This article endeavours to prove that there were creation myths of human beings or certain things, but there were seldom creation myths of ontological cosmology in ancient China. This will be warranted through the distinction between the concepts of 'to create' and 'to beget', the distinction between 'Cosmology I of creationism' and 'Cosmology II of begetting', and the relationship between the One and Many. The only exception is the myth of Nüwa äæ as the creator of human beings, but not the creator of the cosmos. Therefore, in ancient Chinese tradition, there were mainly myths of begetting rather than myths of complete creation in the sense similar to creatio ex nihilo. CONTRIBUTION: Previous research frequently underscores the profound differences between 'Cosmology I of creationism' and 'Cosmology II of begetting'. Based on the discussion of concepts of 'to create' [zao 造] and 'to beget' [sheng 生], this article argues that, there were mainly myths of begetting rather than myths of complete creation in the sense similar to creatio ex nihilo.

Darwin's 18th century theory of evolution was an elegant, sensible, and logical explanation of observed data. It was embraced by the scientific community of the time since it offered an alternative to the creation narrative in the Bible. Proponents of the theory were convinced that the origin and multitude of life on earth could be fully explained by evolution and natural selection. Over time, the theory of evolution acquired normative status, which led to the totality of human knowledge being interpreted through a filter of random chance. Opponents of this materialistic view were in many cases branded as fringe figures. Subsequently, however, science and technology have developed dramatically, and new observations have led to a growing number of questions that cannot be explained by an unguided, random process. In this article (the first in a series of four on this topic), a few examples of such contemporary observations are presented. These include: • Origin of the universe Seminal work by scholars such as Slipher, Hubble, Lemaïtre, Einstein and others indicate that the universe came into being at a specific moment. This was contrary to the idea of a perpetual universe, as believed by e.g., classical Greek scholars. The implication ofa moment of creation is that there must have been a "cause of creation" (Creator) that is not bounded by, or subject to, matter, energy, space, or time, because none of these existed before the moment of creation. • Fine-tuning of the universe Since the 1950's, numerous scientific discoveries indicate that life depends on a highly unlikely combination of forces, characteristics, and balances in the universe, such as e.g., fundamental forces that have exactly the right magnitudes, contingent properties that exhibit exactly the right characteristics, as well as the initial configuration of matter and energy perfectly tuned to allow for anything to exist. These life-permitting properties of the universe fall within highly improbable, precise boundaries, commonly referred to as "anthropic contingencies" by materialist scientists. If any one of these properties were changed even in an infinitesimal way, the life-promoting conditions, found in the universe would not exist. Not only is the observed simultaneous, conditional accuracy highly improbable, but there appears to be no conceivable physical cause (reason) or philosophical necessity why these parameters exhibit the particular values they do. Contrary to scientists with a materialistic worldview, who attribute the fine-tuning to a happy accident (a random accident of physics), a growing number of scientists and philosophers conclude that the universe was designed with great care by a Creator who transcends time, matter, space, and energy in order to have achieved the fine-tuning of conditions before the moment of creation. • Age of the universe The age of the universe extends from the time of the Big Bang, which is currently calculated to have occurred 13.8 billion years ago (±0.020 billion years), according to the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ACDM) model. Contemporary empirical evidence indicates that the universe consists of approximately 68% dark energy, 27% dark matter and only 5% matter. This means that although the ACDM theory has a thorough scientific basis, it still represents imperfect knowledge of only approximately 5% of everything that exists. • Origin of the earth The conditions necessary for the earth to form have been determined before the moment of creation. A literal understanding of the narrative in Genesis is problematic since the sun and the moon were only created on day four. To summarily interpret the first 3 "days" of creation as 24-hour days is therefore without any justification, because the heavenly bodies that are responsible for 24-hour days as we know them, did not yet exist. From this it can be deduced that a 24-hour-a-day interpretation of the days of creation, is at most a human construct and that the repeated use of the words, "and there was evening, and there was morning", should rather be seen as a delimitation of events. • Age of the earth Pre-scientific thinking about the age of the earth was dominated by a fundamentalist, biblical paradigm. This included calculating the age of the earth according to generations given in the Bible, which resulted in general consensus that the earth was created on "the entrance of the night preceding the 23rd day of October [...] the year before Christ 4004". Geological and paleontological evidence however made it clear that well over 6,000 years must have passed in the formation of the earth. This empirical evidence was ultimately the cause of the literal understanding of Genesis' six days of creation being openly questioned. Immanent scientists such as Newton (1687), Hutton (1788) and Lyell (1830-1833) took a uniformitarian paradigm as point of departure in their calculations about the age of the earth. Contemporary evidence indicates that the earth's age is approximately 4,6 billion years. • Origin and age of life The origin and age of humankind has been central in debates about evolution since the publication of the theory almost 200 years ago. Currently, however, sources of information such as genetics and genetically based studies (e.g., Ontogeny, Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology) have, together with developments in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis since the early 1970's, substantially added to the knowledge obtained from the fossil record. A vast volume of data must have been generated to account for the multitude of life observed (including humankind). The visible range and depth of information, as well as the survival rate within the time available, make "coincidence" as a method of gathering the information, logically impossible. Only one out of every hundred species that could mutate survived, which means that to obtain the correct DNA information the mutation rate would have had to be 99% higher, or the period 99% longer than observed in natural science. The only plausible origin of such information is an intelligent designer. In conclusion, the central theoretical premise of this article series is that contemporary observations in all disciplines of natural science are best explained by the existence and involvement of God in creation. Academic integrity requires that scholars depart from a normative materialistic interpretation of empirical data (i.e., the a-priori exclusion of any metaphysical interpretations), which is currently still widely adhered to. The authors 'point of departure is a Reformed³ understanding of reality. The four articles all have the same structure, namely a problem statement, a natural science discussion, an exploration of what information the Bible offers on the various topics, closed by a conclusion. The article series is supposed to provide a broad, critical overview of the topic of normative materialism in the natural sciences and no new research results per se are presented. However, the insights reached in the respective conclusions are unique, and the authors are of the opinion that they contribute to the existing knowledge about the relationship between faith and science.

