نظرية الخلق

سلسلة مقالات حول
نظرية الخلق
The Creation of Adam.jpg

تاريخ نظرية الخلق
نظرية الخلق الإسلامية
نظرية الخلق في الكتاب المقدس

مذاهب الخلق :
- علوم الخلق
نظرية خلق الأرض الفتية
نظرية خلق الأرض القديمة
نظرية خلق أومفالوس
مركزية الأرض الحديثة
نظرية الخلق المتطورة
تطور إلهي
نظرية الخلق الجديدة
نظرية الخلق الإسلامية
التصميم الذكي
- حركة التصميم الذكي

نزاعات:
الخلق مقابل التطور

نظريات علمية متعلقة بالموضوع:
نظرية الإنفجار العظيم
نظرية التطور
كون ثابت
كون نصف-ثابت

نظرية الخلق (خلق السموات والأرض) creationism هو المعتقد المشترك بين جميع الديانات الإبراهيمية بأن الإنسان والحياة والأرض و الكون أيضا نشأ نتيجة تدخل و إبداع رباني إلهي من قبل ذات فوق-طبيعية تدعى الله. هذا التدخل الإلهي يمكن ان يكون خلقا مباشرا من عدم (ex nihilo) أو انبثاق للنظام و الترتيب من شواش بدائي (demiurge) كما تنص بعض الأساطير اليونانية . يعتبر معظم المؤمنون في الدينات السماوية ان نظرية الخلق لا تتعارض مع الحقائق العلمية .

تتعارض هذه النظرة الدينية مع نظرة أخرى لتفسير الأمور و الظواهر في سياق العلم تدعى الطبيعية التي تحاول ان تنظر للأمور في سياق مادي أو إلحادي دون أي اعتبار لوجود للنظرة الدينية أو الروحانية.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

الأنواع

The main general types are listed below.

Comparison of major creationist views
Humanity Biological species Earth Age of Universe
Young Earth creationism Directly created by God. Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur. Less than 10,000 years old. Reshaped by global flood. Less than 10,000 years old, but some hold this view only for our Solar System.
Gap creationism Scientifically accepted age. Reshaped by global flood. Scientifically accepted age.
Progressive creationism Directly created by God, based on primate anatomy. Direct creation + evolution. No single common ancestor. Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. Scientifically accepted age.
Intelligent design Proponents hold various beliefs. (For example, Michael Behe accepts evolution from primates.) Divine intervention at some point in the past, as evidenced by what intelligent-design creationists call "irreducible complexity." Some adherents accept common descent, others not. Some claim the existence of Earth is the result of divine intervention. Scientifically accepted age.
Theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism) Evolution from primates. Evolution from single common ancestor. Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. Scientifically accepted age.


Young Earth creationism

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is a young-Earth creationist organization.

Old Earth creationism

Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event described in the Book of Genesis is to be taken figuratively. This group generally believes that the age of the universe and the age of the Earth are as described by astronomers and geologists, but that details of modern evolutionary theory are questionable.[1]

Old Earth creationism itself comes in at least three types:[1]

Gap creationism

Day-age creationism

Day-age creationism states that the "six days" of the Book of Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather much longer periods (for instance, each "day" could be the equivalent of millions, or billions of years of human time). The physicist Gerald Schroeder is one such proponent of this view. This version of creationism often states that the Hebrew word "yôm," in the context of Genesis 1, can be properly interpreted as "age."


Progressive creationism

Progressive creationism holds that species have changed or evolved in a process continuously guided by God, with various ideas as to how the process operated—though it is generally taken that God directly intervened in the natural order at key moments in Earth history. This view accepts most of modern physical science including the age of the Earth, but rejects much of modern evolutionary biology or looks to it for evidence that evolution by natural selection alone is incorrect.[بحاجة لمصدر] Organizations such as Reasons To Believe, founded by Hugh Ross, promote this version of creationism.

Progressive creationism can be held in conjunction with hermeneutic approaches to the Genesis creation narrative such as the day-age creationism or framework/metaphoric/poetic views.

