View by:  Subject  Theme  Question  Term  Person  Event

What is the problem with Creationism?

Creationism fails to qualify as good science or as good theology. Creationists deny evolution over time - that is, they deny the development of one species from a previous species, a process known as “macroevolution.” Creationists insist that all species were created at the beginning of the world, and the lines between species have been inviolate ever since. To support this claim, creationists provide scientific arguments such as the alleged non-existence of transitional forms, specifically, winged reptiles to mark the transition from sea and land creatures to birds. However, fossils for such transitional forms have been found in abundance. The evidence supporting evolutionary theory is overwhelming on nearly every count. The creationist position fails when measured by scientific evidence.

Creationists sometimes provide a theological argument to support their position. Principally, they argue that the Bible’s depiction of creation in Genesis 1:1-2:4a describes God fixing reality at the point of origin. When God creates the different “kinds” of creatures and asks them to multiply according to their own kinds, he denies the possibility of modification through descent.  Creationist interpreters find ten “kinds” in Genesis: (1) grass; (2) herbs; (3) fruit trees; (4) sea monsters; (5) other marine animals; (6) birds; (7) beasts of the earth; (8) cattle; (9) crawling animals; and, finally, (10) the human race. Creationists identify the biblical word “kind” with the scientific word “species.” Then they argue that God intends for each kind to remain within its own particular structure. One species should not transform itself into another species. Many different varieties can emerge within the basic framework of each kind or species, but at the same time such variations can never extend beyond that framework. The creationist conclusion is that God permits no descent with modification, no overlap between species.

We do not believe this is a proper way to interpret the Bible. What the creationists read is certainly not literal. To identify “kind” with “species” is arbitrary. Certainly, more than ten species exist in nature. In addition, a more literal reading of the Bible’s creation account suggests what looks like an evolution from sea creatures to birds. NRS Genesis 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky."

More importantly, creationists fail to acknowledge the kind of God that is responsible for the creation. The God of the Bible is a promising God. God promises to do new things. NRS Isaiah 43:19 “I am about to do a new thing; now it springs forth.” Or  NRSJeremiah 31:22 “For the LORD has created a new thing on the earth.” Or, NRSGalatians 6:15 “a new creation is everything!” Essential here is that God did not fix everything at the beginning. Nor, did God stop creating. What is vital to the message of the gospel in the Bible is the promise of redemption, the renewal of creation. The Bible gives us a vision of a divine future that will take us beyond the world order we have inherited. By trying to squeeze all of created reality into some sort of already completed and unchanging origin, creationists prevent the ongoing creativity and redeeming promise of God to shine through. So, for this reason, we believe the creationist position fails theologically as well as scientifically.

Email link | Printer-friendly | Feedback | Contributed by: Martinez Hewlett and Ted Peters

Topic Sets Available

AAAS Report on Stem-Cells

AstroTheology: Religious Reflections on Extraterrestrial Life Forms

Agency: Human, Robotic and Divine
Becoming Human: Brain, Mind, Emergence
Big Bang Cosmology and Theology (GHC)
Cosmic Questions Interviews

Cosmos and Creator
Creativity, Spirituality and Computing Technologies
CTNS Content Home
Darwin: A Friend to Religion?
Demystifying Information Technology
Divine Action (GHC)
Dreams and Dreaming: Neuroscientific and Religious Visions'
E. Coli at the No Free Lunchroom
Engaging Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence: An Adventure in Astro-Ethics
Evangelical Atheism: a response to Richard Dawkins
Ecology and Christian Theology
Evolution: What Should We Teach Our Children in Our Schools?
Evolution and Providence
Evolution and Creation Survey
Evolution and Theology (GHC)
Evolution, Creation, and Semiotics

The Expelled Controversy
Faith and Reason: An Introduction
Faith in the Future: Religion, Aging, and Healthcare in the 21st Century

Francisco Ayala on Evolution

From Christian Passions to Scientific Emotions
Genetic Engineering and Food

Genetics and Ethics
Genetic Technologies - the Radical Revision of Human Existence and the Natural World

Genomics, Nanotechnology and Robotics
Getting Mind out of Meat
God and Creation: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives on Big Bang Cosmology
God, Humanity and the Cosmos: A Textbook in Science and Religion
God the Spirit - and Natural Science
Historical Examples of the Science and Religion Debate (GHC)
History of Creationism
Intelligent Design Coming Clean

Issues for the Millennium: Cloning and Genetic Technologies
Jean Vanier of L'Arche
Nano-Technology and Nano-ethics
Natural Science and Christian Theology - A Select Bibliography
Neuroscience and the Soul
Outlines of the Science and Religion Debate (GHC)

Perspectives on Evolution

Physics and Theology
Quantum Mechanics and Theology (GHC)
Questions that Shape Our Future
Reductionism (GHC)
Reintroducing Teleology Into Science
Science and Suffering

Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action (CTNS/Vatican Series)

Space Exploration and Positive Stewardship

Stem-Cell Debate: Ethical Questions
Stem-Cell Ethics: A Theological Brief

Stem-Cell Questions
Theistic Evolution: A Christian Alternative to Atheism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design...
Theology and Science: Current Issues and Future Directions
Unscientific America: How science illiteracy threatens our future
Will ET End Religion?

Current Stats: topics: >2600, links: >300,000, video: 200 hours.