Darwin se evolusieteorie wat in die 18e eeu gepubliseer is, was 'n elegante, sinvolle en logiese verklaring van waangenome data. Hierdie teorie is deur die destydse wetenskaplike gemeenskap aangegryp, omdat dit vir die eerste keer 'n alternatief gebied het vir die skeppingsverhaal in die Bybel. Voorstanders van die teorie was oortuig daarvan dat die ontstaan en verskeidenheid van lewe op aarde volledig deur evolusie en natuurlike seleksie verklaar kon word. Die evolusieteorie het mettertyd normatiewe status verwerf, wat daartoe gelei het dat die totaliteit van die menslike kennis deur 'n filter van ewekansige toeval geïnterpreteer is. Teenstanders van hierdie materialistiese praktyk is in baie gevalle gebrandmerk as randfigure. Sedertdien het die natuurwetenskap en die tegnologie egter dramaties ontwikkel en nuwe waarnemings op die makro-, sowel as op die mikrovlak, het gelei tot 'n groeiende aantal vrae wat nie deur 'n onbegeleide, willekeurige meganisme verklaar kan word nie. In hierdie artikel (die eerste van vier artikels oor hierdie onderwerp) word enkele voor-beelde van sodanige empiriese gegewens voorgehou. Die sentrale teoretiese uitgangspunt is dat kontemporêre waarnemings in alle dissiplines van die natuurwetenskap, die beste verklaar word deur die bestaan en betrokkenheid van God in die skepping. Akademiese integriteit verg dat daar afgewyk moet word van 'n normatiewe materialisme (wat by voorbaat enige metafisiese interpretasies uitsluit), wat tans nog wyd aangehang word. Die outeurs se vertrekpunt is 'n Reformatoriese4 verstaan van die werklikheid. Die vier artikels het almal dieselfde struktuur, naamlik 'n probleemstelling, 'n natuurwetenskaplike bespreking, 'n verkenning oor watter inligting die Bybel oor die verskillende onderwerpe aanbied, afgesluit deur 'n gevolgtrekking. Die artikelreeks is veronderstel om 'n breë, kritiese beskouing van die onderwerp van normatiewe materialisme in die natuurwetenskap te verskaf en geen nuwe navorsingsresultateper se word aangebied nie. Die insigte waartoe gekom word in die onderskeie gevolgtrekkings is egter wel uniek en die outeurs is van mening dat dit 'n bydrae lewer tot die bestaande kennis oor die verband tussen geloof en wetenskap.

