The Other Side of the COin: Truths About Creationism

January 20, 2010
By clumsy_one123 SILVER, Brentwood, Tennessee
clumsy_one123 SILVER, Brentwood, Tennessee
8 articles 1 photo 170 comments

Favorite Quote:
"All daring starts from within." -Eudora Welty


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 345 comments.


matt7 BRONZE said...
on Jun. 15 2010 at 2:16 pm
matt7 BRONZE, Charleston, Other
2 articles 0 photos 56 comments

Favorite Quote:
"For where God built a church, there the Devil would also build a chapel."
-Martin Luther

And you know that the Bible is not true? You are not honest with yourself when you say evolution is fact and the Bible is fiction. You can only really base it on the faith that you have. And trying to prove a faith will result in circular reasoning, a fallicy. You have to understand that if you dont want to believe in God or the Bible than the evidence will look diffrently to you than if you did; that is the case with Creationists and Evolutionist.

matt7 BRONZE said...
on Jun. 11 2010 at 10:32 pm
matt7 BRONZE, Charleston, Other
2 articles 0 photos 56 comments

Favorite Quote:
"For where God built a church, there the Devil would also build a chapel."
-Martin Luther

For intrest sake, scientists did discover dinosaur remains that still contained cells that were still alive. It's hard to believe that dinosaurs became extinct millions of years ago.

I am a Christian, I do believe in the creation account of the Bible. If you dont want to believe in God, you will look at this world through another set of glasses.  


on May. 31 2010 at 11:09 am
clumsy_one123 SILVER, Brentwood, Tennessee
8 articles 1 photo 170 comments

Favorite Quote:
"All daring starts from within." -Eudora Welty

it would seem that you failed to notice the TRUE PIRPOSE of my paper. my point was not to disproove evolution or the big band theory, but merely to point out that both are just as disbelieveable as creationism. the topic of my paper, oh unobservant one, was that creationism should be taught in schools because it is also a theory that can be proved JUST AS EASTILY as evolution or the big bang theory. i could argue all day with you about this, but i won't because you obviously don't understand what you are talking about.

truthiness said...
on May. 29 2010 at 5:46 pm
The biggest problem with this is that you totally ignore scientific FACT. While it is well written and less inflammatory than other things I've seen here, it's hard to take it seriously with such glaring errors being the basis of this piece. "survival of the fittest" does not imply that monkeys should be extinct. They did not become useless once humans evolved, because humans and monkeys inhabit separate ecological niches. And that is an oversimplification. The other thing is, I fail to see how you can take evolution, which is logical and can be fairly well proven- obviously we can't go back in time and observe, if that is what you consider inarguable proof, and place it on the same level as creationism, which is utterly unprovable and irrational. The only way we can attempt to prove creationism is by using the bible, and well, that has no place in schools, does it? It also happens to be *spoiler alert* FICTION. The Big Bang theory is less certain, I agree, as scientists still cannot pinpoint what happened in the nanoseconds afterward, which I believe is information they are attempting to collect at the LHC and that will be helpful in their understanding of the universe. HOWEVER, that does not mean it is reasonable to assume that because scientists do not have a perfectly complete understanding of the creation of the universe, some dude you call god was chillin' in a pre-universe vaccum and suddenly decided, hey, i'm gonna make some planets and stars! 

fishie5 SILVER said...
on May. 27 2010 at 7:45 am
fishie5 SILVER, Christiana, Pennsylvania
7 articles 0 photos 9 comments

Favorite Quote:
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since. "
-Salvador Dali

This is obviously a very well researched article, and I appreciate seeing 'the other side of the coin', as it is so different from my perception of life. Just one thing that I contend: You say that there is no proof of evoloution, when there are fossilized remains to be found all over the world, and your proof of creationism is a book. If creationism is truly facutal, the why didn't people who weren't connected to the roots of Christianity have their own identical version of the Bible? Why didn't the Native Americans believe in Jesus and the Garden of Eden before white settlers showed up on the North American continent? Just curious, and I don't mean to offend anyone.....

on May. 7 2010 at 12:23 pm
steve herrmann, Snohomish Washington, Washington
0 articles 0 photos 12 comments

what are the flaws with your argument? oh let me count them.

1 Natural selection with flies and other animals, thus giving the theory of evolution the necessary backbone.

2 you often assume that just because the bible says something means it is correct, and this often gives an annoying reaction. (ex. the bible says "in the beggining god created the heavens and the earth," so only god could have done so.

3 You state that it was miraculous that moses knew about blood and such. firstly blood had been rather pointedly discovered blood and bleeding. however for some reason christanity decided to contiune this.

4 if christanity is so nicely correct, then please explain the medevil ages. a wonderful time when the CHURCH (and the christian one at that) thought that destroying science, torturing scientists, waging war against the popes political enemies, waging war against other religions, waging war against kings the pope didn't like, and torturing people until they admitted to crimes they didn't commit.

your atheist friend

 


on May. 7 2010 at 11:14 am
ReflectionsofYou GOLD, Mason, Tennessee
10 articles 0 photos 107 comments

That's what I'v been thinking this whole time. Why would the begining be taught as a "fact" when no one can recreate it? And thus prove it?

 I hate to say that because I belive with my whoe heart that God made the universe and he made me. And so saying that make me feel a little like a sell out.... I don't quite have that on figured out. But I do know that science isn't infallible.


Persona BRONZE said...
on May. 7 2010 at 1:38 am
Persona BRONZE, Hanford, California
4 articles 0 photos 60 comments
There is a second half to my post below, but I posted it in response to the first half. Responses usually take longer to post, but I'm not sure how long it will take, so I hope you'll be patient if you wish to respond to me on the subject at hand. Thank you for your time.

Persona BRONZE said...
on May. 7 2010 at 1:36 am
Persona BRONZE, Hanford, California
4 articles 0 photos 60 comments

In addition, Creationism, unlike Evolution and The Big Band Theory, do not follow scientific method, from which all science is derived. Why should something unscientific be taught as science. Scientific method, as you should know from your science classes, is a process by which scientific conclusions are made, after observation, hypothesis, testing, analysis, draw a conclusion, and test that conclusion. Unlike anything else in the known universe, you cannot test god. There is no way to repeat results like any other experiments. You can breed and re-breed plants ad-constant, witnessing the effects in genetic diversity. You cannot say "hey god, make some stuff again and do it while we record it, k?". Could you imagine if we answered every problem that we didn't have an answer to with "god did it" instead of "hey, I don't know, let's try to figure it out, even if it remains a mystery for thousands of years or we may never know"? Forget geology, "Why's the mountain the way it is... and why are there so many earthquakes?" "Oh, don't worry, god did it." No testing. That is the fundamental problem. Creationism, or rather, Intelligent Design, completely skips this step in scientific method. It is not, nor will it ever be, science.

 

I'm not going to even bother with your supposed uncontradictory scriptures and so-called scientific holy book. You began the discussion discussing science, concerning the errors of evolution and the Big Bang, while discussing the evidence for Creationism. I would pull up contradictory scripture and the unscientific issues with the Bible(such as, Noah's Ark, as my conscience compels me into hypocrisy to at least acknowledge this one), but this is not a theological and literary debate. Creationism and Intelligent Design are based on the concept that a being created the universe, which was the topic on the stance of Creationism. Christianity, being a different subject altogether, as Creationism allows for deism, other forms of theism, and unknown variable deities.

 

That being said, I move on to the First Amendment. Yes, men can worship and preach whatever they want. However, the government cannot. The government was specifically designed to remain neutral on the issue, which is only fair, as it is governed and payed for by those of all beliefs. Many do argue that "under god" and "in god we trust" is unconstitutional. The the state, separated from the church, should not be endorsing it's teachings upon the masses, especially when an overwhelming majority of experts denounce the stance itself, insomuch as creating a second-class citizenship for those who are not followers. Did atheists need the first George Bush, our president, to represent us as a country, telling us that we are not considered citizens in his eyes? No. Such acts and others like this are entirely unjust. The founding fathers understood this. As Thomas Jefferson stated: "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." It is also why, though creationists are so quick to point out that these liberties are granted by a "Creator", that they failed to read the part of the declaration that declares that governments are instituted among men and derive their power, not from god or gods, but from the consent of the governed. They also fail to point out that the founding fathers associated the "laws of nature" and "nature's god" as equivalents, also entitling us to these rights.

