(General introductory information for reporters and researchers)
Creationism is sometimes in the news. Here are some general introductory comments and references for finding appropriate spokespersons or to locate specific detailed information, as desired.
We prefer the term: "creation science."
But if a reporter strongly feels that religious aspects need to be mentioned,
please consider terming the debate over origins as: Creation Science
vs. the Religion of Evolution (or: evolutionism, as most appropriate).
There are two (often overlapping) types of "creationism." They are "Biblical Creation" and "Scientific Creation."
Biblical Creation - Using Bible texts to defend creation theory. A few primary texts include: Genesis, chapters 1 to 12 - from the 6 days of Creation till the Great Flood (1700 years later), then until just after the Tower of Babel and the dispersion of the nations. Exodus 20:11 (in the middle of the Ten Commandments, this verse states in part: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day...." Also, Luke 17:26-27 (or Matt. 24:37-39) "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." (This statement by Christ shows that He considered the Great Flood to be a real historical event, one of Divine judgment of humankind.) And I Corinthians 15:45, which compares Adam (as a literal person) to Christ as the "last Adam."
There are also many Psalms and other texts referring back to the creation. It should be noted that the book of the Bible that is most quoted in all the rest of the Bible is: Genesis. Thus the Book of Genesis is seen as not only integral to the whole, but foundationally essential for Jews, Christians, and others of faith. Now then, interpretations of Genesis may vary widely (particularly for its first three chapters, Gen. 1-3) but the original text has been codified for thousands of years.
Scientific Creation - Yes, we often use science - completely independent of any Bible references - to contend that "creation science" is a plausible scientific theory. Many persons laugh at this notion at the outset but please be advised that informed creationists usually beat evolutionists in debates. We are the ones who have science on our side.
The majority of modern scientists, just like the rest of the human race, are unrepentant sinners. As such they do not want to face God. Humans often hide rather than face judgment. (Evolution provides a great hiding place.) Creationists can show evolution's frauds and deceptions time after time, after time but it will remain an uphill battle to get the truth out regarding our origins as made (unique from the animals and) "in the image of God" and human responsibility for our sins.
Versions of Creation Science
Gap Theory - This contends that there
could be a multi-billion years long gap between Genesis 1:1 and verses
1:2 & 1:3.
Gen. 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
(...insert lots of time right around HERE...)
Gen. 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the waters."
Gen. 1:3-5 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (v.4) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (v.5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
In this way, it is argued that perhaps "time" began to be counted on a certain day long after the universe had been put into motion, i.e. prior to verse 3 - and the "first day." Note here that all of this was "3 days" prior to the existence of stars; they were (as it is recorded) not created until "Day 4" (verses 14-19) of Creation Week.
There are many variants within the "Gap Theory" and these have remained popular among God-fearing people for over 140 years (Darwin's "Origin of Species" was first published in 1859, about 140 years ago). Lots of time is theologically inserted into the very beginning of the Bible allowing those believers to get back to what are considered "matters of faith" while the scientists go ahead with their detailed calculations and theories.
Another important Bible verse (also heavily quoted by the "Day-Age Theory" proponents, below) is II Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." The "thousands" then get stretched into "millions", etc.
In Scripture (i.e. the Bible) it is possible for a single verse reference
- within only one chapter, in but one of the 66 books comprising the modern
Bible - to carry immense doctrinal weight. Churches have sometimes
split due to the reading of some particular verse! I understand that
this "hair-splitting" may sound amazing to non-believers, but if indeed
the whole Bible really is the "Word of God" then every single verse can
be considered very important for understanding the rest of the whole.
Day-Age Theory - Proponents for this version of creation science abound. Since evolutionists contend that the Earth must be millions or (in recent decades) even billions of years old some Bible supporters have tried to work this into the Genesis account.
There are 6 "days" of Creation, followed by a final day of rest (Exodus 20:11 & Genesis 1:1 to 2:3). The Hebrew word "yom" (or: yowm) is usually translated as "day" in English. But it is possible to use it like (II Samuel 21:1) "…in the days of David…", the same as in modern English, i.e. during these days…. Therefore proponents of this theory (including variants) see no problem with stretching out the "6 days" of Creation into "6 ages" or "6 periods."