Many scientists and researchers agree that biological life on earth most likely arose naturally, but they cannot account for the exact method by which life arose. Numerous experiments and observations have provided evidence that the basic building blocks of life (amino acids) can form spontaneously under the conditions thought to be those present on ancient earth. The recent discovery of Extremophiles (organisms that thrive in extreme conditions such as high temperature and pressure) gave further impetus to the belief that it is possible for unguided, random mechanisms to produce life. However, contrary to scientists who present contemporary scientific evidence as proof of life having a natural origin, there is a growing number of authoritative scholars who claim that the a priori conditions for life to exist at all, as well as its complexity, are indicative of carefully planned, guided mechanisms. Contrary to a materialistic/atheistic view, these researchers advocate a willingness to follow contemporary data to its most likely, logical conclusion. This conclusion involves the continuous involvement of a Creator right from the moment of creation, to the present. The group of theories that centre around a belief that life was created by a supernatural force or deity is known as Creationism. It is based on religious beliefs that determine the way in which natural scientific data is interpreted. Creationists argue that the complexity of living organisms, as well as the existence of consciousness, cannot be explained by random, unguided processes and must have been designed by a higher power. One of the arguments for a supernatural origin of life, is the Anthropocentric principle (or the so-called "fine-tuning" argument), which claims that the universe has precise values for certain physical constants and laws that make it possible for life to exist. Proponents of this view argue that the universe's design could only have been orchestrated by a conscious, purposeful designer. Further evidence cited for supernatural involvement includes the Cambrian explosion and other discontinuities in the paleontological record, as well as the belief that the information in the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule must have had an intelligent author. Criticism of Creationism is that there is no scientific evidence that the universe was fine-tuned solely for the purpose of facilitating life, or that a conscious designer was responsible for it. Furthermore, the "Multiverse" hypothesis, which postulates that there can be many universes with different physical constants, offers a possible naturalistic explanation for why our universe possesses the properties that are observed. As for the paleontological discontinuities and the information in DNA, these are indeed interesting phenomena that have been and still are the subject of much scientific investigation. However, it is important to note that there is ongoing scientific debate about possible unguided mechanisms that could have caused the Cambrian explosion, and the information in DNA can, according to materialists, also be explained by natural processes such as evolution through natural selection. One of the Naturalistic theories about the origin of life on earth is Abiogenesis, which claims that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter through an optimal coincidence of chemical reactions under favourable conditions. This theory is based on the idea that the conditions on the early earth were perfect for the formation of simple organic molecules, which eventually gave rise to more complex structures capable of self-replication. The Miller-Urey experiment, for example, showed that simple organic molecules formed under conditions that, according to the knowledge at the time, were identical to those on early earth. However, this experiment was discredited over time because the researchers assumed that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of methane, ammonia, and water vapour, but later research showed that the early atmosphere more likely consisted of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water vapour. In addition, some scientists have pointed out that the conditions simulated in the experiment were too reducing in nature (that is, too poor in oxygen), to accurately reflect the conditions on the early earth which had a more oxidizing atmosphere. Therefore, while the Miller-Urey experiment remains an important milestone in the history of origin of life research, it is widely recognised that its results should be viewed with caution and that its implications for the natural formation of life on earth should not be overstated. Another naturalistic theory is that life was brought to earth by comets or meteorites. This theory, known as Panspermia, suggests that life may have originated elsewhere in the universe and was transported to earth by comets or meteorites. Panspermia is supported by the discovery of organic molecules and microorganisms in some meteorites, as well as the presence of microbial life in extreme environments on earth that may be similar to conditions on other planets. Each of these theories has its own strengths and weaknesses and there is no consensus among scientists as to which theory is the most accurate. Abiogenesis, for example, is supported by the evidence of the formation of simple organic molecules under conditions, presumably like those on the early earth, but it is difficult to explain how these molecules gave rise to complex structures capable of self-replication. Panspermia is in turn supported by the discovery of organic molecules and microorganisms in some meteorites, but this does not explain the original origin of life itself. Creationism, on the other hand is not directly supported by scientific evidence but is based on the interpretation of empirical data from a religious paradigm. The origin of life on earth therefore remains a subject of scientific inquiry and naturalistic explanations, based on empirical evidence and well-established scientific theories are still considered in mainstream science to be the only valid basis of human understanding of this complex and interesting subject. However, this normative materialist interpretation is increasingly being questioned by a growing number of eminent scholars. This article focuses on the origin and complexity of information as found in life on earth. All forms of information known to man, whether hieroglyphs, radio signals, printed media or TV broadcasts have an intelligent author, and the question is why mainstream science insists on considering the most complex information observed by humankind to date (namely the code in the DNA molecule), as strictly materialistic in origin.

