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!

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. 5, 2013 at 5:43 pm
whether or not the Big Bang actually counts as a theory is debatable if it is not clear how the Big Bang could have occured. doesn't hta make it a vague idea that some scientists are hoping to prove? your phrasing suggests that you have something in mind of how the big bang should have occured, but now you have to find a way to prove that it could have happened. Shoeldn't scientists observe what things are like right now and try to find the theory or come up with a theory that matches th... (more »)
Quantum1.0 replied...
Apr. 5, 2013 at 10:56 pm
To keep going on the Big Bang - the theory has been proven as much as an event we are unable to directly observe can. However, this theory does not include the origin of the Big Bang - until we find some more proof for the various ideas regarding the origin of the Big Bang, the Big Bang just is. Finding the final solution will involve uniting quantum mechanics and relativity, something which has been sought after for over fifty years (string theory is one possibility, loop quantum gravity is ano... (more »)
monochromatic replied...
Apr. 6, 2013 at 7:21 pm
evolution is a theory that has not been proven, but has been proven wrong by science. Speculation about future discoveries and invalid science fiction ideas like mutations causeing changes for the better are what keep it alive in schools and the minds of intelligent people. evolution is the theory that life developed from earlier simpler organisms in a universe that occured by chance. Science is defined as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure... (more »)
Quantum1.0 replied...
Apr. 7, 2013 at 2:05 pm
Ok, so evolution. How has it been proven wrong by science? Give me a legitamate source with some legitamate data, as I have never met a single biologist who disagrees with evolution. Also, I tend to believe the opinions of signigicant numbers of "intelligent people" as you put it. Yes, mutations are often harmful, but not all of them will be, as they are random. Most of the time you'll get something bad, given the delicate balance of life, but there is no reason that all mutations ... (more »)
monochromatic replied...
Apr. 18, 2013 at 5:46 pm
first of all, I would like to point out something you wrote in an earlier comment: "if a theory is not empirically provable it has no place as a theory." thus since you are still not sure exactly how evolution occured, what makes you so sure it did? also, yes, evolution has many scientific proofs against it. I already brought up the second law of thermodynamics: evolution contradicts it because the universe could never have formed itself to the complex level it presently is at without ... (more »)
Quantum1.0 replied...
Apr. 18, 2013 at 7:21 pm
Sorry there is no link - I wrote this post a week ago and it got stuck in the filters. Then I tried again and that one got stuck (it'll probably come through eventually). Anyway, that's why its taken so long as I was to lazy to rewrite this post a third time. If you search "why was entropy so low at the big bang" in google and click on the first link you should find what I'm talking about though.
Quantum1.0 replied...
Apr. 18, 2013 at 7:39 pm
So. First - and this has been a point I've been trying to make about the Big Bang too - not knowing how something happened doesn''t mean you don't have proof that it happened. As a simple example long before Newton created his theory of gravity it was known that objects fall towards the Earth - that is fact. Just because they didn't know why doesn't mean that objects didn't fall.   How about the second law of thermodynamics? Life evolved on Earth and Earth is... (more »)
monochromatic replied...
Apr. 19, 2013 at 5:53 pm
Yet how could you have proof a theory if you aren't completely sure what the theory is? And there is a difference between a law of nature - a fact - that can be regularly observed and a theory about something that happened in the past and cannot be observed. Since the Big Bang would have had to take place billions of years, any light we see from way back then must be coming from an extremely long distance away. Do evolutionists have the technology to be able to study stars so far away? Oth... (more »)
Quantum1.0 replied...
Apr. 19, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Ok. I'm only going to say this one more time. Both the Big Bang theory and evolution are well defined theories with lots of proof to back them up. Please google cosmic background radiation and phase shifts of light - i don't want to cite those reasons again and again. We do not know how the Big Bang occured, but the Big Bang theory itself does not include that part of things. All evidence points towards the Big Bang occuring. Read my apple example again. It s the same thing.   I... (more »)
