Creationism - National Center for Science Education

eschatological beliefs, is the reconstruction of America according to biblical principles,
including education, government, and science. Reconstructionists view evolution as the
vain delusion of God-denying humanists, and under their proposed Reconstructionist
theocracy, only God-honoring biblical creationism would be allowed.
Of the most influential contemporary creationist organizations, the Institute for
Creation Research urges acceptance of creation-science in schools as a non-religious
alternative to evolution, while the Creation-Science Research Center, from which it split,
argues for the presentation of creationism as a constitutionally protected religious right of
Bible-believing Christians. ICR seeks to promote creationism by its own educational
efforts, producing creation-science books, training teachers, and converting students,
other teachers and the general public to accept creation-science as a superior explanation
than evolution. CSRC seeks to impose creationism more directly from above, by
legislation and lawsuits. The Creation Research Society produces textbooks and
especially its CRS Quarterly, with the aim of validating the scientific basis of
creationism. The Bible-Science Association, currently shifting course, has in the past
propagandized widely for biblical creationism and against evolutionism to lay public and
religious audiences. The Reconstructionists and their allies seek a theocracy in which
evolution would be forever banished as anti-Christian and opposed to biblical truth.
In addition to strict young-earth creationism and the two major old-earth types of
creationism (Gap and Day-Age creationism, there are several other theories. The
Revelatory theory interprets the six days of creation as a series of visions, or written
accounts. According to the Framework or Literary theory, the Genesis account employs
poetic or literary devices; the events and processes of the six days are not necessarily
chronological, and may overlap. In Progressive creationism, God intervenes directly at
various times over the ages, creating new species or modifying old ones. In the
Intermittent Day theory, the six days of creation were separated by long ages. In the
Days of Divine Fiat theory, creation was declared in six days, but the processes so
initiated unfolded over long periods. Some of these theories can be combined, and there
are many variants and hybrid forms.
Within each type of creationism, there are very many subsidiary hypotheses, each
subject to revision, variation, and evolution. These subsidiary hypotheses illustrate the
surprising fertility and cleverness of creationist imagination in devising hypotheses which
seek to preserve biblical inerrancy and the core concept of supernatural creation while
responding to various disconfirming facts and evidence.
All too often an anti-creationist not familiar with modern creation-science
arguments will suppose that obvious or classical objections to creationism will suffice to
stump their creationist opponents—that these are objections that the creationist cannot
answer (except perhaps by simple appeal to miracle). Such is far from being the case.
These anti-creationists suppose that they have an unanswerable scientific and logical
refutation of “the creationist argument” (singular). Creationist theoreticians, however,
have rationalized responses and counter-arguments to these objections almost as soon as
they have been voiced. Lay creationists may be stumped by old and obvious objections,
but the theoreticians can and do provide an answer for everything.
Many of the most obvious of these anti-creationist arguments concern the Flood.
E.g., how did all the species fit on board Noah’s Ark? What about provision of food and
accumulation or disposal of waste? What about bacteria and parasites? Others concern