'n Groot aantal natuurwetenskaplike navorsers beweer dat biologiese lewe op aarde heel waarskynlik natuurlik ontstaan het, maar geeneen kan die presiese meganisme waardeur lewe ontstaan het, weergee nie. Talle eksperimente en waarnemings het bewyse gelewer dat die basiese boustene van lewe, soos aminosure, spontaan kan vorm onder die toestande wat op die vroeë aarde teenwoordig was. Daarbenewens dui die ontdekking van ekstremofiele (organismes wat floreer in uiterste toestande soos hoë temperature en druk) daarop dat lewe moontlik deur 'n onbegeleide, willekeurige meganisme in sulke omgewings kon ontstaan het. Alhoewel die meerderheid wetenskaplikes dus kontemporêre wetenskaplike gegewens aanvoer as bewyse dat lewe 'n natuurlike oorsprong gehad het, is daar 'n groeiende stem van gesaghebbende navorsers wat beweer dat die voorwaardelike toestande vir lewe, sowel as die kompleksiteit daarvan, dui op fyn beplande, begeleide meganismes. In teenstelling met 'n normatiewe materialistiese vertrekpunt, propageer sulke navorsers 'n openheid om die data te volg tot die mees waarskynlike, logiese gevolgtrekking. Hierdie gevolgtrekking behels die voortdurende betrokkenheid van 'n Skepper vanaf voor die beginmoment van die skepping, tot op hede.

Augustine was a representative of the theology of hope in the patristic age. He saw hope as the grasp of eschatological eternal happy life for human in this world. Together, the three virtues of faith, hope and love constitute the three interdependent faculties of the soul to know God. Hope, which comes from the grace of God given through Christ, is the knowledge of eternity, not of a future in time, and it helps one to resist the temptation of goods which comes from the flesh and earthly things. Hope in eternity gives one a cognitive power beyond time and space, which leads to a unified vision of past, present and future, thus also causing important changes in how one lives in this created world. However, because of this unearthly hope, people can form a gradually expanding community of fraternity in this world, which helps them transcend differences of belief and seek a more virtuous life. CONTRIBUTION: This article reconstructs Augustine's interpretation of the nature of hope by synthesising his various texts, analysing the theological structure of the concepts related to hope, sorting out the 'theology of hope' he advocates and finally, in light of the wisdom of his philosophy, responding to what and how we can hope in suffering

Abstract: In Protagoras’ so called Great Speach, in Plato’s dialogue named after him, the Greek philosopher attributes the sophist a myth about the origin, development and nature of human beings, which has philosophical relevance. It is said that the gods created the mortal beings out of two elements, earth and fire. They assigned two titans, Epimetheus and Prometheus, to provide mortals with their faculties. Do this implies that creation had not been finished by the gods? To what extent do the gods entirely create human beings? Is this mith a creationist one? In this paper, the development of living beings is divided in four stages, and different hermeneutic and explanatory models are proposed to adress the myth and answer the questions raised before.

