Federal judge seeks to define 'creationism'

By: RICHARD OSTLING - Associated Press | Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:06 PM PST ∞

The definition of "creationism" has become cloudier with a federal judge's decision last Dec. 20 that barred mention of "intelligent design" theory when schools treat evolution ---- a ruling that's likely to affect disputes in Georgia, Kansas, Ohio and elsewhere.

Most Americans are creationists in the sense of belief in God as the Creator taught by Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

But general public usage follows a second, narrow meaning: belief that "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," in language from a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life poll.

The poll found that 42 percent of Americans hold this belief (and thus reject Darwin's theory of evolution), 18 percent think life evolved over time "guided by a Supreme Being," 26 percent say life evolved "through natural selection" and 14 percent are unsure.

The narrow definition of "creationism" was established by a cluster of organizations that emerged in the 1960s. The movement also champions a "young earth" merely thousands of years old and the literal creation account in the Book of Genesis, often including six 24-hour days.

The new ruling from Pennsylvania's Judge John E. Jones endorses a third definition advocated by liberal and scientific groups. In this version, creationism covers the belief that a guiding intelligence is required to explain the origin and complexity of nature, the contention of the "intelligent design" (ID) movement.

The schools in Dover, Pa., decided to read students a 10-sentence statement noting that ID explanations differ from Darwinism and urging them to keep "an open mind." If students wanted to learn more, the schools made available an ID textbook by credentialed biologists, "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins."

The U.S. Supreme Court outlaws "creation science" coursework and Jones does the same with ID. He says creationism stems from "Christian Fundamentalism" and ID is "a mere relabeling of creationism" and a "religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory" that's forbidden because it contains "beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity."

So, is ID merely warmed-over creationism?

Most ID proponents aren't Fundamentalists and a few are non-Christians or nonreligious. Inside and outside the courtroom, defenders distinguish ID from creationism, saying it doesn't necessarily identify the "intelligence" with God or teach creationists' Bible-based particulars.

University of Wisconsin science historian Ronald L. Numbers, a critic of ID and author of "The Creationists," thinks it's inaccurate to lump ID and creationism together, commenting that this is "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design."

Two recent academic treatments indicate things are more complex than Jones acknowledged:

Florida State University philosopher Michael Ruse ("The Evolution-Creation Struggle," Harvard University Press) calls himself "an ardent Darwinian" but says it's a mistake to categorize ID as creationism, partly because ID leaders accept forms of evolution. This isn't a dispute about scientific theory, he writes, but a religious battle.

To Ruse, what drives ID is understandable opposition to "the secular religion of Darwinism," which treats nature in terms of "blind forces" and strict materialism, and seeks to exclude supernatural concepts.

That's the nub of the complaint lodged by Austria's Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, who provoked a firestorm with an op-ed piece in The New York Times last July. He said Roman Catholicism teaches that "the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world." Schonborn pursues the case in the current issue of First Things magazine.

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.

Name:

Email: (optional)

Comments:

Image Verification: