What Do Creationists Really Believe?

Creationism is not one set of beliefs - it is a battleground of dramatically conflicting world views.

by Brian Dunning

Filed under Natural History, Religion

Skeptoid #82
January 8, 2008
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe

Old Earth Creationism Geology Biology
Theistic Evolution:
Evolution by natural processes is the tool God used
Yes Yes
Evolutionary Creationism:
Adam and Eve were the first spiritually aware humans
Yes Yes
Progressive Creationism:
Humans were a special creation event
Yes Most
Day-Age Creationism:
Six days of creation were six geological epochs
Yes Some
Gap Creationism:
4.5 billion year gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2
Yes Some
Young Earth Creationism Geology Biology
Earth was created with the appearance of age and of evolution
Yes Yes
Young Earth Fundamentalism:
Invented versions of all natural sciences to explain Earth's age as 6,000 years
No No

If you've listened to the news at all within the last few years, you know that there's one topic which is always in the headlines. It's more lasting than terrorism, more pervasive than politics, and more personal than global warming. It's the war over religion; specifically, having religion taught as scientific fact. Replacing science with creationism. Whether it's Tennessee v. Scopes in 1925 or Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005, religion versus science is always front and center.

Watching the news you've seen the $27 million Creation Museum in Kentucky, the largest and newest of the several museums throughout the United States depicting Biblical literalism as an alternative view of natural history. Dioramas show early farmers using small dinosaurs as beasts of burden. Dramatic displays show how Noah's flood created the Grand Canyon and all major geological features in a few days a few thousand years ago, and even give insight into how Noah kept all the dinosaur species on board his 600-foot ark. Most reasonable people are shocked by these flagrant attacks against intelligence. Does this mean that everyone who calls himself a creationist is certifiably insane?

As we see in so many aspects of our culture, it's usually the loudest and most outrageous fringe minority that makes the most noise and gets the most headlines. Rest assured that most creationists do not believe that Jesus rode around on a saddled Triceratops. There are, in fact, a number of different types of creationism. These variations conflict with one another and are mutually exclusive, and they are at varying odds with science.

The movement called Intelligent Design is not a type of creationism, or indeed any particular set of beliefs, so it will not be included in this discussion of the various types of creationism. Intelligent Design is a blanket concept intended to show that the scientific method alone is not adequate to explain the natural world, and that a divine creator is a required component for any complete explanation of nature. All types of creationists rally under the banner of Intelligent Design with the explicit goal of getting a foot in the door to force their particular belief system to be taught as fact in public schools.

These types of creationists fall into two main classifications: Young Earth Creationists, who believe that the Earth is between six and ten thousand years old; and Old Earth Creationists, who generally accept the scientific measurement of the Earth's age at 4.5 billion years old. Within these classifications are other irreconcilable differences, which we'll now go through one by one.

Let's start with the forms of Old Earth Creationism. I'm going to describe five basic types. Philosophers and adherents will probably quarrel with my chosen five, as there are others, and there are undoubted overlaps between these, and many believers combine aspects from two or more. But let's stick with these five as being representative. Here they are, in order of how well they reconcile with science, starting with the best:

$2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time
  1. Theistic Evolution. This is the Catholic Pope's officially stated position, and it's embraced by many real scientists of faith. Theistic evolution accepts both the geologic and biologic records, including modern evolutionary synthesis, and posits that these are simply the tools God chose to create the natural world. Theistic evolution allows and embraces scientific research and permits the acceptance of new information.
  2. Evolutionary Creationism also accepts the geologic and biologic records, and makes its creationist distinction in that there were a literal Adam and Eve who were simply the first spiritually aware humans, though they came into being in the same way as all early humans.
  3. Progressive Creationism goes one step farther. Progressive Creationism accepts the geologic record, and much of the prehistoric biologic record, including the true age of dinosaurs and other early lifeforms, but believes that the creation of humans and perhaps other modern animals was a special creationism event as literally depicted in Genesis. Thus, there can be no biological link between humans and early hominids from the fossil record.
  4. Day-Age Creationism is the belief that the six days of creation were really six geological epochs. Usually some effort is made to reconcile specific days in Genesis to specific epochs in Earth history, but since things didn't really all happen separately and consecutively like in Genesis, such efforts are generally somewhat ham-handed. But at least they're trying. Day-Age Creationism is what Jehovah's Witnesses advocate in their Watchtower pamphlets.
  5. Gap Creationism is about as far as the Old Earth model can be stretched. This model attempts to unify the true age of the Earth as measured by science with the literal Biblical account. Jimmy Swaggart advocates this model. Gap Creationism states that the first verse of the Bible, God created the heavens and the Earth, was followed by a "gap" of 4.5 billion years, during which time not much happened. And then, the literal creation of Genesis took place in six days about six to ten thousand years ago. Necessarily, this model has to abandon evolution completely, although it adheres to proper geology.

