Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.


Published: 26 November 2015 (GMT+10)



What is ‘Creationism’? It’s an oft used word in the origins debate. But it’s used in a number of different ways. To navigate the creation-evolution debate, we need to be aware of the ways ‘creationism’ is often used.

What is creationism?

At its most basic, ‘creationism’ is the belief that God supernaturally made the universe and life. It’s most commonly used as the contrary of molecules-to-man evolution. It also often includes the supernatural creation of distinct kinds of life. This form is also known as special creation. In contrast to the ‘evolutionary tree’, this gives rise to the ‘creationist orchard’ (see Variation and natural selection versus evolution for more information).

Young earth creationism (biblical creation)

‘Creationism’ also commonly refers to ‘young-earth creationism’. This is also known as biblical creation and creation science. It is the belief that God created everything in six (approximately) 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago, as recorded in the Bible. However, the term ‘young-earth creationism’ is relative (what is ‘young’?), and can be misleading. Those who hold to this view often prefer the term biblical creation. This makes it clear that the Bible is the basis of their view of history. A 6,000-year-old universe is just a corollary of this view, since it is what the Bible indicates. For more information, please see We are … biblical creationists? and Are you a biblical creationist?

Old earth creationism

‘Old-earth creationism’ is the idea that God contributed supernaturally to the creation of life and its diversity over the supposed 4.5 billion year history of the earth (and 13.7 billion year history of the cosmos), the view that prevails in academia today. This view allows for two distinct ‘modes’ of God’s activity, which are not mutually exclusive. God may have created new creatures straight from non-living materials, or He may have altered a pre-existing creature to produce a new type of creature.

Progressive creationism

Progressive creationism’ is the idea that God supernaturally produced various creatures, and did so at discrete points in the history of deep time. It is the dominant form of old-earth creationism today, and is compatible with any old-age reinterpretation of Genesis 1–11. For more information, please see Refuting Compromise.

Gap creationism

Gap creationism’ is the idea that most of the supposed billions-of-years history of the universe fits somewhere within the first three verses of Genesis 1. This view typically also holds that there was also a distinct supernatural Creation Week event after that billions-of-years history.

Evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution)

Evolutionary creationism’, also known as theistic evolution, is the idea that God used particles-to-people evolution to produce life and its diversity. In other words, God only used the ordinary operation of physics to create life and its diversity, but physics only works because God sustains it. Evolutionary creationists generally reject the idea that God acted directly in the evolutionary process.1

However, the term ‘evolutionary creationism’ creates confusion. It changes the meaning of ‘creationism’. ‘Creationism’ usually means ‘God had a supernatural hand in the history of life’. But most self-styled ‘evolutionary creationists’ reject Intelligent Design as a historical explanation for any aspect of life, and thus reject any supernatural activity in the history of life.

Intelligent design and creationism

Intelligent design’ (ID) refers to the idea that an intelligent agent had a direct hand in producing certain aspects of life, especially first life. Creationism is thus a subset of intelligent design. ID doesn’t discuss the nature of the designer, meaning that it may be natural or supernatural. However, ‘creationism’ identifies God as the designer, thus explicitly making any designed aspects of life the effects of supernatural acts. For more information, please see By Design and CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement

Creationism: a dirty word?

‘Creationism’ is often used more as an insult than merely as a way to name a position or belief system (see The portrayal of creationists by their evolutionist detractors). As a pejorative term, it means something like: ‘the belief system of anyone who irrationally denies the fact of evolution’. Proponents of all forms of creationism (except ‘evolutionary creationism’) and ID are commonly labelled ‘creationists’ in this pejorative sense, though it’s most often reserved for biblical creationists. For this reason, many ‘creationists’, especially biblical creationists, don’t use the term ‘creationism’ because it is hard to escape the stigma of foolish dogmatism the word has developed around it.

Is there a way to ‘redeem’ the word? ‘Evolutionary creationism’ tries to do just this by making ‘creationism’ compatible with evolution. But that doesn’t help; it just makes ‘creationism’ lose its meaning as a contrast to evolution. As such, ‘evolutionary creationism’ typically strikes people as an oxymoron, so it just serves to confuse rather than clarify.

The problem isn’t so much with the word ‘creationism’. The problem is the portrayal of the notion of God creating life as nonsense, particularly by those who like to promote atheism via evolution. It wouldn’t really matter what ‘creationism’ was called; a stinking corpse lily by any other name will still smell as bad.