Resumen: En el Gran Discurso de Protágoras, en el diálogo platónico que lleva su nombre, Platón pone em boca de Protágoras un mito acerca del origen, desarrollo y naturaleza del ser humano, que es de gran relevancia filosófica. Se expresa que los dioses crearon a los seres mortales desde dos elementos: la tierra y el fuego. A su vez, también asignaron dos titanes, Epimeteo y Prometeo, para que proveyeran a los mortales de sus facultades. ¿Acaso esto implica que la creación no fue terminada por los dioses? ¿Hasta qué punto los dioses crearon enteramente al ser humano? ¿Podría afirmarse que este es un mito creacionista? El desarrollo de los seres vivientes puede dividirse en cuatro instancias. A lo largo de este artículo, se proponen distintos modelos hermenéuticos para responder los interrogantes mencionados anteriormente.

Abstract From showing that the first thesis of the realism that Lee Braver points out in A thing of this world. A history of continental anti-realism, is from a kind of realism generated by Christian philosophy,and, therefore, not from any kind of realism. I will postulate two things: 1) that the problem of exteriority is only relevant in a personalist philosophy; and 2) that there is the possibility of generating a new type of realism.This other realism I will call post-creationist for not taking as a basis the onto-epistemic principles of Christian philosophy.

Resumen A partir de mostrar que la primera tesis del realismo que señala Lee Braver en A thing of this world. A history of continental anti-realism, es de un realismo generado por la filosofía cristiana, y por lo tanto no de todo realismo, se postularán dos cosas: 1) que el problema de la exterioridad sólo es pertinente en una filosofía personalista; y 2) que cabe la posibilidad de generar un nuevo tipo de realismo. Este otro realismo lo denominaré post.creacionista por no tomar como base los principios onto-epistémicos de la filosofía cristiana.

Resumo: Neste artigo, analisamos a controvérsia do criacionismo em discursos públicos de políticos, cientistas e jornalistas, focando a argumentação na gramática dos direitos e na apropriação de racionalidade tecnocientífica. Observamos que o criacionismo é defendido ora como um assunto de interesse público com base no direito à liberdade de crença, ora como uma crença particular que não interfere na vida pública de políticos, e ainda como teoria científica à qual se nega a liberdade acadêmica e de expressão. A adoção estratégica de diferentes discursos demonstra uma tentativa do movimento não apenas de resistir à lógica que lhe é imposta por seus adversários, mas uma insistência em existir dentro dessa própria lógica que busca expulsá-los da vida pública e da ciência.

Abstract: This article analyzes the creationism controversy in public speeches of politicians, scientists and journalists, focusing on arguments based on civil rights rhetoric and appropriation of technoscientific rationality. We observed that creationism is advocated as a matter of public interest based on the right of freedom to belief, or as a particular belief that does not interfere with the public life of politicians or even as a scientific theory to which academic and speech freedom is denied. The strategic adoption of different discourses demonstrates an attempt by the movement not only to resist the logic imposed on it by its opponents, but an insistence on existing within that very logic which seeks to expel them from public life and science.

The relationship between evolution and creation, both religiously and ideologically, continues to be a source of misunderstandings that occur at various levels and is further explored in this article. On the basis of empirical studies and theological considerations, the following four types of misunderstandings in the field of religious education are discussed: (1) 'Creation' as nature - an ethically motivated misunderstanding, (2) Genesis 1 as 'Creation Report' - a theologically conditioned misunderstanding, (3) 'Scientific Creation Report' versus Evolution - the Creationist misunderstanding and (4) Scientifically proven Theory of Evolution versus Creation - the Scientistic misunderstanding. These types of misunderstanding might be well known to experts in the field of 'creation and evolution'. In the field of religious education, however, the harassing question remains as to why these misunderstandings are so widespread and resistant. For this reason, the last part of the articles asserts that empirical teaching and learning research is a religious educational desideratum in the face of these misunderstandings.