Philosophic and scientific creationism

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Creation science


Neo-creationism


Intelligent design

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[2][3] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[4]

Geocentrism


Omphalos hypothesis

Religious views

Islam

Islamic creationism is the belief that the universe (including humanity) was directly created by God as explained in the Qur'an. It usually views the Book of Genesis as a corrupted version of God's message. The creation myths in the Qur'an are vaguer and allow for a wider range of interpretations similar to those in other Abrahamic religions.[5]


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bahá'í Faith

Christianity

Hinduism

Hindu creationists claim that species of plants and animals are material forms adopted by pure consciousness which live an endless cycle of births and rebirths.[6] Ronald Numbers says that: "Hindu Creationists have insisted on the antiquity of humans, who they believe appeared fully formed as long, perhaps, as trillions of years ago."[7] Hindu creationism is a form of old Earth creationism, according to Hindu creationists the universe may even be older than billions of years. These views are based on the Vedas, the creation myths of which depict an extreme antiquity of the universe and history of the Earth.[8][9]

Judaism

For Orthodox Jews who seek to reconcile discrepancies between science and the creation myths in the Bible, the notion that science and the Bible should even be reconciled through traditional scientific means is questioned. To these groups, science is as true as the Torah and if there seems to be a problem, epistemological limits are to blame for apparently irreconcilable points. They point to discrepancies between what is expected and what actually is to demonstrate that things are not always as they appear. They note that even the root word for "world" in the Hebrew language—עולם (Olam)—means hidden—נעלם (Neh-Eh-Lahm). Just as they know from the Torah that God created man and trees and the light on its way from the stars in their observed state, so too can they know that the world was created in its over the six days of Creation that reflects progression to its currently-observed state, with the understanding that physical ways to verify this may eventually be identified. This knowledge has been advanced by Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb, former philosophy professor at Johns Hopkins University.[بحاجة لمصدر] Also, relatively old Kabbalistic sources from well before the scientifically apparent age of the universe was first determined are in close concord with modern scientific estimates of the age of the universe, according to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, and based on Sefer Temunah, an early kabbalistic work attributed to the first-century Tanna Nehunya ben HaKanah. Many kabbalists accepted the teachings of the Sefer HaTemunah, including the medieval Jewish scholar Nahmanides, his close student Isaac ben Samuel of Acre, and David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra. Other parallels are derived, among other sources, from Nahmanides, who expounds that there was a Neanderthal-like species with which Adam mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discovered scientifically).[10][11][12][13] Reform Judaism does not take the Torah as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic or open-ended work.

Prevalence

Views on human evolution in various countries 2008[14][15]

Most vocal literalist creationists are from the US, and strict creationist views are much less common in other developed countries. According to a study published in Science, a survey of the US, Turkey, Japan and Europe showed that public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.[16] There seems to be no significant correlation between believing in evolution and understanding evolutionary science.[17][18]

United States

Anti-evolution car in Athens, Georgia


Education controversies

The Truth fish, one of the many creationist responses to the Darwin fish

In the US, creationism has become centered in the political controversy over creation and evolution in public education, and whether teaching creationism in science classes conflicts with the separation of church and state. Currently, the controversy comes in the form of whether advocates of the intelligent design movement who wish to "Teach the Controversy" in science classes have conflated science with religion.[19]

People for the American Way polled 1500 North Americans about the teaching of evolution and creationism in November and December 1999. They found that most North Americans were not familiar with Creationism, and most North Americans had heard of evolution, but many did not fully understand the basics of the theory. The main findings were:

Americans believe that:[20]
  • Public schools should teach evolution only
  
20%
  • Only evolution should be taught in science classes, religious explanations
    can be discussed in another class
  
17%
  • Creationism can be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory
  
29%
  • Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class
  
13%
  • Only Creationism should be taught
  
16%
  • Teach both evolution and Creationism, but unsure how to do so
  
4%
  • No opinion
  
1%


Criticism

Christian criticism

Most Christians disagree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools.[21][22]

Scientific criticism

Science is a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence, and the development of theories that yield testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena. By contrast, creationism is often based on literal interpretations of the narratives of particular religious texts.[23] Creationist beliefs involve purported forces that lie outside of nature, such as supernatural intervention, and often do not allow predictions at all. Therefore, these can neither be confirmed nor disproved by scientists.[24] However, many creationist beliefs can be framed as testable predictions about phenomena such as the age of the Earth, its geological history and the origins, distributions and relationships of living organisms found on it. Early science incorporated elements of these beliefs, but as science developed these beliefs were gradually falsified and were replaced with understandings based on accumulated and reproducible evidence that often allows the accurate prediction of future results.[25][26]

Organizations

Creationism (in general)
Young Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism
Intelligent design
Evolutionary creationism
Evolution

See also

هناك كتاب ، Evolution، في معرفة الكتب.


