| Part ofa series on | ||||
| Creationism | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||
| History | ||||
| Types | ||||
| Biblical cosmology | ||||
| Creation science | ||||
| Rejection of evolution by religious groups | ||||
| Religious views | ||||
| ||||
| Part ofa series on |
| Intelligent design |
|---|
 |
| Concepts |
| Movement |
| Campaigns |
| Authors |
| Organisations |
| Reactions |
| Creationism |
 | This article needs to beupdated. The reason given is: Outdated polls, and recent religious political events.. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(April 2025) |
Neo-creationism is apseudoscientific movement which aims to restatecreationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, by policy makers, by educators and by thescientific community. It aims tore-frame the debate over theorigins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. In the United States, this comes in response to the 1987 ruling by theSupreme Court inEdwards v. Aguillard that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public-school curricula violates theEstablishment Clause of the First Amendment.[1][2][3]
One of the principal claims of neo-creationism propounds that ostensiblyobjective orthodox science, with a foundation innaturalism, is actually a dogmaticallyatheisticreligion.[4] Its proponents argue that thescientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements, thus effectively excluding religious insight from contributing to understanding theuniverse. This leads to an open and often hostile opposition to what neo-creationists term "Darwinism", which they generally mean to refer toevolution, but which they may extend to include such concepts asabiogenesis,stellar evolution and theBig Bang theory.
Notable neo-creationist organizations include theDiscovery Institute and itsCenter for Science and Culture. Neo-creationists have yet to establish a recognized line of legitimate scientific research and as of 2015[update] lack scientific and academic legitimacy, even among many academics ofevangelicalChristian colleges.[5]Eugenie C. Scott and other critics regard neo-creationism as the most successful form of irrationalism.[3] The main form of neo-creationism isintelligent design.[6] A second form, abrupt appearance theory,[3] which claims that the first life and the universe appeared abruptly and that plants and animals appeared abruptly in complex form, has occasionally been postulated.[7][8]
The neo-creationist movement is motivated by the fear that religion is under attack by the study of evolution.[9][10][11] An argument common to neo-creationist justifications is that society has suffered "devastating cultural consequences"[12][13][14] from adopting materialism and that science is the cause of this decay into materialism since science seeks only natural explanations. They believe that the theory of evolution implies that humans have no spiritual nature, no moral purpose, and no intrinsic meaning, and thus that acceptance of evolution devalues human life[15] directly leading to the atrocities committed byHitler'sNazi regime, for example.[16][17] The movement's proponents seek to "defeat [the]materialistworld view" represented by the theory ofevolution in favor of "a science consonant withChristian andtheistic convictions".[14]Phillip E. Johnson, 'father' of theintelligent design movement, states the movement's goal is to "affirm the reality of God".[18]
Much of the effort of neo-creationists in response to science consists ofpolemics highlighting gaps in understanding or minor inconsistencies in the literature ofbiology, then making statements about what can and cannot happen in biological systems.[19][20][21] Critics of neo-creationism suggest that neo-creationist science consists ofquote-mining the biological literature (including outdated literature) for minor slips, inconsistencies or polemically promising examples of internal arguments. These internal disagreements, fundamental to the working of all natural science, are then presented dramatically to lay audiences as evidence of the fraudulence and impending collapse of "Darwinism".[22] Critics suggest that neo-creationists routinely employ this method to exploit the technical issues within biology and evolutionary theory to their advantage, relying on a public that is not sufficiently scientifically literate to follow the complex and sometimes difficult details.
Robert T. Pennock argues that intelligent design proponents are "manufacturing dissent" in order to explain the absence of scientific debate of their claims: "The 'scientific' claims of such neo-creationists as Johnson, Denton, and Behe rely, in part, on the notion that these issues [surrounding evolution] are the subject of suppressed debate among biologists.... According to neo-creationists, the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims must be due to the conspiracy among professional biologists instead of a lack of scientific merit."[23]
Eugenie Scott describes neo-creationism as "a mixed bag of antievolution strategies brought about by legal decisions against equal time laws".[24] Those legal decisions,McLean v. Arkansas andEdwards v. Aguillard, doomed the teaching ofcreation science as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes. Scott considers intelligent design, and the various strategies of design proponents likeTeach the Controversy andCritical Analysis of Evolution, as leading examples of neo-creationism.
Neo-creationists generally reject the term "neo-creation", alleging it is a pejorative term.[25] Any linkage of their views to creationism would undermine their goal of being viewed as advocating a new form of science. Instead, they identify themselves to their non-scientific audience as conducting valid science, sometimes by redefining science to suit their needs.[26] This is rejected by the vast majority of actual science practitioners.[27][28][29][30][31] Nevertheless, neo-creationists profess to present and conduct valid science which is equal, or superior to, the theory of evolution,[32] but have yet to produce recognized scientific research and testing that supports their claims.[33] Instead, the preponderance of neo-creationist works are publications aimed at the general public and lawmakers and policymakers. Much of that published work ispolemical in nature, disputing and controverting what they see as a "scientific orthodoxy" which shields and protects "Darwinism" while attacking and ridiculing alleged alternatives like intelligent design.[16][34][35] Examples of neo-creationistpolemics include theDiscovery Institute'sWedge Document,[36] the bookDarwin on Trial byPhillip E. Johnson, and the bookFrom Darwin to Hitler byRichard Weikart.[37] Research for Weikart's book was funded by the Discovery Institute, and is promoted through the institute.[38] Both Johnson and Weikart are affiliated with theDiscovery Institute; Johnson is program advisor, and Weikart is a fellow.
All of the following names make explicit the connections between traditional creationism, neo-creationism andintelligent design. Not all critics of neo-creationism are on the evolution side of the debate.Henry M. Morris, a notableyoung earth creationist, accepted the term[1] but opposed the logic of neo-creationism for the very reason that it does not embrace the Bible.[39] The Baptist Center for Ethics calls for "Baptists to recommit themselves to the separation of church and state, which will keep public schools free from coercive pressure to promote sectarian faith, such as state-written school prayers and the teaching of neo-creationism..."[40][41]
Lawyer Wendell Bird [...] proposed a new 'scientific alternative' to evolution [...]. His view, which he dubbed 'Abrupt Appearance Theory,' was, however, indistinguishable in content from Creation Science. [...] The phrase 'abrupt appearance' was part of the definition of Creation Science in literature presented by the creationist side in theEdwards v. Aguillard case. Bird reworked his brief for theEdwards case intoThe Origin of Species Revisited, published in 1987. [...] Although mammoth in its scope [...],The Origin of Species Revisited is rarely cited today in creationist literature. it was, and remains, ignored in the scientific literature, and after the mid-1990s virtually disappeared from the political realm as well. it has been supplanted by another 'alternative to evolution' that was evolving parallel to it.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.[Text inwikisource]
Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing. (11:8–15 (Forrest); P-429). Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (Trial Tr. vol. 5, Pennock Test., 32–34, Sept. 28, 2005).[Text inwikisource]
{{cite book}}:|first= has generic name (help)A coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers has called on all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory.
.[Text inwikisource]
Phrases like "intelligent design theory," "abrupt appearance theory," "evidence against evolution," and the like, have sprung up, although the content of many of the arguments is familiar. This view can be called "neocreationism." ... Neocreationists are by no means identical to their predecessors, however.... Neither biblical creationists nor theistic evolutionists.... Most of them are "progressive creationists."
| General | |
|---|---|
| Book of Genesis | |
| Types | |
| Controversies | |
| Related | |