But still, does the word ‘creationism’ have any value? If it does, it’s only as a broad description of several views that all believe God supernaturally acted to create the universe and life. But those views have wildly different approaches both to the history of the universe and the interpretation of Genesis 1–11. So the value of such a catch-all term, even when used without any intent to insult, is still severely limited. It doesn’t address itself to the specific views in the origins debate. If someone uses the term ‘creationism’, we need to ask: ‘which version?’ We are better off aiming for clarity and specificity from the beginning.

References and notes

  1. Like all terms, these terms are somewhat fluid in their use. Some who call themselves ‘evolutionary creationists’ may allow for God’s supernatural action in the history of life. But this is a minority view, and under the definitions here they would be labelled an ‘old-earth creationist’. Return to text.

Readers’ comments

David B.
God is PERFECT..therefore His Laws are PERFECT. The supernatural is a man made concept that separates God from His Creation...an illusion that prevents mankind from KNOWING God personally! God Creates THROUGH His PERFECT Laws......the supernatural concept requires a modification, violation or suspension of those Laws which would render His Laws "IMPERFECT"....a non-sequitur.
Shaun Doyle
How 'perfect' is God if He is constrained by the 'laws' of a physical world that He made from nothing? God's sovereign freedom is one of His perfections. In contrast, an inability to do anything directly in the physical world would be an imperfection—such a 'god' is weak. Besides, natural regularities are not even 'laws' in any literal sense. Rather, what we commonly call 'natural laws' are just descriptions of the way the physical world ordinarily works, not a form of prescription that forbids God from acting in certain ways. God maintains the regularities of nature to maintain such things as the integrity of human volition, but that only requires regularity and predictability as the overwhelming norm, not a complete absence of 'intervention'. See Defining arguments away—the distorted language of secularism and Miracles and science.

Moreover, the 'natural/supernatural' is nothing more than a heuristic device. When we talk of 'nature' in common parlance, we typically refer to the physical world. In that context 'supernatural' is the common term to describe the genuinely miraculous. If you don't like it, then there are other ways to describe the obvious experiential difference we face regarding miracles and the mundane. The supernatural by any other name still transcends the operations of the physical world.

And finally, I know God, and am known by God, through a walking, talking miracle: Jesus of Nazareth. His Incarnation (and thus His entire human life) is a miracle. His conception was a miracle. He performed miracles. His death achieves the miracle of saving sinners. His resurrection is the clearest miracle to the eyes of history. His ascension was a miracle. His session at the right hand of the Father as a glorified man is a miracle. His return will be a miracle. The resurrection age He will usher in will be a miracle.
Douglas R.
Regarding what one should call themselves: I am a Christian who believes God created all things through his Son in 6 days. One may be a "Creationist" yet not be a true Christian. The story of creation is part of the gospel message, gospel truth. John the apostle made that abundantly clear in Chapter 1 of the gospel of John. It is noted in Acts in Paul's preaching, Colossians, and other books, especially Genesis.
Believing the truth about creation, however, does not make one a Christian. I've met many professors of Christianity who study and write profusely about the subject, but do not really "know" the Lord, neither do they have the fear of God, which includes the hatred of evil and heresy.
When any Biblical subject is removed from the whole, there is the danger of heresy and I think that has happened among many. Why? The offense of the cross is left out of the teaching of creation by many. Scientific data can be bantered about back and forth and the truth of the gospel and the purpose of what God has done, lost in intellectual debates. It can become "vain babbling."
Creation is but one part of the gospel of God and when other vital truths are left out, people cannot be saved. "The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes..." When any part of the gospel is corrupted, it becomes a false gospel. Other supposed theories about the beginning of all things are heresies and should be noted as such and despised. No credence should be given them regardless of supposed scientific data. But when men treat the things of God as mere science, they err and "do not the truth." Other theories are doctrines of demons. Do not play with them or those that tout them. Those that believe such lies are heretics and have fallen from grace and are practicing sin.
J. B.
"ID doesn’t discuss the nature of the designer, meaning that it may be natural or supernatural."

I have a question about the statement above. I've been under the impression that the point of ID is to point to the supernatural (just not specifying the Biblical God as the creator). A natural process cannot be "intelligent", right?
Shaun Doyle
Designers clearly don't have to be supernatural agents, as humans are designers. Aliens would be another conceivable example of intelligent agents that would be physical.
Gennaro C.
Well, at the end of the day how should we call ourselves. Thank you.
Shaun Doyle
The point of the article is not really to suggest a label, but more to aid the reader in being aware of how the word 'creationism' is variously used in the origins debate. Nonetheless, I recommend our article We are … biblical creationists?, which suggests 'biblical creationist/biblical creation' is a helpful way for us to avoid some of the stigma of 'creationism' and 'brand' ourselves a little more positively (and accurately).

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.