What is creation?

Answer 1

Creation is the divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence. In terms of the Christian faith it includes the clear statement that almighty God, the one and only true God created everything that is at a specific point of time 'in the beginning.' This is how creation has always been understood both in Jewish and later in Christian theology. Jesus took the words of Genesis literally as did His contemporaries. This is one area, where there is no recorded conflict between Him and the teachers of His day.

As such it specifically excludes, in terms of its normal definition, reference to evolution, since this is, by definition, a naturalistic process which excludes all and any aspects of divine creation or intervention. Some people who believe both The Bible and in evolution attempt to marry the two, although the two beliefs are diametrically opposed. In so doing they reinterpret The Bible to fit the evolutionary paradigm, contrary to its clear meaning.
Creation is the act of bringing the world into ordered existence by God.

Creationism is scientific evidence, belief in Creation or arguments put forth to show the inportance of what God Created. Evolution is always trying to counter Creation because of the belief of God creating the universe. In evolutionists view point, creation is a mere lie. And one thing you can tell about an evolutionist is this:

An evolutionist always believes that a Creationist uses the bible for answers.

However, if we weren't there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events. Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a 'time machine'. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know. On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present. Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present. Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions. That's why the argument often turns into something like: 'Can't you see what I'm talking about?' 'No, I can't. Don't you see how wrong you are?' 'No, I'm not wrong. It's obvious that I'm right.' 'No, it's not obvious.' And so on. These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses. It's not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses-which means to change one's presuppositions. I've found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist's glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can't put on the Christian's glasses-unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions. It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting 'evidence', you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense 'on the facts'. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found 'stronger facts'. However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is-a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions-i.e. starting beliefs. As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the 'facts' for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, 'Well sir, you need to try again.' However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher's basic assumptions. Then it wasn't the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn't accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking. What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.

Ken Ham ^

Answer 2

Creation refers to the act of bringing something into existence that had not existed before. This can apply to various contexts, such as the creation of the universe, life forms, ideas, art, technology, or other manifestations of human creativity. It encompasses the process by which new entities, concepts, or experiences are formed.

Answer 3

Creationism is the belief that the Universe, Earth, and life was created much as they now exist by a supernatural being (most often the God of the Bible), and did not gradually evolve or develop.

When referring to Biblical creationism, it can be separated into two groups: Young-earth and old-earth creationism.

Young-earth creationists interpret the Book of Genesis literally, and believe that the whole Universe, including the Earth and life, was created in six, 24-hour days as is explicitly stated in Genesis. They also believe that the Earth is around 6,000 years old based on Biblical chronologies, and that the Earth's fossils and rock layers are the result of a global flood. Young-earth creationists have often been heavily criticized for rejecting the scientific consensus of an old earth.

Old-earth creationists accept the scientific evidence that points to the Earth being approximately 4.5 billion years old, as well as the Universe being approximately 13.7 billion years old. They don't interpret Genesis as literally as young-earth creationists, and rather than believing that everything was created in six, 24-hour days, the believe that these "days" represent long periods of time. While they accept an old earth, these creationists may not necessarily accept evolution as the process by which life developed.

Theistic evolution, the belief that God guided the process of evolution, may or may not fit under old-earth creationism, because theistic evolutionists always accept an old earth.

Answer 4

Creation is the divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence. In terms of the Christian faith it includes the clear statement that almighty God, the one and only true God created everything that is at a specific point of time 'in the beginning.' This is how creation has always been understood both in Jewish and later in Christian theology. Jesus took the words of Genesis literally as did His contemporaries. This is one area, where there is no recorded conflict between Him and the teachers of His day.

As such it specifically excludes, in terms of its normal definition, reference to evolution, since this is, by definition, a naturalistic process which excludes all and any aspects of divine creation or intervention. Some people who believe both the Bible and in evolution attempt to marry the two, although the two beliefs are diametrically opposed. In so doing they reinterpret the Bible to fit the evolutionary paradigm, contrary to its clear meaning.
Creation is the act of bringing the world into ordered existence by God.

Creationism is scientific evidence, belief in Creation or arguments put forth to show the inportance of what God Created. Evolution is always trying to counter Creation because of the belief of God creating the universe. In evolutionists view point, creation is a mere lie. And one thing you can tell about an evolutionist is this:

An evolutionist always believes that a Creationist uses the bible for answers.

