All Nonfiction
- Bullying
- Books
- Academic
- Author Interviews
- Celebrity interviews
- College Articles
- College Essays
- Educator of the Year
- Heroes
- Interviews
- Memoir
- Personal Experience
- Sports
- Travel & Culture
All Opinions
- Bullying
- Current Events / Politics
- Discrimination
- Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking
- Entertainment / Celebrities
- Environment
- Love / Relationships
- Movies / Music / TV
- Pop Culture / Trends
- School / College
- Social Issues / Civics
- Spirituality / Religion
- Sports / Hobbies
All Hot Topics
- Bullying
- Community Service
- Environment
- Health
- Letters to the Editor
- Pride & Prejudice
- What Matters
- Back
Summer Guide
- Program Links
- Program Reviews
- Back
College Guide
- College Links
- College Reviews
- College Essays
- College Articles
- Back
The Other Side of the COin: Truths About Creationism
Try to imagine that, millions of years ago, small particles hit together and collided, spinning out of control, till BANG- they created multiple solar systems, stars, and planets. Does that sound reasonable? I think not. What kind of person would believe that? There are many scientists who devote their lives to trying to prove this so-called “fact”, but, of course, have not been able to. Even though there is no real proof, the Big Bang Theory has been taught in schools for quite along with evolution, which also has no solid proof. However, they are only telling one side of the story. In many schools today, evolution and the Big Bang Theory are taught to students, while Creationism is left for "church only". That is not fair. Creationism should be taught in public schools as well.
To begin with, if evolution and the Big Bang Theory can be taught, why not creationism? First, consider evolution. Scientifically speaking, simple life-forms cannot evolve into “more complex life-forms” (Problems), therefore, man could not have possibly come from apes. Also, if man came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Some evolutionists answer this question by saying “Survival of the fittest”. However, that does not account for the weaker apes that are still living on earth. If they were to follow this “survival of the fittest” theory, then they should have died long ago, when man first appeared. In Mark 10:6, the Bible says, “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female,” thus proving without a doubt that God created man.
Then, of course, there is the Big Bang Theory. There is not a single scientific law or demonstration that can be preformed that supports the “something from nothing” theory. How could two small particles hit together to create the universe and all the life in it, when, technically speaking, those two particles had not even been created yet? “Design demands a designer” (Wood), and it is as simple as that. Take for example the position of the earth. If it was just a little closer to the sun, everything on it would burn up. If it was just a little farther away, we would all freeze (Wood). Also, Earth is the only planet with free oxygen and water in its liquid form (Wood). In other words, our planet is the only one in our solar system capable of sustaining life. How could that have happened by chance? In Genesis 1:1, the Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” so, only God could have done so.
Also, creationism should be taught in public schools because, according to the Bible, God created the earth (Gen. 1:1). So, why would anyone teach anything else? Of course, there are those out there who question the fact that the Bible is God’s written word. They say that it is nothing but a book written by a bunch of different men. The Bible is made up of sixty six books- thirty nine in the Old Testament and twenty seven in the New- written over a time span of 2,000 years, on three different continents (Asia, Europe, and Africa), in three different languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic), however, there are no contradictions. This could only be the work of an all-powerful being. And so it was. II Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…”. So, basically, God told the writers what to say. He inspired them.
What proof is there that the Bible was inspired by God? To begin with, in Leviticus 17:11a, Moses said that, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood…”, yet this fact was unknown even in George Washington’s day (Thompson). People would use leeches to bleed out supposed ‘bad blood’ to help the sick get well. So, how did Moses know? Secondly, in Ecclesiastes 11:3a and Amos 9:6b, the writers both refer to rain falling from the clouds, but the water cycle was not completely accepted or understood until the 16th century. Pierre Perrault, Edme Marriot, and Edmund Halley all made discoveries on and added data to the idea of a complete water cycle. However, the Bible indicated a water cycle 2,000 years before their discoveries (Thompson). Next, in Job26:7, Job says that the Lord “hangs the earth on nothing.” Back in Job’s day, people had different beliefs on what kept the earth suspended in space, such as four elephants on a giant turtle, or the shoulders of an abnormally strong man. Job was way ahead of his time by suggesting that the earth “hung on nothing” (Thompson) (Job 26:7). How could he have known when everyone else was wrong? And finally, in I Corinthians 15:39, the apostle Paul says, “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.” Paul is right! All four of these fleshes have a different biochemical makeup (Thompson). But how did he know? All of these situations point to one solution: God told the men what to write. Therefore, there is no possible way that the Bible could be made up by men because of the advanced sciences used in it. Given the sufficient evidence, Creationism should be presented alongside other theories of creation.
There are those in this world who say that allowing creationism to be taught in schools is a breech on their First Amendment rights. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”, however, this does not mean that it is against the law to say “One nation, under God,” in the Pledge of Allegiance, print, “In God we trust,” on money, or teach creationism to students in school. It merely is saying that the Government will not make an established religion. One can believe in and worship anything or anyone they want. But, men can preach and teach about their religion to others. It is only fair.
In addition, the First Amendment was added by the founding fathers to keep the church from controlling the government, and they had good reason to be fearful of this. “Early settlers” in America wanted religious liberty; however, they refused to grant it to others (Gay). They set up the Anglican Church as the main religion (Gay). Others set up their own churches, but, they still had to pay taxes for the maintenance of the Anglican Church, even though they did not attend there (Gay). Laws demanded people to attend church (Gay), and if they did not, they could be fined, and even imprisoned. Other rules covered clothing, business conduct, education, and recreation (Gay). “Only members of the… established religion were allowed to vote (Gay)”. It is no wonder James Madison was careful about how much control the church would receive. All in all, separation of church and state was established to keep government control in the proper hands, not to forbid the teaching of creationism.
In conclusion, creationism should be taught in public schools because, even though some say it cannot be proven, it is the most reasonable solution to the creation of the world, and, if evolution and the Big Bang Theory can be taught, why not creationism? It has not been proved either. If schools are going to teach unproven theories, then why not add creationism to the list? One might as well tell both sides of the story if they are going to tell it at all. Besides, if Evolutionists are so sure that man came from monkeys, then what are they afraid of?
Bibliography
“Evolution.” The American Colledge Dictionary. 1964.
Gay, Kathlyn. CHurch and State. Brookfield: The Millbrook Press, 1992.
The History of Man. Sanford: Riebers.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1982.
Isaak, Mark. “Five major misconceptions about Evolution.” Talkorigins.org. 1 Oct. 2003. 18 Jan. 2009 <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html>.
McIntosh, Kenneth, and Marsha McIntosh. Issues of Church, State, and Religious Liberties. Broomal: Mason Crest Publishers, Inc., 2006.
“Problems for atheistic evolutionists.” Creationtips.com. 10 Nov. 2008. 18 Jan. 2009 <http://www.creationtips.com/evoluwrong.html>.
The Reality of God. Sanford: Riebers.
Roberts, Hill. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. 1986.
Suggs, Bill. “When did the U.S. Government pass a law dictating the separation of church and state? Where can this law be found?” Christiananswers.net. 18 Jan. 2009 <http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html>.
Thompson, Bert. Scientific Evidences of the Bible’s Inspiration. Montgomery: Apologetics Press, Inc., 1981.
Wood, James. We Believe. 2005.
Works Cited
Gay, Kathlyn. CHurch and State. Brookfield: The Millbrook Press, 1992.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1982.
“Problems for atheistic evolutionists.” Creationtips.com. 10 Nov. 2008. 18 Jan. 2009 <http://www.creationtips.com/evoluwrong.html>.
Thompson, Bert. Scientific Evidences of the Bible’s Inspiration. Montgomery: Apologetics Press, Inc., 1981.
Wood, James. We Believe. 2005.
Similar Articles
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
This article has 347 comments.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
-Bill Gates
And with that I end my part in this futile conversation.
The dumbest thing I heard of is that nothing could turn into everything, which is what evolution teaches. And stupid facts are still facts. You never directly gave an explanation for them.
I'm getting tired of talking to someone who doesn't even understand logic. Talking to you and reading this article stirred an ambition to abolish evolution. Or atleast get creationism back into schools. And when that happens, be proud to know that you helped.
The problem with "Don't teach creation until you prove God" is that I can say " Don't teach evolution until you prove no God".
You confuse me. You want evidence for creation. I gave you evidence. Then you call it pointless and stupid facts!!
The dumbest thing I heard of is that nothing could turn into everything, which is what evolution teaches. And stupid facts are still facts. You never directly gave an explanation for them.
I'm getting tired of talking to someone who doesn't even understand logic. Talking to you and reading this article stirred an ambition to abolish evolution. Or atleast get creationism back into schools. And when that happens, be proud to know that you helped.
The problem with "Don't teach creation until you prove God" is that I can say " Don't teach evolution until you prove no God".
You confuse me. You want evidence for creation. I gave you evidence. Then you call it pointless and stupid facts!!
And also if you're going to spout stupid facts, I'll rebound right back.
1. evolution is both a theory and a fact. A fact is something we observe in the world, and a theory is our best explanation for it. Gravity is that things fall, and our theory of gravity began with Isaac Newton and was later replaced by Einstein's improved theory. The current state of our theory to explain gravity does not affect the fact that things fall.