Both the "Gap Theory" & "Day-Age Theory" proponents (with lots of
variations out there) mostly only need Biblical Creation.
They do not need to use Scientific Creation in their defense
since they've determined modern human science to be on par with (what believers
contend is) God's Revelation (in Genesis and other passages) concerning
our origins. If "the scientists must be right" then Scriptures should
be bent to conform to current scientific beliefs, whether they are testable-repeatable
in nature or rather based solely upon recent consensus. Noah's Flood
must have been merely regional and the Earth must be very, very old to
have slowly accumulated its deep sedimentary layers. (In fact adherents
to both of these camps can be embarrassed by the insistence of "Young Earth
Creationists" (below) and want them to quiet down regarding literal biblical
interpretations and to get along without trumping up such a "minor" issue
compared to faith as a whole.)
Young Earth Creation Theory - 6 Earth days; about 6000 years ago. This planet is owned; we're fooling ourselves if we collectively assume otherwise. Judgment (in the Great Flood) came before and it will come again. So repent. …Proponents believe that there is still no good scientific evidence supporting the notion that the Earth is even 1 million years old, let alone a theorized billions of years old. How many "missing links" have later turned out to be frauds or trumped up exceptions? Exceptions that mostly served to get grant monies and recognition for the researchers involved, the true advancement of science be damned. Is evolution's main aim in fact to propose a weak god or none at all, in place of an unerring Creator behind the universe?
Scientific Creation is argued hand-in-hand with Biblical Creation by "Young Earth Creationists." But the "Day-Age Theory" and "Gap Theory" adherents (discussed above) acquiesce to the consensus of modern scientists. The scientists must be right (shrug); so the Bible needs to be compromised by "educated" people. But the "Young Earth" adherents question the actual scientific evidence (and pseudo-evidence) that evolutionists propose and often then generate alternative interpretations for the very same evidence.
Historically speaking, the creation-evolution debate is thousands of years old. The Greeks came to believe that the universe must have always been here. They had lots and lots of gods but most were pretty weak (akin to the weak, erring god(s) of today's religious evolutionism, making lots of mistakes down through time) and could be appeased by human contrivances. (If God(s) is imperfect, how can He claim to call us to "perfection"?) Atheism too has also been around for at least 3,000 years. It is not something "based on modern science" nor recent in its definition. Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. …" (also: Psalms 53:1).
Spontaneous generation (a form of evolutionary beliefs) in various forms was believed by many until late in the 19th Century. Maggots crawled out of rotting meat with no apparent external origin. They must have "evolved" out of the dead meat, it was believed. This, on the side of evolution, has been replaced today by: abiogenesis. At some point in time, at least once, life must have coalesced and begun reproducing itself out of previously non-living matter and energy. All creationists (from any of the above variants) soundly agree that life must have been sparked by none other than: God. Spontaneous generation (now called: abiogenesis, but essentially the same thing) is believed by atheistic evolutionists out of necessity, not out of any results determined by science.
And there have been many creation theories proposed around the world down through time. A giant snake, or a big turtle got things going, etc. The Genesis account (if taken literally, i.e. by the "young earth" creationists) is pretty much the last "creation" theory standing against evolution in its various descended forms. (text by P.A.)
