Magazine, website & books written by teens since 1989

The Great Creationism Debate This work is considered exceptional by our editorial staff.

Evolution is taught as a theory in most schools today. Merriam Webster defines a theory as an unproved assumption. It is based on scientific facts, but it has yet to be proven as a fact itself. Creationism isn’t taught in schools, but it has several scientific facts to support it and challenge the theory of evolution. Duane Gish, author of a pamphlet about the Creation being taught in schools, says, “The Creation model is just as scientific as the evolution model.” If this is true, why isn’t creationism treated as a theory? If we teach the *theory* of evolution in schools, why don’t we teach Creationism?

Creationists generally believe in an earth much younger than that of the evolutionists. Paleontologists discovered a Tyrannosaurus-Rex femur that was supposedly seventy million years old. There was something significant about this particular bone: it held the remains of soft tissue, something unheard of in the field of paleontology. The tissue held structures that resembled skin and blood vessels, along with proteins. Scientists knew that soft tissue doesn’t stay on fossils for seventy million years; it should have rotted away. The fact that Mary Schweitzer, the discoverer of the fossil was able to read and sequence the proteins baffled scientists. National Public Radio’s Christopher Joyce says that this kind of preservation goes against the rules of paleontology. If the earth is as old as evolution says it is, how is it that soft tissue preservation is even possible?

More evidence of a Creationist’s earth lies in the rock layers of the earth’s crust. The layers could not have been formed over millions of years, as uniformitarian evolutionists say, because of the presence of polystrate fossils. The word polystrate literally means “many layers”. These fossils are found extending through multiple rock layers, showing that the rocks do not form slowly over time, but rather rapidly. Derek Ager, a man who doesn’t believe in the Creation model states, “If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about one thousand meters, laid down in about ten million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sediment depositions, it would’ve taken one hundred thousand years to bury a tree ten meters high, which it ridiculous.” Trees found in many layers are also taken as evidence of a great flood, which is a Creationist idea. This is more evidence about the common parts of the evolutionary theory, including Darwinism, which students are taught today.

The Big Bang Theory violates the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, which states that a system will have constant magnitude and direction when not being acted upon by an outside force. Basically, the universe wouldn’t be as uneven as it is today if that had happened. The Big Bang may not be taught with the evolutionary theory, but it is tied to it, as it seems to be the only logically explanation for the earth existing at all without the help of a Creator. On a similar note, Hubble’s Law shows that the universe is expanding outward, and that it had to have appeared abruptly.

Just by looking at ourselves, we can see that evolution is flawed. Our cells are too complex and perfect to have developed slowly over time. In fact, our genes are too complex to have become this way slowly. The human genome consists of three billion letters in the sequence, which is a series of adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine in a specific order. Adenine only pairs with thymine, and guanine with cytosine. They couldn’t have paired together so precisely if it were an accidental occurrence.

While we are on the subject of our genes, let’s talk about the bombardier beetle. The bombardier beetle has two separate compartments that hold chemicals that, when they meet, react violently. When the beetle gets agitated, he dumps these chemicals into a reacting area where they are superheated and sprayed. If they had evolved, they would’ve all died out before they could grow the two separate chambers.

Also, the parameters of earth are too perfect for life to be a chance happening. The physics are too fine-tuned.

Also, there are the mistakes of the evolutionists, the ones that they try to hide. First, there is the coelacanth, which was said to have given life to the land-dwellers. It had frontal lobed fins, which is why it was thought of as the missing link between fish and the dinosaurs. It was said to have disappeared three hundred twenty-five years ago, but it was found off of the coast of Africa in the twentieth century.

Another instance begins with a skeleton, one that didn’t look entirely human, so the paleontologists decided it could possibly the missing link. They found a bone several yards away that seemed to fit the specimen’s foot, supposedly proving it could walk upright. Upon further inspection, the bone was found to be much younger than the skeleton of “Nebraska Man”, and it wasn’t even from the same species of creature. It wasn’t a primitive human toe, but a pig’s tooth.

The kind of mutations that would have caused species to change as dramatically as Darwinism says that they did, the creatures would not have been able to reproduce, because mutants like that are sterile. Complex life is not likely to have come about this way. In fact, Sir Fred Hoyle said, “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials within.’” If you think about it, the idea that life appeared from a nonliving source is not even possible.

Moving from science onto history, we see the Meister footprint. This is a fossil of a human sandal print. It doesn’t seem significant at first, but if you look closely, you will see tiny trilobite fossils embedded in the prints. If trilobites were supposed to have died out so long before humans evolved, why do we find a human footprint in the same place we find trilobite fossils? Even evolutionists haven’t come up with an explanation. They contacted the owner and bluntly told him that they wanted to destroy it.

In Carlisle’s Cathedral, the Bishop of Carlisle, Richard Bell, was buried in a tomb inlaid with brass in 1496. Various animals were engraved in the brass. There were recognizable animals, such as birds and dogs, but there were also two long-necked creatures that resembled what we now call dinosaurs. (The term “dinosaur” was coin in 1845.)

All of this is more than enough evidence to support the validity of the Creation model. If we want to teach true science, we should include creationism in the curriculum.

Join the Discussion

This article has 6 comments. Post your own!

1337Writer said...
Oct. 10, 2011 at 9:30 pm:

Actually Creationism isn't a science at all. (Grand canyon must prove noah's flood, then why don't we have canyons everywhere? <this sums it up) Also the definition of theory is a multitude of facts complied into one pretty much. As more facts are found the theory gets revised into a better asumtion (Creationism never changes). If we taught Chirstian Creation then we must teach all other 1700 religious creation stories. Just take bible study class.

Also what if evolution is intellig... (more »)

Reply to this comment Post a new comment
Tabansi said...
Aug. 31, 2011 at 9:32 pm:
I really enjoyed this article! I don't believe in Creationism or Evolution, because neither makes snese to me. I, personally, don't know how the universe was created. We might never know. But, it was nice to see somone in favor of the opposite side, for once :D
Reply to this comment Post a new comment
hzcummi said...
Aug. 15, 2011 at 9:02 am:
Both creationism and evolution are wrong.  The opposing view to evolution is the "Observations of Moses".  It's the correct rendition of Genesis.
Reply to this comment Post a new comment
Lilliterra said...
Aug. 9, 2011 at 4:58 pm:

:D:D:D This is great. Even though I already knew a lot of this stuff.

I read an article about that sandleprint, I think that it was not that it had trilobites in it, but that it was dated at the age of trilobites. :/ Even so.

The title of the article I read was, "These are the Soles that Try Men's Times or Evolutionists Reject the Sole of Man."

WiseGirl replied...
Aug. 10, 2011 at 4:08 pm :
Thank you!
Lilliterra replied...
Aug. 10, 2011 at 8:30 pm :
Can you read my articles? I've got a new one coming here, it's being reveiwed. :)
Reply to this comment Post a new comment
Site Feedback