As I mentioned previously, the form of creationism that most people think of when they hear the term 'creationist' is Young Earth Creationism (YEC). And as we discussed more recently, there are reasons why both Young Earthers (as I and others call them) and non-creationists strive to maintain this view in the public eye. People who disbelieve in creation and people who believe that creation followed a strict Biblical/Koranic/Torah...nic(?) formula both have reasons to insist on people viewing the issue in black and white terms. Either one believes in God/Allah* and His handiwork, or one believes in the scientific evidence. There is no "both," at least not as far as most Young Earthers are concerned.
So, what do Young Earth Creationists believe, and who are they? Let's start with a number: roughly 47% of Americans surveyed in 2007 did not "believe in evolution," and the five main reasons for this "disbelief" were all religious in nature. Basically, just under half of the US population probably believe that the Earth is young.
The American Scientific Affiliation's definition of YEC is short and succinct, and serves well as a decent starting point: "A theory of young-earth creation proposes that God miraculously created everything in the universe during a 144-hour period less than 10,000 years ago. Later, most of the earth's geology and fossil record were formed in a global flood. (In a variation that is less common, the earth is young but the universe is old.)" Several mainline evangelical Christian churches in the United States (and other Christian churches around the world) teach this view as the only valid Christian view of creation, and of human origins.
Major proponents of this view include Ken Ham, who runs Answers in Genesis; the Institute for Creation Research (founded by Henry Morris, who passed away a few years ago); and Carl Wieland, who founded Creation Ministries International. Each site offers more or less the same array of content: "evidence" for "recent creation" from "science", arguments about the "evolution-atheism connection", and arguments for a young Earth drawn from Scripture. And then of course there's Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, and their (erroneously-titled) edited version of Darwin's On The Origin of Species.
And much like the ASA's definition states, the common thread of belief shared by all Young Earthers is that the Earth is very young...between 5,700 years and 10,000 years, as determined by adding up the genealogies in the Bible (or the Koran). They tend to interpret the first few chapters of the Book of Genesis in a literal fashion, regarding it as an account of historical events that actually took place. They believe that Adam and Eve were literal persons and the common ancestors of all human beings.
Moreover, they believe that both science and theology support their case. They argue that the evidence of science supports their position, and ask questions regarding the theological implications of an old Earth and evolved beings, such as whether a loving and merciful God could even conceive of a means of creation that was in part predicated on unfit creatures dying out. Their rejection of the theory of evolution is mostly absolute; they may accept that species do experience evolution on a minor level (e.g. isolated populations of creatures becoming reproductively isolated), but deny outright that more profound speciation occurs (e.g. wolf-like land mammals evolving, over time, into whales).
How they respond to evolutionary theory varies somewhat. Some Young Earthers regard evolutionary theory as an error, while others regard it as something more sinister (an atheistic or Satanic deception. Responses to cosmological and geological evidence also vary widely, with some Young Earthers maintaining that this young Earth was made to appear old, and others arguing that those who argue that the Earth appears old are simply in error. Many Young Earthers feel that their viewpoints should be taught in schools alongside evolutionary theory, and claim that it is because of overt discrimination that their viewpoints are not being taught.
Basically, Young Earthers are people of earnest faith who are trying to reconcile a literal reading of Scripture with the observable events and evidences of the natural world. Are they in error? Yes, absolutely. Are their views scientific? Not really. Should their views be taught in science classes? I would say no, though I would argue that Young Earth theology should be taught in religion classes. (Then again, I think a lot could be done to improve religion classes in e.g. Edmonton's Catholic school system.)
But do Young Earthers have something valuable to contribute to the origins discussion? Yes, absolutely. Wrong though they may be on scientific matters, their ardent belief that God is the creator is commendable, and they do well to accentuate this point.
--
* I'm restricting myself to monotheistic religions here, but I figure it's a safe move; one doesn't hear of many Hindus or Wiccans clamouring for recent creation to be taught alongside evolutionary theory, after all.
Comments