Creation As An Alternative To Evolution example essay topic

Don't Monkey Around in Class "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1: 1). Words of this nature have been questioned for thousands of years-by naturalists, materialists, humanists, etc. -and, in more recent times, have led to court cases, heated arguments, and public debates. The major debate intended to be covered in this piece is that of whether or not evolution should be taught in classrooms. Also, if it is to be taught, should it be taught as fact or theory? It is also intended to present enough evidence to disprove evolution altogether and, as a result, make it much less than a theory, but actually the vain opinions of a man who chose not to accept the truth. The entire point of this essay is to breakdown the theory of evolution, invalidate its scientific reliability, and support the necessity of showing its errors and inaccuracies in classroom textbooks side-by-side with creationism.

To date, evolution is being taught in public schools as the only theory of origins. Creationism must be included as the only alternative and evolution discredited because of its invalidity. On the other hand, Steve Edinger, a biologist at Ohio University, warned members of the House Education Committee about presenting alternative evidence against evolution, saying it "was not scientific" and disservices the students. He continues, "One would wonder what would happen if a teacher spent half a period explaining evolution and the other half saying, 'actually this is wrong' " (qt d. in Masci). By this, he fears confusing the student. He also adds, "I said that it was beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution had happened, does happen, and will continue to happen".

Eugene C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, supports Edinger by saying, "Evolution is so well-reported that we don't even argue about whether it happened, [sic] we argue about how it happened" (qt d. in Masci). However, Dr. Duane T. Gish, founder and board member of the Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MI, says that, "No professionally trained teacher should thus hesitate to teach the scientific evidence that supports creation as an alternative to evolution". Moreover, "Creation and evolution are the only valid alternative theories of origins" (qt d. in Gish). D.J. Futuyma, author of Science on Trial, says, "Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origins of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some form of modification.

If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence" (qt d. in Gish). Furthermore, if evolution were true, "there would be countless fossils of transitional forms... , millions of fossils showing various stages in the gradual transition of kinds of organisms into different kinds... , and 'missing links' " (Parker, et al, 367). "Charles Darwin himself recognized this problem: 'The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection to the theory" (Parker, et al, 367).

Darwin's doubts, however, do not stop there: "To suppose that the eye... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree" (Parker, et al, 381). Also, with respect to transitional forms and the fact that the animal must be alive and fully functional during any change, he says, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which by numerous, successive modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Gregory Parker's text also states the law of biogenesis: "Living things can only come from living things". One of Louis Pasteur's experiments concluded, "not even the simplest of organisms can develop from non-living matter" (Parker, et al, 354). John R. Walker, a Rochester business professor at the Rochester Leadership Academy, is hoping to enroll 436 students in kindergarten through eighth grade. "Because 'the theory of evolution is unproven,' Mr. Walker said, the school 'will present contrasting theories,' including creationism" (Wyatt).

"At the Rochester school, much will hinge on whether teachers spend significant time in class on theories of creationism as science or simply note that it is an alternative belief" (Wyatt). If creation and evolution are the only possible options for the origin of life, and if evolution is so easily shattered to pieces, why do scientists so recklessly say, "It was beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution had happened?" Plus, if the founding father of evolution himself has suspected his own work, why do evolutionists today still give the theory an overwhelming amount of credit? It is appreciated that Darwin himself called his work a theory. Parker's Biology textbook was my own high school science manual. I was brought up to believe that creationism was always true and this book proved beyond any reasonable doubt that it is true and evolution was unbelievably fallible and utterly impossible to prove. Therefore, evolution should be taught in classrooms, but as theory only.

It has too many problems to be taught as fact. However, creationism should also be taught as the only alternative, and as such, a factual account of the origin of life. Creationism, because it is supported by the Bible, is infallible, and flawless, however not scientifically provable. Whatever scientific discoveries are made, they will never contradict the Bible. Nevertheless, students should have the right to choose to be taught both sides.