Teaching Creation Part 1
Is There Any Justification for Teaching Creation in School?
Part 1
A little over two generations ago Darwin introduced his book,”On the Origin of the Species,” in which he postulated the world has evolved over aeons of time through the process of death, struggle, and the survival of the fittest.
Today this precept of
the evolutionary theory is deeply intrenched in the scholastic scheme of America’s schools. The public school system has fully indoctrinated its students with Darwinian Evolution. Anthropology, biology, sociology, geology, chemistry and many other subject taught in the schools use as their foundation this principle of evolution.
The teaching of Special Creation is by in large considered a myth or fable passed down from generation to generation in a time when no other explanation could be given. Is the record as given in Genesis only a fantasy for children to be read as bed time stories, or is their any evidence to support the unpopular stand that a personal God created out of nothing a world filled with life and purpose? Surly the question of origin is one of great importance.
In the initial arguments for the necessity of schools teaching creation along side evolution, Dr. Henry Morris, the director of the Institute for Creation Research, stresses that it does make a difference what one believes. He contends that “what one believes about origins determines to a large degree what he believes about most other issues in life” (Morris, *Case* 2).
The only two basic *models* for the Earth’s history are the evolution model and the creation model. A model is a standard by which all things are measured. When considering the arguments of origin, it is clear that these two models are diametrically opposed to each other.
In the evolution model, the universe has evolved by natural process into a condition of high organization and complexity. This process has required aeons of time to have reached its high order.
Contrarily, in the creation model, the
universe and all in it were supernaturally brought into existence as a complete functioning body. The creation model does not require a measureless length of time since all living organisms increases and decreases within their structures, yet the sum of all changes in each model is altogether different. At times, the creation model would through a natural process of conservation undergo changes in its order, yet the sum of all such changes would be a decreased order since at the moment of creation all things were created prefect.
On the other hand, the evolution
model, in spite of brief durations of decrease, would have an overall increase in order, evolving from simple to complex (Morris, Creationism 9).
Recently, creation advocates have speeded up legal attempts at passing legislation, forcing the public school systems to add creation along side evolution curriculum. Claiming creation as scientific, they seek to minimize the position that in the event creation was taught, the separation of church and state would be violated. Although, probably necessary in order to triumph in court, it is this writer’s opinion that promoting creation as scientific is incorrect.
Science, according to the definition of Webster, is the “systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation.” In order for anything to be considered scientific, two conditions must be meet. First, the subject under question must undergo experimental observation, and