Evolution Vs. Creation - Don't Monkey Around in Class

Don't Monkey Around in Class

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). Words of this nature have been questioned for thousands of years--by naturalists, materialists, humanists, etc.--and, in more recent times, have led to court cases, heated arguments, and public debates. The major debate intended to be covered in this piece is that of whether or not evolution should be taught in classrooms. Also, if it is to be taught, should it be taught as fact or theory? It is also intended to present enough evidence to disprove evolution altogether and, as a result, make it much less than a theory, but actually the vain opinions of a man who chose not to accept the truth.

The entire point of this essay is to breakdown the theory of evolution, invalidate its scientific reliability, and support the necessity of showing its errors and inaccuracies in classroom textbooks side-by-side with creationism. To date, evolution is being taught in public schools as the only theory of origins. Creationism must be included as the only alternative and evolution discredited because of its invalidity.

On the other hand, Steve Edinger, a biologist at Ohio University, warned members of the House Education Committee about presenting alternative evidence against evolution, saying it "was not scientific" and disservices the students. He continues, "One would wonder what would happen if a teacher spent half a period explaining evolution and the other half saying, 'actually this is wrong'" (qtd. in Masci). By this, he fears confusing the student. He also adds, "I said that it was beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution had happened, does happen, and will continue to happen." Eugene C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, supports Edinger by saying, "Evolution is so well-reported that we don't even argue about whether it happened, [sic]we argue about how it happened" (qtd. in Masci).

However, Dr. Duane T. Gish, founder and board member of the Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MI, says that, "No professionally trained teacher should thus hesitate to teach the scientific evidence that supports creation as an alternative to evolution." Moreover, "Creation and evolution are the only valid alternative theories of origins" (qtd. in Gish). D. J. Futuyma, author of Science on Trial, says, "Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origins of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some form of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence" (qtd. in Gish).

Furthermore, if evolution were true, "there would be countless fossils of transitional forms...., millions of fossils showing various stages in the gradual transition of kinds of organisms into different kinds...., and 'missing links'" (Parker, et al, 367). "Charles Darwin himself recognized this problem: 'The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection to the theory" (Parker, et al, 367). Darwin's doubts, however, do not stop there: "To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by natural