 

In conclusion, there is absolutely no practical or ethical reason to teach creationism, as science no less, in public schools.


Persona BRONZE said...
on May. 7 2010 at 1:36 am
Persona BRONZE, Hanford, California
4 articles 0 photos 60 comments

Misconception 1:  There would be no monkeys left around if man evolved from monkeys. 

 

This is a misconception for the simple reason that it ignores the principle of evolution known as common ancestry. Common ancestry occurs when a single species evolves into two or multiple species, because of different mutations and different environments, due to either environmental change or migration. In the human case, we share a common ancestor with modern monkeys. Monkeys today are not the same as they were millions and even thousands of years ago. They are just as evolved as us, they have simply taken a different evolutionary path. Human beings did not come from the modern monkey. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, including the genetic structure of life forms and fossil records for starters.

 

Misconception 2:  "Something from nothing".

 

This is not what the Big Bang Theory proposes. The Big Bang Theory, as it states as a scientific theory and as it is taught, is the explanation of how the universe as we know it came to be from a extremely dense and hot primordial state, which expanded and continues to expand to this day. The theory does NOT discuss where this substance came from, nor how it began, merely the results. Attacking the theory for anything beyond this is irrelevant, as it does not argue against the actual theory itself. There is plenty of evidence for this theory as well. One example is that scientists continue to witness the expansion of the universe to this day.

 

Misconception 3:  "Design requires a designer" and the assumption that if god does not exist, then everything is left to chance.

 

By first stating "design" or "creation" before "designer" or "creator" the assumption that a being is responsible has already been assumed. In that, the premise and conclusion become inter-dependent of one another, whereas the only part of logic that is dependent is the other has always been the conclusion to it's premises. In this, you have committed to a formal logic fallacy, usually refereed to as circular logic. 

 

There is no design, rather, there is merely a perception of design by the human being. Really, thinking about it all, its a arrogant way of thinking. "The universe is so perfectly in tune with me, someone must have made it for me." In reality, its the other way around. We humans exist because the conditions were met, the conditions were not put in place because it was required we existed.

We live in a world that is dictated by variables, of which our existence is comprised of. When the exact same variables interact with each other in the exact same way, repeatedly, the response will be exactly the same. Any mathematician can tell you this. Humans coming to be, because the exact conditions for their existence were met, is no more surprising than that a cliff side breaks after the exact amount of decay from a river occurs, based on the laws of physics of the situation and chemistry of the water and cliff.


sunshine said...
on Apr. 16 2010 at 8:34 am
So are you an atheist? If you are then what explanation do you give for such systematic beings just popping into existence one after the other. I am talking about babies being born. As I mentioned in another comment, do you really believe that such a law abiding universe has no one to control it. Do you really believe that this universe that is ever expanding has not been ordered by some entity to keep expanding. We humans are like specks of dust compared to this ever expanding universe, the many galaxies, the stars like the Sun and the many planets. Yet we contain so much genetic information inside us that makes us what we are. The genetic information is like the many computer chips in a computer that have been programmed by a human to make the computer work so systematically. Do you really believe that this system created inside us hasn't got a creator. Religious people haven't got baseless beliefs. They work on common sense like other people

sunshine said...
on Apr. 16 2010 at 5:13 am

Dear sailerc,

I can understand that it is hard for an atheist to make sense of the belief that God exists but you still can't prove the belief wrong. For me it is hard to believe that evolution exists. I can believe in it in the context that things keep changing but I can't believe that apes and humans came from the same ancestor. But even if I believe in the theory I still think that there is some kind of entity that has power over everything and that made humans and apes have common ancestors. Haven't you noticed how systematic the universe is. Haven't you noticed that everything moves according to set laws. Consider the Earth for example. If it had been any closer or further away from the Sun we wouldn't have been able to live on Earth. Do you still think all this is coincidence. There are many other examples found in nature that prove to a lot of people that there must be some kind of entity which is controlling everything. For a lot of people including me, that entity is called God. And you said that magic doesn't exist. Black magic and white magic do exist in the world. However people who know how to perform it, don't do it openly. Black magic is magic which brings about bad things. White magic is magic used to bring about good things. As per my religion, which is Islam, both forms of magic are forbidden. White magic is forbidden because it helps you get things easily which otherwise you would have had to work hard for. You don't realise their importance and you don't appreciate the things you get easily a lot. That is why hard work and patience are encouraged a lot in my religion and white magic is also therefore forbidden. Although sometimes I do agree that what is called magic is only a deception (magic tricks). If you don't believe me that magic exists then search on the internet. If you still don't believe me then it doesn't matter. If you have any questions then feel free to ask me.


