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