For Creation Science spokespersons and authorities:
Institute for Creation Research - is the best known creation organization in the U.S. Dozens of scientists are part of their staff and advisory committees. They have published many books, videos, and are active in radio shows and produce monthly newsletters. Their teachers and researchers regularly organize large "Back to Genesis" seminars around the world. <www.icr.org> Tel. 1(619) 448-0900 "(Bio Info on) The ICR Scientists" by H. Morris Also see: "Creation Scientists in the Physical Sciences"
Creation Research Society - Hundreds of active scientists from around the world, representing many disciplines, comprise this organization. Their "Creation Research Society Quarterly" is a peer-reviewed scientific publication. <www.creationresearch.org> Tel. 1(928) 636-1153
Creation Science Movement - based in the U.K. is the oldest creation organization in the world (est. 1932). They publish a regular newsletter, have produced books and videos, and send speakers out to teach creation theory in the U.K. and abroad. <www.creationsciencemovement.org>
There are literally dozens of other organizations actively doing creation science research. Many are small and organized around one or two primary researchers/teachers. They have sprung up in many cities, as creationists are learning from each other. Many creationists contend that this is a true "grass roots" movement. (The truth is out there ... and it exists independent from mere human consensus.) One list of other creationist organizations (and main web pages) can be found on the Main Page for: <www.creationism.org> where 28 main sites are listed down the right side. Each of them in turn often link to many others.
Other organizations include:
Creation Resources Trust - Several excellent publications for adults, teens & kids. <www.c-r-t.co.uk>
Origins - Links together academic articles by "intelligent design" proponents. Note that they only discuss their contention that our universe and life are complex, requiring a "Designer" somewhere out there; they are not "creationists" per se, and would probably not like to be linked to from here. (But for a reporter/researcher, this is a good web site to become acquainted with.) Note though that they strongly distinguish themselves from being "creationists." <www.origins.org>
Dr. Dino - Dr. Kent Hovind probably has the best seminar series for teaching an introduction to creation theory. He publicly offers $250,000 for any empirical evidence that supports evolutionary theory. -So far he has had no takers; and he has a long list of professors at leading universities who have refused to debate him publicly. (Informed creationists usually win debates against evolutionists.) <www.drdino.com>
Answers in Genesis - Mr. Ken Ham and others; a variety of publications and offices in several countries. <www.answersingenesis.org>
For Anti-Creation Science Research:
National Geographic - Great magazine, superbly illustrated, TV shows, video documentaries too! Lots of research actively pursued around the globe - but with the assumption that evolution just has to be true and that creation cannot even be considered. <www.nationalgeographic.com>
Smithsonian Institution - Almost since its inception this organization has promoted evolutionary tenets. Their web site has many links and images, and their many researchers are available to answer media inquiries regarding the creation-evolution debate. <www.si.edu>
The Talk.Origins Archive - Numerous articles and links contesting creation theory. This is a very active web site with a lot of information. <www.talkorigins.org>
The Secular Web - by the (self proclaimed) "Internet Infidels" promotes metaphysical naturalism and states that they stand against superstition and religion's fear of knowledge. They have thousands of articles (including many against "creationism") and this is a very active group. <www.infidels.org>
"Creation: The Only Reasonable Explanation of Natural Phenomena" by W. Hewitt Tier - http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp2no7.htm
"Questions for Evolutionists" by K. Hovind - http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=3
"Galileo: Martyr for Science?" by Edward Coleson - http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v15n4p14.htm
"Pioneer Naturalists" CRS Newsletter (pdf) - http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2000/cm0502.pdf< /a>
"Light before Stars?" by Stephen Caesar - CrtnismOrg/caesar/sonoluminescence.htm
"High School Students' Attitude Towards Creation and Evolution Compared to Their Worldview" by Deckard & Smithwick - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-347.htm
"What Do Scientists Think about Evolution?" by K. Hovind - http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=28
"Shaking Up Kansas Education" CRS Newsletter (pdf) - http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/1999/cm0405.pdf
"Darwin's Influence on Ruthless LaissezFaire Capitalism" by Bergman - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-333.htm
"Creation Compromises" AIG Section - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/compromise.asp
"Evolution and Legal Standards" by Joseph Sobran - http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v16n2p21.htm
"Do Laws and Standards Evolve?" by Phillips - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-303.htm
"Bible (inerrancy?)" AIG Section - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bible.asp
"Genesis (Importance to believers)" AIG Section - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp
"Contradictions in the Bible?" by K. Hovind - http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=10
"Debate Challenge" by K. Hovind - http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=25