sunshine said...
on Apr. 16 2010 at 3:46 am
The only thing is that, the book we believe in, which is the Quran and which is written in Arabic, in there God refers to himself all the time as "We" and "Our". In some parts He refers to Himself as "I". "We" is used because in Arabic you can use it for a single person also with the intention of arousing feelings of might and respect in the listener, for yourself. For example a person in power like a king can use it for himself. If a parent says to his children, We have raised you up then also it can be used regardless of whether the person speaking is poor or rich but because they're a parent they're still in power. I hope that is clear to you. I wonder though if sometimes you could use it in English as well.

on Apr. 15 2010 at 9:08 pm

In response to your first statement:

Try to imagine that there is a supreme being (mind you, no one has ever actually encountered this being DIRECTLY [not just the supposed effects of it] and had it be taken down as historically accurate) who is all-powerful, and this one being had the power to create a billion solar systems and an ever-expanding universe, and has power over every single thing on Earth, but still allows war and hunger to go on, even though it's all "for the better good"...

Now, which is more unreasonable?

Are we seriously still stuck in the time before the European Enlightenment? I thought we'd moved forward by now and left ridiculous notions behind--unless, of course, we still think that the Earth is flat...


on Apr. 15 2010 at 4:09 pm
clumsy_one123 SILVER, Brentwood, Tennessee
8 articles 1 photo 170 comments

Favorite Quote:
"All daring starts from within." -Eudora Welty

well, i don't know any thing about the Book of Mormon, but i probably can explain the bigamy thing. if you find the verse for me i can look into it.

 

by "toward the setting sun", doesnt that just mean the general direction that the sun sets??? which would be west? how does this verse have anything to do with the Bible saying the earth is the center of the universe?


on Apr. 15 2010 at 4:01 pm
clumsy_one123 SILVER, Brentwood, Tennessee
8 articles 1 photo 170 comments

Favorite Quote:
"All daring starts from within." -Eudora Welty

you're welcome ;)

on Apr. 11 2010 at 1:02 pm
clumsy_one123 SILVER, Brentwood, Tennessee
8 articles 1 photo 170 comments

Favorite Quote:
"All daring starts from within." -Eudora Welty

haha yes i agree. see, i wrote this paper last year for school and when i went through and corrected some stuff i guess i missed that.

 

and yes, that is a very good point :) though some believe otherwise


on Apr. 10 2010 at 1:12 pm
toxic.monkey SILVER, Tashkent, Other
6 articles 0 photos 210 comments

Favorite Quote:
"Homo homini lupus"

you've made quite a few good points and you are pretty convincing. i just want to note that (according to the theory of evolution) humans came from apes and not monkeys as you've said a few times in your article. monkeys and apes aren't quite the same.

actually i think that creationism isn't taught in schools is because it's ingrained into our societies' beliefs anyway.


on Apr. 10 2010 at 1:07 pm
toxic.monkey SILVER, Tashkent, Other
6 articles 0 photos 210 comments

Favorite Quote:
"Homo homini lupus"

what about those species who are a transition of homo sapiens and apes? evolution is not about an ape slowly turning into a human. it's about how some apes had a mutation of, say, having straighter backs and they were efficient in running away. they had offspring who had those traits. the traits are passed on. the theory of evolution basically says that we, humans-lords-of-the-animals (not), are a collection of mutations and other accidents.

sunshine said...
on Apr. 9 2010 at 3:49 am
thankyou for the reference. it helps me to understand where the Godhead comes from.


SciArc

MacMillan Books

Aspiring Writer? Take Our Online Course!