Footnotes

Notes

  1. ^ أ ب خطأ استشهاد: وسم <ref> غير صحيح؛ لا نص تم توفيره للمراجع المسماة Scott1999
  2. ^ Boudry, Maarten; Blancke, Stefaan; Braeckman, Johan (December 2010). "Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience" (PDF). The Quarterly Review of Biology. 85 (4): 473–82. doi:10.1086/656904. hdl:1854/LU-952482. PMID 21243965. Article available from Universiteit Gent
  3. ^ Pigliucci, Massimo (2010). "Science in the Courtroom: The Case against Intelligent Design" (PDF). Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 160–86. ISBN 978-0-226-66786-7. LCCN 2009049778. OCLC 457149439.
  4. ^ "Top Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design?". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-05-13.
  5. ^ خطأ استشهاد: وسم <ref> غير صحيح؛ لا نص تم توفيره للمراجع المسماة nytimes.com
  6. ^ McGrath 2010, p. 140
  7. ^ Numbers 2006, p. 420
  8. ^ Carper & Hunt 2009, p. 167
  9. ^ Dasgupta 1922, p. 10
  10. ^ Aviezer 1990
  11. ^ Carmell & Domb 1976
  12. ^ Schroeder 1998
  13. ^ Tigay, Jeffrey H. (Winter 1987–1988). "Genesis, Science, and 'Scientific Creationism'". Conservative Judaism. 40 (2): 20–27. ISSN 0010-6542. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
  14. ^ Le Page, Michael (April 19, 2008). "Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution". New Scientist. 198 (2652): 31. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
  15. ^ Hecht, Jeff (August 19, 2006). "Why doesn't America believe in evolution?". New Scientist. 191 (2565): 11. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
  16. ^ خطأ استشهاد: وسم <ref> غير صحيح؛ لا نص تم توفيره للمراجع المسماة Science survey
  17. ^ Kahan, Dan (May 24, 2014). "Weekend update: You'd have to be science illiterate to think 'belief in evolution' measures science literacy". Cultural Cognition Project (Blog). New Haven, CT: Yale Law School. Retrieved 2015-03-23.
  18. ^ Shtulman, Andrew (March 2006). "Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution". Cognitive Psychology. 52 (2): 170–94. Bibcode:1992CogPs..24..535V. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001. ISSN 0010-0285. PMID 16337619.
  19. ^ خطأ استشهاد: وسم <ref> غير صحيح؛ لا نص تم توفيره للمراجع المسماة kitz
  20. ^ خطأ استشهاد: وسم <ref> غير صحيح؛ لا نص تم توفيره للمراجع المسماة pfaw
  21. ^ van Harn, Roger; Ford, David F.; Gunton, Colin E. (2004). Exploring and Proclaiming the Apostles' Creed. A&C Black. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-8192-8116-6. Extract of page 44
  22. ^ Ra, Aron (2016). Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism. Pitchstone Publishing. p. 182. ISBN 978-1-63431-079-6. Extract of page 182
  23. ^ NAS 2008, p. 12
  24. ^ NAS 2008, p. 10, "In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations."
  25. ^ Isaak, Mark, ed. (2006). "An Index to Creationist Claims". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2012-12-09.
  26. ^ Futuyma 2005
  27. ^ "About Old Earth Ministries?". Old Earth Ministries. Springfield, OH: Old Earth Ministries. Retrieved 2014-03-09.

References

Further reading

External links

Wikiquote-logo.svg اقرأ اقتباسات ذات علاقة بنظرية الخلق، في معرفة الاقتباس.

قالب:Creationism topics

خطأ لوا في وحدة:Authority_control على السطر 346: attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value).