monochromatic replied...
Apr. 20, 2013 at 2:30 pm
How could the Big Bang theory not include how the Big Bang occured? Here you say that the Big Bang theory and evolution are well defined with plenty of proof, but previously you said that evolutionists still aren't sure exactly how either occured, so how can they be well-defined? I googled and asked about the radiation and phase sifts and I have come to the conclusion that without any proof that they prove the Big Bang, there is no reason to believe they do. Where is the apple example?... (more »)
EmoToboe said...
Nov. 15, 2012 at 1:48 pm
I must disagree with this article, evolution, in my opinion, is safe to teach in schools as it doesn't promote a specific religion over another. If you seek to learn of your religion's account of creation, you can always ask your family or who ever shares your faith. Also, if I may add two points you made that I found somewhat amusing. First, you criticized the theory of the big bang with this: "There is not a single scientific law or demonstration that can be preformed that sup... (more »)
monochromatic replied...
Apr. 1, 2013 at 1:12 am
ah, the inescapable question: did God come first or did random matter some first? How about: Which is more likely to have resulted in a highly complex universe? btw, you wrote that you believe it is safe to teach evolution in schools as long as it doesn't promote a specific religion over another. why is it safe? how would it be dangerous? would it be dangerous for kids to grow up learning that they're just intelligent animals? would that affect their view of life and life's purpose... (more »)
LiraDaeris replied...
Apr. 3, 2013 at 1:13 am
If something adheres to no religion, then it adheres to agnosticism, which is different from atheism. However, it is still a worldview. There is a difference in adhering to no religion and coinciding with all religion.
Esquire said...
Nov. 13, 2012 at 11:43 pm
Well, at least you provied a bibilography....  However, it seems that instead of taking from the facts and drawing conclusions, you are doing the reverse: creating a hypothesis and cherry-picking facts that support it.  The two biggest reasons creationism is not taught in schools: 1. It's not science. Period. End of story. You absolutely cannot apply the scientific method to it. And no, the Bible isn't science either, nor should you use it as a will create a ... (more »)
Wolf_Warriorz said...
Nov. 4, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Your article has some serious, serious flaws. I'm not going to speak of my own beliefs, because they are irrelevant because no matter what my faith or lack thereof, these errors would still be errors. First... you cannot cite the bible as proof that the bible is true. That would be akin to writing an article about "Green Eggs and Ham" and saying that it is The Truth not because of any outside evidence but because what's written says that green eggs and ham do exist, and while t... (more »)
Shadow878 said...
Oct. 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Their are several problems with teaching creationsim in schools. One is that creation doesn't have clear model, not even christian creationist do anymore due to day - age, young earth, and gap creation. Not to mention you have to think about every other religon and thier ideas of creation. Second is that the scientific community has accepted Evolution and schools teach based on what is genrally accepted science. Last there is a lack of evidence for creationism, evolution has a larger bo... (more »)
TerraAnimusPatronus said...
Sept. 21, 2012 at 9:07 am
monochromatic replied...
Apr. 22, 2013 at 5:00 pm
um, about not knowing the truth until one dies - if evolution is true, no one will know anything when they die because their mind will cease to exist. if the Bible(as it was originally written) is true, then by the time we die it'll be too late too make any decision because we'll either be in heaven or hell for eternity. soo . . . I thik it's a pretty big deal which is right.
contemplatorThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. said...
May 24, 2012 at 9:32 pm
I really like your article. Good Job with the refrences and sources.
Imaginedangerous This work has been published in the Teen Ink monthly print magazine. said...
May 6, 2012 at 7:59 pm

'What are they afraid of?'

Of losing thier religious freedom. If Congress cannot establish a religion, they cannot endorse one religious belief above another. If a school run by the government teaches Christian creationism rather than, say, Islamic creationism (which is slightly different) or Hindu creationism (which is extremely different), that is endorsing Christitanity over other religions. Therefore, it's a violation of the Constitution. Once you begin revoking religi... (more »)

Site Feedback