2. One of the fundamentals of any science is that it's falsifiable. If a test can be derived that, if it were to fail, falsified a proposition, then that proposition meets a basic test of being a science. Something that cannot be tested and falsified, like the existence of gods, is therefore not a science.
3. Scientist believe chickens could somehow be derived from dinosaurs, during a transition during EVOLUTION. But humans...
Oh my gosh...did you seriously just suggest that Dinosaurs lived alongside humans? That is the single most insane thing I have heard in a LONG time.
I've officially decided that I've made my point. Do with it what you wish. But this has just gotten insanely pointless and stupid. You can't change the mind of someone who is so ridiculously stuck in their ways.
When Copernicus discovered the earth revolved around the sun a good piece of people didn't believe him. Most of them died still stuck with their beliefs and today we laugh at them. Evolution has already been proven...and i guess we don't have to wait that long to laugh because obviously you've been watching too many episodes of the Flintstones.
1. Ask a question: How did the universe start?
2. Observe surrondings (i.e. collect data to answer question): DNA is so complex, it is like a language. You can actually write it down in volumes of books. Its illogical to think that gray matter can make a language. The conclusion is that there must have been some one to create this language.
3. Collect more data: All over the world, written in caves, are pictures of what seem to be massive animals with a carnivourous diet. This suggests dinos along side with humans. (This proccess of collecting data is continuous until the hypothesis/ theory/ law is proven wrong.
You CAN'T test evolution. You can only observe evolution. Because we don't know of any man who is over 25 billion years, we must rely on presuppositions that can't be proven. Such as a continuous weather patterns to determine the age of a river.
If you say that we have never seen dino bones in the same layer as human bones, than you have to take into consderation that 0.07% of the fossil record are dinos, and that there are a little more human fossils, but not by much.
You shoudn't teach evolution as fact until you can prove it, which is something logically immpossible.
1. Ask a question: How did the universe start?
2. Observe surrondings (i.e. collect data to answer question): DNA is so complex, it is like a language. You can actually write it down in volumes of books. Its illogical to think that gray matter can make a language. The conclusion is that there must have been some one to create this language.
3. Collect more data: All over the world, written in caves, are pictures of what seem to be massive animals with a carnivourous diet. This suggests dinos along side with humans. (This proccess of collecting data is continuous until the hypothesis/ theory/ law is proven wrong.
You CAN'T test evolution. You can only observe evolution. Because we don't know of any man who is over 25 billion years, we must rely on presuppositions that can't be proven. Such as a continuous weather patterns to determine the age of a river.
If you say that we have never seen dino bones in the same layer as human bones, than you have to take into consderation that 0.07% of the fossil record are dinos, and that there are a little more human fossils, but not by much.
You shoudn't teach evolution as fact until you can prove it, which is something logically immpossible.
You're ignoring the argument, whether you believe our proof or not we have some. You have a book. The scientific method can be used to test all proven scientific theories (gravity, heliocentrism) Evolution fit the model, they can test their theory. Your theory cannot be tested, which is why it cannot be taught in science class.
My point is that we can bring you proof (whether you choose to believe it is another story) you cannot bring us anything but ONE BOOK, whose information cannot be TESTED.
You can't teach students information you can't prove. Evolution is a science, even though you deny it. Creationism is religion simple as that.
Find a way to test your theory.
"Bring you to a dig site to pull up a skull for you"Did you know that about 97% of the fossil record are crestacious animals that aren't even extinct?
Its unfair for you to demmand proof of creationism when evolution doesn't give the same type of proof.
a. We don't have to time travel. We have an eyewitness acount.
b. Until you prove to me there isn't a God, then evolution remains obsolete.
I'm not saying that a scientist can create the big bang I'm talking more along the lines of archeology.
In case you aren't familiar here are the step for the scientific method.
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data
Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
Evolutionists can dig up as many skulls as we can find and bring in as many facts as we need. I would like to see you either:
a. time travel or
b. Pull god himself out of the sky and explain the hypothesis
THIS IS WHAT MAKES EVOLUTION SCIENCE...whether you believe the proof is a different story but we have proof all the same. Not a written account from a thousand years ago, physical rock hard proof.
If you want to teach creationism in a religion class at school that's fine. But until they do conductive research following scientific guidelines..though chiz.
It isn't a louder bark...evolutionists can show you pictures, physical evidence, research, Darwinian theory or even take you to a dig site a pull up a skull for you, creationists can read to us out of a book and give us evidence based on information and interpretation from the book. It's not if you believe in our proof it's that we have some.
I don't want to appear rude, so let me know if I do. Its more of a writing expression skill that I want to conquer rather than my being afraid that you were deeply offended whilst reading this.
When a scientist recreates the big bang, let me know!!!
Not all communties are the same, buddy. Not everyone are so lucky to have churches capable to do that.