RESUMEN Durante el siglo XIX, el estudio de la distribución geográfica fue una pieza fundamental para entender la estrecha relación entre la variación morfológica y la distribución geográfica de los organismos, bajo la perspectiva de que esta relación podría finalmente esclarecer el debate de si las especies se originaban por creación o por transmutación. De manera independiente, tanto Wallace como Agassiz, estudiaron con gran interés la distribución geográfica de las especies amazónicas, aunque con propósitos completamente diferentes. Wallace pensaba que la distribución geográfica podría explicar cómo surgían las nuevas especies a partir de sus predecesoras, mientras que a Agassiz le interesaba demostrar que las especies surgían mediante actos de creación independientes y permanecían inmutables. El propósito de este trabajo es reflexionar por qué, si ambos dispusieron de la misma evidencia empírica, llegaron a interpretaciones tan opuestas. Se concluye que no fue propiamente la evidencia empírica, sino las influencias intelectuales que tuvieron cada uno la causa que determinó sus diferentes interpretaciones sobre la distribución biogeográfica.

ABSTRACT In the nineteenth century, the study of geographical distribution was a fundamental piece to understand the close relationship between morphological variation and the geographical distribution of organisms under the perspective that the relationship could finally respond to the debate on whether the species originated by creation or by transmutation. In an independent manner, Wallace as well as Agassiz both studied with great interest the geographical distribution of the Amazonian species, although for completely different purposes. Wallace thought that the geographical distribution could explain how new species emerged from his predecessors, while Agassiz was interested in demonstrating that species emerged from independent acts of creation and remained unchanged. The purpose of this paper was to reflect on why if both had the same empirical evidence they came to such opposite interpretations. It is concluded that it was not only the empirical evidence, but the intellectual influences that both had, the cause that determined their different interpretations of the biogeographic distribution.

ABSTRACT This paper focuses on the double pattern of "realism" present in Vicente Huidobro's Altazor by making use of Francois Rastier's work in order to highlight how in his masterpiece the Chilean poet feels forced to overcome his creationist aesthetics based on a ruinous ontological confusion, such as the illusion of poetically emulating primitive magic. Rastier shows that, unlike the two traditions of western literature, i.e. empirical realism, based on the representation of sensitivity and illustrated by the classical novel, and transcendental realism, associated with lyrical expression, surrealism chooses an tinomy, which destroys both traditional mimetic forms. In the case of creationism, however, we believe we can talk about the conflicting co-presence of the two types of realism, empirical and transcendental, throughout the poem. The poet's solution is to imagine a word that neither narrows down to a mere mental image nor goes beyond the limits of representation.

RESUMEN El artículo pretende poner de manifiesto el doble régimen del "realismo" utilizado en Altazor de Vicente Huidobro, valiéndonos de los trabajos de Francois Rastier, y observar como en su obra maestra el poeta chileno está forzado a superar totalmente su poética creacionista basada en una confusión ontológica ruinosa, verbigracia la ilusión de emular poéticamente la magia primitiva. Rastier muestra que, entre las dos tradiciones de la literatura occidental, por un lado el realismo empírico, basado en la representación de lo sensible e ilustrado especialmente por la novela clásica, y por otro lado el realismo transcendental, asociado con la expresión lírica, el surrealismo ha elegido la vía de la antinomia, que destruye las dos formas clásicas miméticas, tanto las empí ricas como las transcendentales. En cambio, en el caso del creacionismo, creemos que podemos hablar de la co-presencia conflictiva a lo largo del poema de los dos tipos de realismos, empírico y transcendental. La solución del poeta consiste en imaginar una palabra que no se reduzca a una imagen mental y tampoco salga por completo de los límites de la representación.