Now we move to the other half of creationist models, the Young Earth Creationism. Here we are forced to completely abandon reason and rationality. There are really only two main camps, and as you can see, they are completely at odds with one another, agreeing only on a single point: That the Earth did not exist ten thousand years ago. Let's now examine these two types of Young Earth Creationism, and once again we'll take them in order of how closely they adhere to real science:

  1. Omphalism. This is named after the 1857 book Omphalos, published two years before Darwin's Origin of Species, which explained that the fossil record was God's way of making the Earth appear to be old. Omphalos is Greek for navel, and the Omphalists believe that Adam and Eve were created with navels, thus having the appearance of being created through normal evolutionary biology. Adherents to Omphalism fully accept every scientific measurement of the age of the Earth and every discovery of modern biology, with the important exception that all such discoveries are wrong: God only wanted to make us think that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that life evolved from lower forms. A true scientist doing real research can be an Omphalist. He will arrive at the correct conclusions, though he will believe that his measurement is merely what God wants him to see.
  2. Modern Young Earth Fundamentalism. Here is where the train jumps completely off the tracks. Modern Young Earthers, for lack of a better name, are the ones behind the Creation Museum discussed earlier. They honestly believe in alternate versions of virtually every science known, throwing away every shred of modern science that doesn't point to the age of the Earth as 6,000 years. They literally believe in Adam and Eve (without navels) and all the dinosaurs on Day 1, fossilization taking only a few hundred years, and all major geologic features having been created in a few days in Noah's Flood. They reject evolution, cosmology, geology, and every science that supports them; which, by extension, eventually includes every scientific discipline. However, in their minds, they don't reject them at all; they fully embrace completely wrong, misinterpreted, misunderstood, and misrepresented versions of them. Their worldview is based absolutely on the Bible as a perfect, unerring, literal historical account. As a followup, they have invented their own versions of natural sciences that they pretend supports this view. It is not possible to be a thoroughly researched Young Earther and still retain any grasp on rationality. This is the group making the overwhelming majority of noise in the media and modern culture, but it's not clear how large of a group this really is. They have the largest and loudest web presence, with AnswersInGenesis.org and the Discovery Institute, though out of 3.2 million Ph.D.'s worldwide they've only been able to find 700 who agree with their science, according to their list maintained at DissentFromDarwin.org. This represents 2% of 1% of people with advanced academic degrees.
Saddled Dinosaur
It is scary but true - this display at the Creation Museum shows that Young Earth Fundamentalists honestly believe that people rode around on saddled dinosaurs, and that Noah had them all on the ark

So as you can see, the battle is not simply between science and creation. It's really more between the various forms of creationism, and especially between the modern Young Earthers and everyone else. There are perfectly rational ways to blend what we've learned through the scientific method with divine guidance, if that's your cup of tea. There are even reasonably, or at least relatively, rational ways to accept the gist of Genesis and still maintain a grip on reality. The majority of creationists are not entirely disconnected from reason. Even people like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are often thought of as fringe fundamentalists, make an attempt to keep their beliefs reconciled with modern science. So long as this focus is maintained, we can be reasonably assured that our educational system is not headed for the proverbial rubber room.

Brian Dunning

© 2008 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Horn, S.D.S. Stephan (Editor), Pope Benedict XVI. Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008.

