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!

TimeTraveller said...
Jun. 5, 2013 at 6:19 am
Your article is not up to the point because the science put in it is limited. To begin with, The Big Bang occurred billions of years ago, before time and space existed, probably in a quantum vaccum which is the ground state energy of the universe. The cosmos did really burst into existence, this may contradict with the first law of thermodynamics that "Something cannot come out of nothing" but from quantum field theory, we know that something DOES  indeed come from nothing: t... (more »)
TimeTraveller replied...
Jun. 10, 2013 at 12:51 pm
It was not catastrophic. Our universe is special because is it supposedly flat and it's total energy is 0. Therefore, it suggests to have an origin at some point in time. 'Something cannot come from nothing', BBT breaks this theory but I wonder if it's the same for a grand designer - you talk about a diety who created the world and itself came from nothing. How does that work?  BBT is simple to understand and is more reliable, creationism is made up. 
monochromatic replied...
Jun. 10, 2013 at 7:51 pm
Could you explain what you mean by a total energy of 0? So the Big Bang was not catastrophic - it's just an unexplained phenomena that created time, space, and matter, resulting in the world we know today.That sounds a lot like what I believe with a couple of exceptions. I don't understand the Big bang at all now actually. I'v heard several variations. What do you believe the Big Bang was? I can't wait to hear yet another definition of this simple to understand occurence. I ... (more »)
CrazyWriter said...
Apr. 27, 2013 at 2:24 pm
this is a very good topic to think about. While other issues are being debated, like "Gay Marriage" and "Reproductive Rights" that may seem to have a gray-no-mans-land- area, this particular topic should have none.  I thought you did an excellant job of responding to the Scienitific Education issue. True, some things you could have worked on to better communicate, but over all it was a good article. thank you for bring this issue up for onversation; these topics must... (more »)
d124816d said...
Apr. 1, 2013 at 6:16 pm
Paraphrasing from Stephen Hawking, there was no time before the big bang. If there was no time before the big bang, then there was literally no time for god to exist to create the universe. Also, evolution suits a niche. If it works, it stays. If not, then extinction follows.
monochromatic said...
Apr. 1, 2013 at 12:02 am
heh heh - very logical. however, it is based on false assumptions. evolution commonly is defined as the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of earth. I think it's brilliant. Science fiction would not be complete without the fascinating theory of evolution. Problem with it is that it's scientifically inaccurate. The second law of thermodynamics states that everything tends naturally toward... (more »)
monochromatic replied...
Apr. 1, 2013 at 12:03 am
sorry - I meant to reply to mozzie13   the article has several good points, but could expand a bit :)
mozzie13 said...
Feb. 28, 2013 at 7:33 pm
  Okay honestly you did like no scientific research for this so let me clear things up: The big bang theory is not as simple as “millions of years ago, small particles hit together and collided, spinning out of control, till BANG- they created multiple solar systems, stars, and planets” We did not evolve directly from monkeys, we both have the same ancestors that we evolved from so we are like cousins Simple life forms can definitely evolve into more complex life fo... (more »)
packerbacker12 said...
Feb. 11, 2013 at 7:02 pm
it sounds like you've been listening to Kent Hovind:) i like him too.
Teily said...
Dec. 10, 2012 at 11:13 am
Personally, I like this essay very much. I too am a Christian and understand exactly what you're saying. As for those who claim the Bible isn't a reliable resource. I'd have to respond that the Bible has been written hundreds of years ago and there are hundreds of copies from that time period that say the same thing. So, in my opinion --I'm not trying to step on anyone toes-- it is a reliable source, considering how far back it was written and how constant it has remained since i... (more »)
AHandfulOfDust said...
Nov. 28, 2012 at 5:37 pm
  Let's just put all our theological differences aside for the moment. Let's ignore the poor understanding of the science you're trying to debunk. We need to focus on the most pressing issue with your essay:  You're citing the Bible as proof the Bible is correct. This is the equivalent of saying "I'm right because I'm right". This is not a valid argument, and renders roughly one-third of your essay indefensible.  I'm not even going to st... (more »)
Keeper6 This work has been published in the Teen Ink monthly print magazine. replied...
