The Other Side of the COin: Truths About Creationism

January 20, 2010
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?

“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.” 1 Oct. 2003. 18 Jan. 2009 <>.
McIntosh, Kenneth, and Marsha McIntosh. Issues of Church, State, and Religious Liberties. Broomal: Mason Crest Publishers, Inc., 2006.
“Problems for atheistic evolutionists.” 10 Nov. 2008. 18 Jan. 2009 <>.
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?” 18 Jan. 2009 <>.
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.” 10 Nov. 2008. 18 Jan. 2009 <>.
Thompson, Bert. Scientific Evidences of the Bible’s Inspiration. Montgomery: Apologetics Press, Inc., 1981.
Wood, James. We Believe. 2005.

Join the Discussion

This article has 345 comments. Post your own now!

KatreenaMarie said...
Jan. 28, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Evolution is possible. On a small scale, evolution is known as adaptation. Apes and Humans are of different species, yes, but does that mean that Blacks and Whites are of different species too? When people split off into diffferent regions of the world, people in sunny climates grew darker skinned to protect themselves from the sun, whereas people in snowy and cold climates didn't need to grow darker because the sun wasn't beating down on them. Therefore, evolution is possible.
creationist replied...
Feb. 21, 2011 at 10:25 am

That's not how different skin tones work. Blacks are not Black because they are in the sun longer and Whites are not White because we're never in the sun. If that's how it worked then why are Blacks born Black and Whites born White? You are born with a tan because your parents have a tan.

It's called melanin. Each of us have certain genes (AA, BB, Aa, Bb, aa, bb) each representing a skin tone. When Adam and Eve were created, they had the genes Aa Bb, meaning they had what's... (more »)

clumsy_one123 replied...
Feb. 21, 2011 at 3:04 pm
thank you thank you thank you! :)
creationist replied...
Feb. 24, 2011 at 7:49 pm

Your welcome :)

and sorry: You are not born with a tan simply because your parent's have a tan.

clumsy_one123 replied...
Feb. 27, 2011 at 6:11 pm
yeah those are called aquired traits i believe. i dont remember who came up with it, but he thought giraffes had long necks bc they had to stretch to reach leaves in trees, and then they passed this trait on to their children. thankfully someone realized how silly this was and it was proved untrue.
creationist replied...
Feb. 28, 2011 at 8:05 pm
yeah, a lot of theories given to prove evolution have been proven wrong. The Nebraska man, Lucy...every single "missing link" evolutionist come up with have been proven false. The Nebraska man's tooth they found to "prove his existence" was found to be that of an extinct pig; Lucy's bones said to be found all in the same place were actually found in some odd numbers of miles, another missing link was actually a elderly man with arthritis. Much of evolution has been falsified and proven false, ye... (more »)
AnotherJesusFreak replied...
Apr. 24, 2011 at 12:29 am

Thats great creationist! I've tried to explain to people that Lucy and Nebraska man have been proven false or hoaxed but they won't listen.

I think all people who are skeptical of evolution and demand that it be taken out of the school or at least teach creation science as an alternative.

bookthief This work has been published in the Teen Ink monthly print magazine. replied...
Feb. 26, 2012 at 8:53 pm
creationist, I support your rational thinking, but most scientist believe that when genetic changes within the same species (AA, aa, Aa) become varied and different enough, especially when two changing halves of a species are physically separated and then continue to mix traits, a new species is created. This is, essentially, evolution.
HisPurePrincess This work has been published in the Teen Ink monthly print magazine. said...
Jan. 26, 2011 at 10:17 pm
i'm in love.  okay, that's going a little far, but wow i LOVE your article, it's very well written and yeah.  need i say more?  i'm going to be commenting (and probably ranting) on other peoples' comments so you can just see how aweosmely i support you there.  okay, done :)  you rock!  and of course, GOD ROCKS!
clumsy_one123 replied...
Jan. 27, 2011 at 4:38 pm
thank you so much! :)
BlackHoleHighAlumni This work has been published in the Teen Ink monthly print magazine. said...
Oct. 8, 2010 at 3:02 pm
I agree, but there will always be people who will be "offended" by Creationism. I think how the world began should just simply be left out of the curriculum all together. Evolution can't be proven scientifically, so it shouldn't be taught as fact.
jemter This work has been published in the Teen Ink monthly print magazine. replied...
Jan. 1, 2011 at 6:31 am

i'm not sure how you were taught, but i just want to say that where i went to school, they taught it not as a fact itself, but as a subject that must be learned. they even made a point of saying that you didn't need to belive or even think about it outside of class, you just simply needed to learn it. same goes for all the creationism that i was taught. yes. i go to a public school, and they were teaching me about the practices of many creationism religions. so i'm not sure how my school... (more »)

Oozeworld replied...
Feb. 17, 2011 at 4:44 pm

Technically, nothing can be proven scientifically.  Should we stop teaching anything at all?

In my opinion, the biggest deception in this argument is the false delimma wherein arguing against creationism automatically means arguing for atheism.

clumsy_one123 replied...
Feb. 27, 2011 at 6:13 pm
thats not true. lots of things can be proven scientifically. i would say that it's going a little too extreme to say nothing can be proven scientifically. 
AnotherJesusFreak replied...
Apr. 24, 2011 at 12:32 am
I agree with clusmy_one123. Science is basically what can be proven by observing and seeing. You can not observe evolution. Nobody has seen a monkey turn into a human. Or one species give birth to a totally different species. Therefor, its not really a science and show not be taught in school.
Monte with an 'e' replied...
Apr. 24, 2011 at 9:09 pm

I beleive in creationism ('cause im a christain), but I disagree with what you posted here. Science can't prove anything because scientists collect data supporting there theory. A scientist can spend 80 years collecting data that supported there (by now a full blown theory), then find one small speck of data that says otherwise. Then, Kapish. Thats the end.

I really like this article. Good job, keep writing, and always floss after you brush.

AnotherJesusFreak replied...
Apr. 25, 2011 at 11:17 am
Monte, that is the definition of science. Science is all about observing. Though I agree with your comment that science, especially now is biased. Most in the US are atheists, so of coure they are going to try to find stuff that agree with they're way of life, even though most things in the evolution theory has been proven false.
AnotherJesusFreak replied...
Apr. 25, 2011 at 11:18 am
Monte, that is the definition of science. Science is all about observing. Though I agree with your comment that science, especially now is biased.
Lilliterra said...
Sept. 14, 2010 at 7:37 pm
There ARE good scientific arguments for Creationism, but I haven't yet seen any mentioned on this thread. In order to prove Evolution (macro-evolution) wrong, you have to do your research, and know what the theory actually says. I'm about to post my own article on this subject. Evolutionists are always talking about how unscientific creationists are, but the problem is, there are a number of unscientific "proofs" for creationism floating around. If we could just stick to the good arguments, we m... (more »)
clumsy_one123 replied...
Sept. 15, 2010 at 4:06 pm
i agree. i cannot wait to read your paper
Site Feedback