Isaak, Mark. The Counter-Creationism Handbook. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007. entire book.

Myers, Paul. "The Creation 'Museum'." Pharyngula. Science Blogs, 10 Aug. 2009. Web. 10 Jan. 2010. <http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/the_creation_museum_1.php>

Numbers, R. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006.

Scott, Eugenie C. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2009. entire book.

Strahler, Arthur N. Science and Earth History--The Evolution/Creation Controversy. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1987. entire book.

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "What Do Creationists Really Believe?" Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 8 Jan 2008. Web. 20 Aug 2014. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4082>


10 most recent comments | Show all 418 comments

I’m actually from Colorado (exiled to AL) . And yes, racism is wrong.

Fellow YECs, I just finished and EXCELLENT book on young earth creationism: ‘The Global Flood: Unlocking Earth's Geologic History’ by Dr. John Morris. If you’re only planning on reading one creationism book, this is it! Although it primarily focuses on the global flood, it touches on everything from astronomy to genetics.

As I mentioned before, I have read every argument against YEC I can find. While reading this book, I was impressed at how many of the supposed challenges to YEC this one book answers.

Read it and be encouraged at how solid the YEC model is.

Then after reading it, go back and read Brian Dunning’s comments above about YECs … and try not to laugh.

Jeff, Alabama
November 19, 2013 10:01am

Wow, Jeff, I am amazed that you have come to believe this. You are telling me that the Earth is only 6 to 10 thousand years old, and that the human race was formed in six days. SIX FREAKING DAYS! Why don't you read through your own comments and try not to laugh. You are not helping YEC's case. You think that all major features on Earth were formed in a few days, as according your comments, and, and, and, yeah. All I got to say. Sorry, but I cannot believe how far the human race has fallen. A favorite quote. The human race can be separated into two groups, those who are crazy, and those who won't admit it. ( I can't sleep tonight. That's why, bleh)

Rowan Dunn, Olympia, Washington
December 31, 2013 1:01am

He could have done it in six milliseconds.

What’s amazing Rowan, is the general public’s ignorance of both the Creation model, and the depravity of evolution. Evidence is building up against evolution every year. If you disagree, it’s only because you haven’t done the research.

Speaking of doing research, I just finished another good book I’d like to recommend: “Creation Basics & Beyond: An In-Depth Look at Science, Origins, and Evolution” by the Institute for Creation Research (August 5, 2013). Read that book, and you’ll realize why creationists know they have a better model.

Jeff, Alabama
January 2, 2014 8:04am

To debate an individual's faith or present evidence to show that there are other solutions to how we and our world evolved or orginated is almost as pointless as trying to talk a die hard Pittsburgh Steeler fan into pulling for the Cleveland Browns. .obviously its impossible for our earth to be 10,000 years old and it has taken millions of years for mankind to evolve and yes earth is over 4 billion years old...It's futile to confront old world faith that is still unfortunately being taught to young people today.

dave festa, florida
January 22, 2014 1:30pm

"obviously its impossible for our earth to be 10,000 years old..."

Crud, someone better let God know that!

Jeff, Alabama
February 17, 2014 5:48am

Wow this is a touchy subject and full of passion from both sides.

However when one chooses to take a breath and look at what both die hards say on both sides you come to realize that BOTH SIDES ARE "FINATICS" on a religious scale.

Lets look at the two extreams.
One says the bible with 7 day creation is the truth. That is silly.
Even jesus was stated as saying "1000 years to you is but a day to my father".
However the other "evolution/scientific" side with the big bang theory along with the random chance is also EQUALLY SILLY.

Let me clarify on this.
However they suscribe to the big bang theory which in cold hard truth SAYS THAT VERY THING.
Then they claim that all life came from basic elements that just happened to combine right and every variety of life from plants, animals, ect came from the same microbes.
Yea that would be a random chance that defies logic. Like saying (as close as I can) that you would be in just the right spot in the open when 3 nukes go off and unharmed.
Possible but unquestionably unlikely.

I tend to think that the truth is somewhere in the middle and why the theory of intelligent design is taking hold.

Maybe a god/alien/other as it were started the process then let nature (aka evolution) take its course?