Where in the decleration of independance, does it say 'this country is secular'? I guess it would be somewhere after the mention of God's laws.
A smaller ammount of people would be offended with the teaching of creationism along side with evolution. There were many debates and arguments back when the states were abolishing creationism. The US has become secular because secular people have a louder bark. There a millions of smart mouthed students out there back talking evolution.
If creationism was soley based off the Bible, than we [christians] all have blind faith. Creationists and evolutionists merely interprit the facts differently.
I really am not arguing the creationism debate. I'm just saying that not teaching it in schools is wrong and injust.
First and foremost there is absolutely no proof which you can see with your eyes that creationism is true and your eyewitness account is hearsay. If you follow the scientific method in the evaluation of creationism you can create close to zero basis. Whereas with evolution it is possible to create a hypothesis and test it, this is the basis evolution has over creationism...it didn't begin with a book written thousands of years ago by a priest, it came from years of painstaking research of natural selection.
You can learn creationism in church or at home with your family. If you don't like secular beliefs...tough luck, it's what America is based on and it can lead to several lawsuits if they teach with bias toward one religion in a PUBLIC SCHOOL. If you don't like it go somewhere else, there are three churches in my area with relatively cost friendly school options so money is not a real argument...if it truly makes you uncomfortable you can easily find another place within your budget.
It would be entirely unfair to other religions. To people of other faiths the bible is as real as Greek mythology, they believe in creationism as much as you believe that Zeus is the origin of lightning! If you teach one RELIGIOUS belief you have to teach them all...that's how a secular government works. You can argue creationism is a science all you want but in the end it is based on religious beliefs, and that therefore makes it religion.
I honestly don't care whether you believe in evolution or not, but creationism is not science in the same way evolution is, it can be a religious science but not a science which has enough basis to be taught in schools.
Creationism is based off scientifical observation. The Bible merely confirms it. Creationism actually has MORE evidence than evolution, seeing as how there is an eyewitness account. :D
What happens if a christian family is not able to attend a private school? They will have a secular veiwpoint "shoved down there throats". And it is rare for a church to capable of giving an entire sience course.
Would it be unfair to other religions if schools start teaching creationism? Ofcourse not. Currently, there are two widely accepted theories on the orgin of the universe. Practically all relgions ( I don't know one that doesn't) agree with one or the other. These to widely accepted theories are Creationism and Evolution. It is unfair that schools teach the latter.
I'm not going to argue my points on evolution to you...there no point, you believe something different and that's fine.
I have no problem with you believing whatever you want, it's a free country. My problem is that no matter what you say Creationism is based on Genesis which is biblical. Whether I believe in Jesus is beside the point...it comes down to the fact that public education should not be allowed to teach ANYTHING religious ever. You can argue that creationism is science but when it boils down it's based on religion, the united states is a secular country which means no religion can be favored over the other. Public schools are funded by the government, and therefore based on the structure of our system teaching creation is not allowed. You have religious freedom but so does everyone else. Science is not a religion it is teaching based on factual information. And if you want to learn creationism there are several religious schools you can attend but public education is for the public which is composed of all faiths.
Oh, your one of THOSE evolutionists. Don't you know all those guys have been found to be regular humans like you and me?
And your point, again, is based on "what I beleive". "I beleive in evolution because of a variety of facts. So we cannot have creationism in schools until you make it seem likely to me." is a more complex simplied version of what your saying.
About the monkeys thing, no I did not mean that. I meant DNA, c-14 dating and presumptions.
My point is that until creationist can physically show evidence of (the way evolutionists have) of signs in the atmosphere or something to prove that there is a creator it makes more sense to side with theory that has more facts.
If you don't believe me look up a bonobo, it looks scarily like a human. Or if you want to go more prehistoric theres, A.Afarensis, A.Africanus, Neanderthals, Proconsol...the list goes on. Scientists have found several skulls which heavily resemble humans.
I'm also curious as to what these "Faults" are...if it's the "why are there still monkeys" thing, it's totally wrong.
Again, your argument is 'because I don't beleive, its not true". You have to break out of that habit and use logic and common sense.
Several atheistic scientist do not beleive in evolution because they see the flaws. Other atheists even agree that there must have been a creator. You should do a research on evolution's credibility. Look at both sides of the argument.
10 articles 0 photos 32 comments
Favorite Quote:
"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3<br /> <br /> "Do not pray for easy lives, pray to be stronger men." JFK<br /> <br /> “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”Albert Einstein<br /> <br /> "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."<br /> C. S. Lewis <br /> <br /> "A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading."<br /> C. S. Lewis <br /> <br /> "Anyone who doesn’t believe in miracles is not a realist."<br /> David Ben-Gurion<br /> <br /> "An eye for an eye makes the world go blind" Gandi