stop-the-stampeding-stupid-critters-cruelty-and-creationism-and-the-history-of-world-war-ii/ Stop the Stampeding Stupid! Critters, Cruelty, and Creationism. And the History of World War II] by Jim R. Linville (July 17, 2009) ''Dr. Jim's Thinking Shop & Tea Room'' (archived from January 5, 2010).</ref>

Some few Christian movements&nbsp;— ever fewer since the introduction of [[contraception]]&nbsp;— interpret the aforementioned passage as forbidding contraception (in the case of [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholics]]), and even of compelling followers to have as many children as is possible (such as in the case of the [[Quiverfull]] movement). Ever since [[Thomas Malthus]] introduced the idea that population may outgrow food supply, advocates of population control fear these sorts of beliefs will lead to mass starvation, and therefore a severe decrease in the quality of human life, and even mass [[death]].

===Falsifiability===
{{main|Falsifiability of creationism}}
Creationism is, in large part, not falsifiable; where it ''is'' falsifiable [[Evidence against a recent creation|it has been falsified]].

===Supernaturalism===
{{main|Supernatural selection}}
As there is no experiment that can measure, or even determine, any supernatural effects, testability and falsification require science to be limited to the natural world, where things can be manipulated and the effect of that manipulation observed. Therefore, science must assume a position of [[methodological naturalism]]. 

===Impacts of accepting creationism as science===
[[File:XKCDonCreationism.jpg|thumb|upright|300px|A wise man once said…]]
{{main|Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism}}
What will happen if [[science]] starts accepting supernatural explanations?
*'''Inconclusive 'chaotic' debates''': Virtually anyone can justify their own speculation using supernatural explanations. Any observations one cannot explain? Just say "it is a mysterious phenomenon designed by invisible gremlins that can't be detected if they don't want to be detected." Even if people don't agree with or are unsatisfied by one's explanation, they can never 'falsify' or prove that one is wrong. (A real-world example: Creationist viewpoints have been around for millennia. Science has never been able to falsify them, as they are non-testable.)
*'''Change of Focus''': Once unfalsifiable hypotheses are allowed, the focus of science will change from genuine research to publicity stunts for [[Argumentum ad populum|winning public opinion]]. After all, if no evidence can point to one idea over another, the only deciding factor will be [[marketing]]. (A real-world example: no creationist "research" has been published in ''standard'' peer-reviewed journals. All creationists' material either targets a common audience or are published in dubious [[Pseudojournal|non-standard journals]].)
*'''No Practical Applications''': Since supernatural explanations are not 'predictive', they do not produce any new applications. Scientific research would essentially stop, as nothing new could come of it. (A real-world example: Young Earth Creationist movements have been around for over a century. There is no industrial or agricultural application where the [[YEC]] viewpoint has been instrumental.)
*'''Religious Conflicts''': Without evidence to settle the matter, strong personal religious biases will interfere with each religious group accepting its own unfalsifiable version of the world, justifying its own [[holy book]] as a historical account, dangerously turning healthy scientific debates into religious conflicts. (A real-world example: apart from the Bible-based YECs there are Quran-based creationist movements too, although perhaps less well-funded.) It is not hard to imagine creationist movements based on Hindu or other religions (indeed, some already exist). No amount of scientific debate can decide which of these ''non-testable'' claims is better than the other. These movements lead to nothing else, save for religious conflicts in science classes and unscientific debates.

===Appeal to hypocrisy===
{{main|Tu quoque}}
Creationists, failing to prove their studies to be scientific, often try to bring evolution down to their level by claiming that [[Evolutionism|evolution is a religion]] or that it isn't science because it [[Falsifiability of evolution|can't be falsified]] or [[Evolution doesn't make predictions|doesn't make predictions]].<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013 ''Refuting Evolution 2'': Argument: Creationism is religion, not science] by Jonathan Sarfati & Michael Matthews (2011) Creation Book Publishers. ISBN 0890513872.</ref> Regardless, creationism remains unscientific whatever the status of evolution is (evolution is, of course, valid science: denial of the evidence behind it doesn't make that evidence go away).