Jan. 2, 2013 at 9:26 pm
I agree. The Bible should not be cited as proof of arguments. The Bible was written after people spoke  these stories for generations. The stories could have gotten mixed up, and personally I wouldn't trust that as perfectly reliable information. If word of mouth is the only proof that all of the things in the Bible actually happened, I would treat it like a rumor (which is alike in essence) and NOT use it as a basis for my thinking.
cverson replied...
Feb. 19, 2013 at 2:25 pm
according to that, every biography is invalid, because it cites things that were said.
monochromatic replied...
Apr. 1, 2013 at 12:19 am
erm - funny evolution would be in a biology book. I thought "Science requires evidence." How does "Freedom of religion" equal "Freedom from religion"? Sure, freedom from religion is included in that, but what it means is that anybody can believe in any religion they want without harming anyone elses rights. just wondering: what does the immune system have to do with evolution? also, blasphemy is generally defined as speaking against God, a god, or sacred thing... (more »)
SomethingWitty replied...
Feb. 20, 2014 at 6:16 pm
I'm not going to discuss everything you've written, as it wasn't written for me, but I can full-heartedly say that freedom of religion = freedom from religion. The thing is there are more religions that just Christianity. Therefore if you have the right to prectice your religion I have the right to practice mine, or my lack thereof. Ergo, I am free to be an Atheist, Agnostic, Pastafarian, or what have you. And when attending government-regulated schooling I should be ta... (more »)
Quantum1.0 said...
Nov. 26, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Pt. 2   Anyway, on to evolution, another controversial topic and another firmly established tenant of science. You argue that scientifically speaking, simple life-forms cannot evolve into more complex life forms. Actually, scientifically speaking, they can! Evolution is science and that's basically the whole idea. Next you say if man came from monkeys why are there still monkeys? Evolution doesn't occur on the individual scale. Animals don't "turn into" other anima... (more »)
Quantum1.0 said...
Nov. 26, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Pt1 I know I'm not really going to convince anyone one way or the other on this topic. People are firmly set in their beliefs in regard to religion and science, but I would still like to make a few points. First, your understanding of the Big Bang is really limited. It happened billions, not millions of years ago. It was not caused by small particles hitting together, and while scientists do not know right now what caused the Big Bang (our current theories don't properly extrapolate ... (more »)
monochromatic replied...
Apr. 1, 2013 at 1:03 am
wait - so you beieve in evolution and the big bang, but you're not exactly sure how the big bang occured? thats problematic. ooh - extrapolate, quantum fluctuations - big words! why did the universe rapidly expand by the way? and the matter that composed the universe - where did that come from? of course, it couldn't have gotten there by chance - matter cannot be created or destroyed. and even the new 'discovery' about LHC 'creating' new matter doesn't answer this... (more »)
Quantum1.0 replied...
Apr. 3, 2013 at 9:23 am
   You make some good points, but you're still missing some of the science here. Firstly, some of your questions don't have answers right now - science is constantly evolving, but that doesn't mean the answer is outside of science. We have several theories for why the universe expanded rapidly, but we do have theories that are being tested. Also, just because we don't know why the bg bang occured doesn't mean it didn't happen - it clearly did happen. I might not... (more »)
monochromatic replied...
Apr. 3, 2013 at 9:46 pm
I am curious as to why you would believe a theory that has, as you say, holes and parts that scientists are not sure about instead of the theory of creation and everything else in the Bible which can be proven scientifically and historically. you're right, morallity and belief in a religion are not synonymous, though most religions include morality in the practice of it. however, as far as the second law of thermodynamics, I still disagree. First of all, how would life come about in the fi... (more »)
Quantum1.0 replied...
Apr. 4, 2013 at 12:44 pm
In regard to your first point I realize I may have misspoke before. I don't believe that a theory with holes in it is "correct". Rather those holes hint at new science or new theories. However, in regard to the Big Bang theory, the fact that we don't know the why or how of it does not discount the theory. The theory deals only with the expansion of the universe from something very small, which all scientific evidence points to be correct. However, the exact mechanism for that e... (more »)
Site Feedback