Resumo: Este trabalho examina implicações e desafios ao ensino de Ciências e Biologia emergentes da implantação de lei obrigando o ensino religioso na forma confessional no estado do Rio de Janeiro. Utilizamos como fonte cartas dos leitores de O Globo, além de outros pronunciamentos da mídia e textos acadêmicos. A polêmica do ensino religioso nas escolas públicas brasileiras aparece associada a novos elementos, incluindo pela primeira vez discussões ligadas não apenas a cidadania e liberdade religiosa, mas também ao confronto entre os pontos de vista criacionista e evolucionista, relativamente novo no Brasil, com enorme potencial de crescimento. Este cenário resulta da formação de novas alianças entre grupos religiosos disputando o espaço público com defensores da laicidade. Diante disso, reforçamos a importância das atividades de divulgação científica e de demarcação da natureza da Ciência, sendo especialmente importantes nesse sentido as contribuições da Filosofia e História da Ciência.

Abstract: This work aims to investigate the implications and challenges to Science and Biology teaching that arose from the implementation of a State law in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which made confessional religious teaching mandatory in public schools. As a source, we have employed the readers' letters section in the newspaper O Globo, supplemented by other media statements and academic works. The controversy of religious teaching in Brazilian public schools shows to be associated with new elements, including disputes related not only to citizenship and religious freedom, but also to the debate between creationist and evolutionist views, a relatively new confrontation in Brazil with a huge growth potential. This setting comes from new alliances between religious groups disputing in the public space against defenders of secularity. On face of it, we reinforce the importance of promoting scientific dissemination and the philosophical demarcation of Science in the classroom, with the special contributions of Philosophy and History.

Ao longo das últimas décadas, um número crescente de comunidades evangélicas e adventistas tem defendido o criacionismo em nosso país. Este artigo se propõe a examinar as matrizes identitárias desse movimento, suas transformações ao longo do tempo e a influência de seus discursos na sociedade, em particular no ensino de ciências e biologia. Sugere-se que o enfrentamento dessa situação deva envolver práticas que contribuam para uma melhor compreensão da atividade científica, enfatizando a relevância da sua abordagem na formação inicial. É destacada ainda a importância de atividades didáticas capazes de promover um ambiente de respeito pelas diferentes visões de mundo ao mesmo tempo em que trabalham o conhecimento transmitido pela ótica do estranhamento, desabilitando zonas de conforto.

Over the past few decades, a growing number of Protestant and Adventist communities has defended creationism in Brazil. This article aims to examine the identity matrices of this movement, its transformations over time and the influence of its discourse in society; in particular, in science and biology education. It is suggested that, to deal with this situation, practices that contribute to a better understanding of scientific activity and emphasize the importance of its approach in general education should be applied. This article also highlights the relevance of educational activities capable of promoting an environment of respect for other worldviews and of dealing with the knowledge transmitted by the view of estrangement, upsetting comfort zones.

A lo largo de las últimas décadas, un creciente número de comunidades evangélicas y adventistas ha defendido el creacionismo en Brasil. Este artículo se propone a examinar las matrices de identidad de dicho movimiento, sus transformaciones con el paso del tiempo y la influencia de sus discursos en la sociedad, sobre todo en la enseñanza de ciencias y biología. Se sugiere que el enfrentamiento de tal situación involucre prácticas que contribuyan para comprender mejor la actividad científica, enfatizando la pertinencia de su abordaje en la formación inicial. Se destaca asimismo la importancia de actividades didácticas capaces de promover un ambiente de respeto por las distintas visiones de mundo, trabajando al mismo tiempo el conocimiento transmitido por la óptica del extrañamiento, desabilitando zonas de confort.

Tout au long des dernières décennies, un nombre croissant de communautés évangéliques et adventistes défendent le créationnisme au Brésil. Cet article propose d'examiner les matrices identitaires de ce mouvement, ses transformations dans le temps et l'influence de ses discours dans la société, notamment, dans l'enseignement des sciences et de la biologie. Il y est suggéré que l'affrontement de cette situation doit comprendre des pratiques contribuant à une meilleure compréhension de l'activité sicentifique. L'importance de son approche dans la formation initiale est mise en avant, de même que celle des activités didactiques capables de promouvoir une ambiance de respect envers les différentes visions du monde, tout en explorant la connaissance transmise sous l'optique de la défamiliarisation, de manière à désactiver les zones de confort.