==See also==
*[[12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid]]
*[[Creation science]] and [[Intelligent design]]
*[[Creation Week]]
*[[Creationism in public education]]
*[[Creationist escape hatches]]
*[[Evidence against a recent creation]]
*[[List of creationist claims]]
*[[Old Earth creationism|Old]] and [[Young Earth creationism]]

*[[Fun:Creationist argument Bingo]]

{{otherlang
|zh=创造论
|ru=Креационизм}}

==External links==
*{{wpa|creationism}}
*[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00D5FKGLU?keywords=ronald%20numbers%20creationists&qid=1453239975&ref_=sr_1_2&sr=8-2 The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition], by {{wpl|Ronald Numbers}}
* A list of [http://web.archive.org/web/20071112132041/http://members.aol.com/darrwin/things.htm Things Creationists Hate]. It's a '''big''' list.
* [[talk.origins]]'s index of [http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html creationist claims] and their refutations
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/ Scientific American]: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-latest-face-of-creationism/ Scientific American]: The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom
* [https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/magazine/the-threat-of-creationism.html The “Threat” of Creationism], by Isaac Asimov published in Science and Creationism (in <big>'''1981!!!'''</big> still relevant after all these years)
* [https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/creationism Geological Society of London] doesn't like creationism (or Intelligent Design or creation science)
* [https://ncse.ngo/geological-society-australia Neither does the Geological Society of Australia]. Part of many statements in the [[Voices For Evolution]] series by the [[National Center for Science Education]].
* [https://www.cc.com/video/0mfz1d/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-back-in-black-evolution-schmevolution Lewis Black explains Creationist Bullshit]
* [https://contemporarycreationism.com/creation-museums/ A list of Christian "Creation Museums"]
* [http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/crenotscience.html Ebon Musings: Why Creationism Isn't Science]
* [http://skepdic.com/creation.html The Skeptic's Dictionary: Creationism and Creation Science]
* [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html Why Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial and the "Intelligent Design" movement are neither scienceâ€”nor Christian]
* [http://www.svsu.edu/~koperski/Creationism.htm Explanation and History of Creationism], Jeffrey Koperski
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bhzuitLM5w Everything Wrong with the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter]

==A few critical books==
*''[[Scientists Confront Creationism]]''
*''Evolution : What the Fossils say and Why it matters '' by Donald Prothero, PhD in Geochronology 
*''Why Evolution is True'' by [[Jerry Coyne]], PhD in Biology
*''The Counter-Creationism Handbook'' by Mark Issak
*''Evolution Slam Dunk: Why the Reptile-mammal Transition Proves Macroevolution & How Antievolutionists Ignore It'' by James Downard
*''Science and Earth History'' by Arthur N. Strahler, PhD in Geomorphology 
*''Why Darwin Matters'' by [[Michael Shermer]]
*''Inside the Human Genome : A Case for Unintelligent Design'' by John Avise, PhD in genetics
*''Science on Trial : The Case for Evolution'' by Douglas Futuyma, PhD in Zoology
*''Unintelligent Design'' by Mark Perakh
*''The Greatest Show on Earth : Evidence for Evolution'' by [[Richard Dawkins]], 
*''Why Intelligent Design Fails'', anthology 
*''Evolution : Nature and Scripture say YES!'' by Denis Lamoureux
*''Darwinism defended : A guide to Evolution controversies'' by [[Michael Ruse]], PhD in Philosophy of Biology
*''The Rocks Were There: Straight Science Answers to bent Creationist Questions'' by James Downard and Jackson Wheat
*''Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism'' by Robert Pennock, PhD in history and philosophy of science
*''God, the Devil, and Darwin:A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory'' by Niall Shanks, PhD
*''Denying Evolution: Creation, Scientism and the Nature of Science: Creation, Scientism, and the Nature of Science'' by [[Massimo Pigliucci]], PhD in biology
*''Foundation, Fall and Flood'' by [[Glenn Morton]]
*''Grand Canyon : Monument to an Ancient Earth'', anthology by various geologists
*''Abusing Science : The Case against Creationism'', by Philip Kitcher, PhD in philosophy of science
*''Adam and the Genome'' by Scot McKnight and Denis Venema
*''Doubting Darwin?: Creationist Designs on Evolution'' by Sahotra Sarkar
*''Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails)'' by Matt Young
*'' For the Rock Record: Geologists on Intelligent Design'', anthology
*''Only a theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul'' by Kenneth Miller, cell biologist
*'' Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith'' by Philip Kitcher
*''Intelligent Thought: Science Versus The Intelligent Design Movement'', anthology

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{crebox}}

[[Category:Anti-intellectualism]]
[[Category:Denialism]]
[[Category:Fundamentalism]]
[[Category:Philosophy of science]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Creationism| ]]
[[Category:War on science]]

[[ru:Креационизм]]

Categories: Anti-intellectualism, Denialism, Fundamentalism, Philosophy of science, Pseudoscience, Creationism, War on science