In conclusion while unpopular again BOTH sides have more than a few glaring factual holes in their argument that all the name calling and passion CANNOT JUSTIFY.

Eric, Northern IL USA
March 3, 2014 11:00pm

Just curious what are the silly points about the bigbang your referring to? Also you may want to spend time researching what nothing is to quantum physics and vacums compared to the philosophical veiws of nothing... though if you think that something cant come from nothing you lets assume that you feel that there was always something. ..if there was always something ,are you claiming something evolved from something ?,do think something is a continuous loop? With no begining. If your trying to imagine nothing..good luck there's nothing to imagine...

dave festa, florida
March 7, 2014 2:13pm


Interesting post that uses alot of words but in practicality says nothing.

I presented clear and easy to follow evidence of BOTH SIDES being as zelot to their cause as any religious finatic using arguments that have clear holes in them.

By your "big bang" tirade you clearly did not want to address the issues I presented and instead (as BOTH SIDES extreamist do) hope to belittle the person as a way to win your argument.

The earth was not created in the literal 7 24 hour days (as die hard creations say).

As for all life comming from some basic life building blocks, forming microbes and all life (be plant, animal, human) evolved from this "ooze" is also as silly (and theoretically possible but realistic impossible).

The truth is somewhere inbetween.

But as usual dave wants to name call, belittle or fill a post with comments that do not speak to the topic at hand.

Eric, Northern IL USA
March 13, 2014 11:59pm

Nice try macky

dave festa, florida
March 14, 2014 7:13am

Haha I didn't see this before because I haven't posted on this subject.

I notice dave is still thinking that Eric and myself are one and the same, as at March 2014.

I might as well throw in my 2-cents worth, I guess.

Belief is belief, that's it. It does not require "proof" of a scientific nature, and the world is full of it, on all fronts.

Even many scientists are believers. They believe that their process is the only definitive method for establishing "what is, and is not".

For the "believers" I recommend not trying to "prove" their beliefs by trying to use science to back them up.

God for example cannot be proven or disproven by science, which is the investigation of nature, because He is a supernatural being (or not) therefore outside the realm of science. There are many scientists who have a belief in the God of some religion or other.

As for the Big Bang, my belief is that it is only a continuing process of space/matter/energy/time condensing down to a theoretical point (not in space because space itself is that point) before expanding out again with another Big Bang in the "day" of the universe, until at some point, the process of universal expansion slows, and then everything starts to contract again over billions of years until it condenses back down to a point once more, the "night" of the universe, and then another Big Bang, a continuous "breathing in and out" of "All That Is".

I got no proof for this, it is simply my belief. That is all.

Macky, Auckland
August 5, 2014 2:45am

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point).

Post a reply


What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid
Skeptoid host, Brian Dunning
Skeptoid is hosted
and produced by
Brian Dunning

The Haunted Dybbuk Box
Skeptoid #428, Aug 19 2014
Read | Listen (11:26)
The Legend of the Flying Dutchman
Skeptoid #427, Aug 12 2014
Read | Listen (11:49)
The Baldoon Mystery
Skeptoid #426, Aug 5 2014
Read | Listen (11:44)
Listeners Have Another Say
Aug 1 2014
Listen (4:42)
Albino Facts and Fiction
Skeptoid #425, Jul 29 2014
Read | Listen (13:49)
#1 -
The JFK Assassination
Read | Listen
#2 -
Asking the Socratic Questions
Read | Listen
#3 -
5 False Arguments for Raw Milk
Read | Listen
#4 -
Fukushima vs Chernobyl vs Three Mile Island
Read | Listen
#5 -
The Riddle of the L-8 Blimp
Read | Listen
#6 -
Who Discovered the New World?
Read | Listen
#7 -
6 Problems with Wind Turbine Syndrome
Read | Listen
#8 -
An Enthusiast's Primer on Study Types
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid on Stitcher   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal


Follow @BrianDunning

Tweets about "skeptoid"

Support Skeptoid

Email: [Why do we need this?]To reduce spam, we email new faces a confirmation link you must click before your comment will appear.
characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.