However, if we weren't there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events. Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a 'time machine'. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know. On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present. Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present. Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions. That's why the argument often turns into something like: 'Can't you see what I'm talking about?' 'No, I can't. Don't you see how wrong you are?' 'No, I'm not wrong. It's obvious that I'm right.' 'No, it's not obvious.' And so on. These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses. It's not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses-which means to change one's presuppositions. I've found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist's glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can't put on the Christian's glasses-unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions. It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting 'evidence', you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense 'on the facts'. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found 'stronger facts'. However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is-a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions-i.e. starting beliefs. As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the 'facts' for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, 'Well sir, you need to try again.' However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher's basic assumptions. Then it wasn't the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn't accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking. What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.

Ken Ham ^

Answer 5

The dictionary tells me that 'creation' is the act of creating or an instance of this. In a religious context, it is the act of God in bringing the world into existence.

What we know about creation by God comes largely from the Book of Genesis, where there are two different stories of creation. Leon R. Kass (The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis) points out that the two Genesis creation accounts differ widely in content, mood, tone and orientation, but that pious readers ignore the major disjunctions between the two creation stories and tend to treat the second story as the fuller, more detailed account of the creation of man (and woman) that the first story simply reported.

Creation should not be confused with creationism, which is essentially a twentieth-century reaction against the science of evolution, developed by Christians who fear the impact on religious faith of large numbers accepting the reality of evolution and then wondering why the Bible got it so wrong.

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Answer 6

The dictionary tells me that 'creation' is the act of creating or an instance of this. In a religious context, it is the act of God in bringing the world into existence.
What we know about creation by God comes largely from the Book of Genesis, where there are two different stories of creation. Leon R. Kass (The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis) points out that the two Genesis creation accounts differ widely in content, mood, tone and orientation, but that pious readers ignore the major disjunctions between the two creation stories and tend to treat the second story as the fuller, more detailed account of the creation of man (and woman) that the first story simply reported.

Creation should not be confused with creationism, which is essentially a twentieth-century reaction against the science of evolution, developed by Christians who fear the impact on religious faith of large numbers accepting the reality of evolution and then wondering why the Bible got it so wrong.

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Answer 7

Creation is the tradition that God brought the universe into existence, out of nothing. This is reiterated in the Hebrew Bible several times (Exodus 20:11, Isaiah 40:28; Maimonides' "Guide," 2:30; Targum and Nachmanides on Gen. 1:1; Rashi commentary, Gen.1:14) because of its fundamental importance in knowing God and knowing our importance and the importance of this Earth. Concerning creation, see also:

Is there evidence against Evolution?

Can you show me that God exists

Seeing God's intelligence

And concerning the authorship of Genesis:

Debunking the JEPD Documentary hypothesis

There's only one Creation-account (a Christian author)

Answer 8

It is the belief that life was created. it rejects Evolution, especially if Evolution is presented as part of an atheistic world-view.

Here are some arguments for Creationism, or against Evolution:

These point to Divine Creation:

• The staggering complexity of every organ and every cell in the human body.
  
• The vastness of our minds and emotions.
  
• The fact that the universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism.)
  
• The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
  

See: More detailed evidence of Creation

Also:

1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."
"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.
"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."

3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.

4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).

5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.

6) Evolving of new organs or species has not been witnessed during known history.

7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.

8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.

9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary Paleontology would require.

10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).

11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).

12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).

13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.

14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.

15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)

16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.
e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.Also see:

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

Dissent against Darwin

The facts

Discovering Creation

Understanding Creation

Answer 9

Creationism was a movement that began in response to the discovery that all higher animals, including humans, evolved from simpler organisms. Creationism is the belief that the universe, earth, and life were created much as they now exist by a supernatural being (most often the God of the Bible), and did not gradually evolve or develop.

Creationism can be separated into two basic groups: traditional, young-earth and old-earth creationism:

Young-earth creationists interpret the Book of Genesis literally, and believe that the whole universe, including the earth and life on it, was created in six, 24-hour days as stated in Genesis chapter 1. Based on Biblical chronologies, they also believe that the Earth is around 6,000 years old and that the earth's fossils and rock layers are the result of a global flood. Because Young-earth creationism so obviously contradicts established science, it has developed a 'pseudo-science' of its own.

Old-earth creationists accept the scientific evidence that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. Rather than believing that everything was created in six, 24-hour days, many old-earth creationists believe that these "days" represent long periods of time. While they accept that the earth is immensely old, most old-earth creationists do not accept evolution as the process by which life developed.

Theistic evolution is related to old-earth creationism, but says that God guided the development of the universe and the process of evolution, allowing them to take place gradually and subject to the natural laws of the universe. This, at least, is a more rational form of creationism because it accepts the facts of science and is capable of adapting to new scientific discoveries.