Editing Creationism (section)

===Scientific criticism===
{{Main|Rejection of evolution by religious groups}}
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.<ref>[[#NAS 2008|NAS 2008]], [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=12 p. 12]</ref> 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.<ref name="SEaC">[[#NAS 2008|NAS 2008]], [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=10 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."</ref> However, many creationist beliefs can be framed as testable predictions about phenomena such as the age of the Earth, its [[geological history of Earth|geological history]] and the origins, [[biogeography|distributions]] and [[Phylogenetics|relationships]] of living organisms found on it. [[History of science|Early science]] incorporated elements of these beliefs, but as science developed these beliefs were gradually [[Falsifiability|falsified]] and were replaced with understandings based on accumulated and reproducible evidence that often allows the accurate prediction of future results.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html |title=An Index to Creationist Claims |editor-last=Isaak |editor-first=Mark |year=2006 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=2012-12-09}}</ref><ref>[[#Futuyma 2005|Futuyma 2005]]</ref>

Some scientists, such as [[Stephen Jay Gould]],<ref name="RoA">[[#Gould 1999|Gould 1999]]</ref> consider science and religion to be two compatible and complementary fields, with authorities in distinct areas of human experience, so-called [[non-overlapping magisteria]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Gould |first=Stephen Jay |date=March 1997 |title=Nonoverlapping Magisteria |url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html |journal=[[Natural History (magazine)|Natural History]] |volume=106 |pages=16–22 |issue=3 |issn=0028-0712 |access-date=2014-03-31 |archive-date=2017-01-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170104061453/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> This view is also held by many theologians, who believe that [[Unmoved mover|ultimate origins]] and [[meaning of life|meaning]] are addressed by religion, but favor verifiable scientific explanations of natural phenomena over those of creationist beliefs. Other scientists, such as [[Richard Dawkins]],<ref>[[#Dawkins 2006|Dawkins 2006]], p. 5</ref> reject the non-overlapping magisteria and argue that, in disproving literal interpretations of creationists, the scientific method also undermines religious texts as a source of truth. Irrespective of this diversity in viewpoints, since creationist beliefs are not supported by empirical evidence, the scientific consensus is that any attempt to teach creationism as science should be rejected.<ref name="RoyalSociety_2006">{{cite web|url=http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298|title=Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design|date=April 11, 2006|website=[[Royal Society]]|publisher=Royal Society|location=London|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080602213726/http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298|archive-date=2008-06-02|access-date=2014-03-09}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism |title=Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism |last1=Matsumura |first1=Molleen |last2=Mead |first2=Louise |date=February 14, 2001 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |access-date=2008-11-04}} Updated 2007-07-31.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php |title=Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution? |last=Myers |first=PZ |author-link=PZ Myers |date=June 18, 2006 |website=[[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] |publisher=[[ScienceBlogs|ScienceBlogs LLC]] |type=Blog |access-date=2007-09-12 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070809011055/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php |archive-date=August 9, 2007 }}</ref>