O debate entre ciência e religião tem marcado os últimos séculos, com implicações atuais para o ensino de ciências. Passados cento e cinquenta anos do lançamento de "A origem das espécies", vivemos em um mundo não menos religioso do que o enfrentado por Darwin. Como professores de biologia que professam uma fé religiosa cristã lidam com a tensão entre criacionismo e evolução em sua prática pedagógica? Para responder a esta questão, foram realizadas entrevistas semiestruturadas com dez professores, e analisou-se o conteúdo de suas falas, utilizando referenciais históricos, epistemológicos e éticos. Os entrevistados reconhecem a importância da evolução para o ensino de biologia, porém se dividem quanto ao ensino de criacionismo. Conclui-se que é preciso aprofundar o diálogo entre religião e ciência na sala de aula, tendo em vista suas diferenças epistemológicas e históricas e o respeito às crenças de estudantes e docentes.

The debate over science and religion has marked the last centuries, with current implications for Science teaching. After 150 years since The origin of species, we still live in a world no less religious than that confronted Darwin. How do Biology teachers, who profess a Christian religious faith, deal with the existing tension between Creationism and Evolution in their teaching? To answer this question, semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten teachers, and the content of their speech was analyzed, using historical, epistemological and ethical frameworks. The interviewees realize the importance of evolution to biology teaching, but feel divided over teaching Creationism. The conclusion is that it is necessary to deepen the discussion between Religion and Science in the classroom, taking into account the epistemological and historical differences and respect for student's and teachers' beliefs.

Best science and best theological reflection - the two belongs together for the sake of both. This is argued for in the exposition of the justification of friendship with Darwin (best science as evolutionary science) which is argumentatively connected from a Christian perspective to the praiseworthiness of God as creator (best theological reflection). Concretely, this implies making theologically sense of the important contemporary contribution of evolutionary biology on the origin of life and the descriptions of life. This endeavour necessitates a critical re-reading not only of Darwinian abuse and misperceptions but also of the larger historical context of the aforegoing scientific revolutions and their aftermath. Therefore, both discourses of abuse on the extreme spectrum of reflection on creation and life are critically addressed, namely creationism or Intelligent Design and bio-fundamentalism. As hermeneutical tool of discernment, the argument of evolutionary re-conceptualisation is unfolded as a distinction between an official story and alternative story to highlight not only the exciting implications of the latter but also especially as act of the de-domestication of our understanding of God as the praiseworthy God of creation.

We criticize the relevance of Dobzhansky's famous phrase "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", which we call the Central Dogma of the Evolutionary Synthesis (DCSE by its initials in Spanish). The first section explains the origin of DCSE and takes up the main points of the article in which Dobzhansky proposed it. The second section develops three points: Does a reflection of how Dobzhansky's scientific work contradict Mayr's idea that there are "two biologies"? To what extent it is feasible to argue that the biology's backbone is evolution? And it then discusses some implications of DCSE for biology's philosophy and didactics. The conclusions argue that DCSE should be abandoned once and for all.

Se critica la pertinencia de la famosa frase de Dobzhansky "Nada tiene sentido en biología si no es a la luz de la evolución", la cual denominamos como el Dogma Central de la Síntesis Evolutiva (DCSE). En la primera sección se explica el origen del DCSE y se retoman los puntos centrales del artículo en el que Dobzhansky lo propuso. En el segundo apartado se desarrollan tres puntos: se hace una reflexión sobre cómo el trabajo científico de dicho autor pone en aprietos la idea de Mayr acerca de que existen "dos biologías"; se cuestiona en qué medida es factible sostener que la columna vertebral de la biología es la evolución; y se plantean algunas implicaciones del DCSE en la filosofía y en la didáctica de la biología. En las conclusiones se argumenta por qué el DCSE debe ser abandonado de una vez por todas.