Science in the
Classroom,
a different point of view
by Adam Parker
for AiG's Research Paper Challenge
Did you know that before 1925, the predominant way to teach science was through a creationist (an intelligent creator made life) point of view? In 1925, the state of Tennessee had the Butler Act which said that you couldn't teach evolution in the classroom. The ACLU wanted to test this law in the courts and put an ad in the paper: “We are looking for Tennessee teacher who is willing to accept our services in testing this law in the courts.” John Scopes, a substitute teacher who possibly hadn't even taught evolution, replied to this ad. The Scopes 'monkey' trial then began. As a result of this landmark trial, today evolution is the only explanation given to Science in public schools. (Menton AiG Internet)
Why is it that evolution can be taught in Public School classrooms and not creation? Both are theories which, according to the online book Evolution in Hawaii, “in science, a theory refers to an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is held with great confidence because it is supported by overwhelming evidence.”Lets take a close look at evolution. We all agree that the father of evolution is Charles Darwin. Different ones from the prestigious Zoological Section of the French Institute once tried to vote Darwin in as a member, but failed. According to a prominent member, “What has closed the doors of the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that the science of his books...is not science, but a mass of assertions and absolute gratuitous (uncalled for) hypotheses, often evidently fallacious...” If a prestigious Zoological Institute questioned Darwin's theories, don't you think we should too? (Darwin 2:400)
First of all, what is evolution? Webster's New World Dictionary say that, “evolution is the development of a species, organism, etc... from its original to present state, it is the theory that all species developed from earlier forms.” Most evolutionists believe that spontaneous generation (life from non-life) is what began life. In the beginning was a primordial soup that contained simple cells which through billions of years, mutations, and natural selection, brought us to where we are today. A world of amazing beauty and complex organisms. (Patterson AiG 139)
We can't see spontaneous generation happening today; its not observable, therefore it isn't scientific. Also, mutations never add new information. A mutation either takes away information from the organism or is neutral. How then could mutations aid the “original cells” in evolving into life? Natural selection, on the other hand, is basically survival of the fittest. In this process, individuals having traits that give a survival advantage tend to leave more offspring. These offspring then continue to pass on this survival trait. Notice that natural selection stays within boundaries. Cats aren't turning into dogs through natural selection, but they may be inheriting different color hair for camouflage so that their predators don't find them in certain environments. Natural selection stays within its “kind”(sort, variety, class). (Patterson AiG 237 ; Webster's)
One example of natural selection is a blind shrimp that thrives in cavern lakes. The blindness of the shrimp is passed on to its offspring because it is a beneficial (eyesight in continuous dark tends to bring disease to the eyes) mutation. This mutation is still a loss, no new information was added, it is not
an example of evolution. (Wieland Internet)
an example of evolution. (Wieland Internet)
Lets say by random chance the “original cells” did evolve into the life we see on earth today. The formation of a 100-amino-acid protein by random chance is 4.9x10(to the -191st) and it is generally accepted that an event beyond the probability of 1x10(to the -50th) is impossible. If evolution did happen what
proof would we have today. First of all, wouldn't it be evident that humans (the more evolved) would have more DNA than bacteria (the less evolved)? The organism with the most DNA, though, is a bacterium called Epulopiscium Fishelsoni. It has at least twenty-five times more DNA than humans.
proof would we have today. First of all, wouldn't it be evident that humans (the more evolved) would have more DNA than bacteria (the less evolved)? The organism with the most DNA, though, is a bacterium called Epulopiscium Fishelsoni. It has at least twenty-five times more DNA than humans.
Transitional forms of organisms in nature and in the fossil record would also be evidence for evolution. Where are these transitional forms? Every fossil you see is fully formed. The Nebraska man, thought to be a transitional form, turned out to be an extinct pig's tooth. Darwin even acknowledged the lack of
transitional forms. He said, “But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in countless number in the crust of the earth?” (Patterson AiG 80, 81, and 142 ; Mordente Internet)
transitional forms. He said, “But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in countless number in the crust of the earth?” (Patterson AiG 80, 81, and 142 ; Mordente Internet)
Evolutionists think the fact that humans share ninety-eight percent of a chimp's DNA is proof that we are close relatives. Since humans share fifty percent of their DNA with bananas, are bananas half human, or are humans half banana? The two percent difference in humans' and chimps' DNA is a
large difference in proteins produced. Its quite interesting to note that there are groups which are wanting apes to have human rights since they believe we are close relatives.(Patterson AiG 70, 219, and 228)
large difference in proteins produced. Its quite interesting to note that there are groups which are wanting apes to have human rights since they believe we are close relatives.(Patterson AiG 70, 219, and 228)
The Evolutionist's interpretation of the Fossil Record also has had a lot of problems. They believed that there could be no life in fossils thought to be three billion years old, but bacteria has been found in those kinds of fossils. Evolutionists also thought that dinosaurs lived seventy million years ago. Soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones, how could this happen if they are seventy million years old?
According to evolutionists, mammals living during the dinosaur age were the size of rodents. Recently, fossils of large dinosaur-hunting mammals were discovered. Grass wasn't supposed to have been evolved till after the extinction of the dinosaur, but grass has been found in dinosaur dung. And how can there be fossils of plants and fish that were thought to be hundreds of thousands of years old but are still alive today and have barely changed (Ginkgo Biloba tree, Wollemi Pine, and the coelacanth fish)? Even after all these beliefs or interpretations of evolution have been proven wrong,
this theory is still taught in schools as fact. What has to be discovered to change this? (Patterson AiG 119, 157, 170, and 174 ; Hecht Internet ; Sherwin Internet)
this theory is still taught in schools as fact. What has to be discovered to change this? (Patterson AiG 119, 157, 170, and 174 ; Hecht Internet ; Sherwin Internet)
One system that can't be explained by evolution is irreducible complexity. An irreducibly complex system is a system that needs every single part to work. A mouse trap is an example of an irreducibly complex system; take away any part of the mouse trap and it will not work. Another irreducibly complex system which is crucial to life is the interaction of proteins with DNA. Many
proteins have to interact with DNA and DNA is needed to make proteins that are used to transcribe the DNA. How could DNA and the proteins evolve at the same time? The whole blood clotting process is another irreducibly complex system. If one part of the blood clotting process is missing, it wont work.
How could the blood clotting process evolve with out each part? Organisms that didn't have the fully formed blood clotting system would bleed to death if they got cut. One last example of irreducible complexity are the many instances where a specie needs another specie to survive (the food chain, symbiotic relationships, etc...). How did a specie survive without the other as they evolved? As you can see, this system of irreducible complexity is very difficult for evolution to explain. (Patterson AiG 79, 83, 86, and 160)
proteins have to interact with DNA and DNA is needed to make proteins that are used to transcribe the DNA. How could DNA and the proteins evolve at the same time? The whole blood clotting process is another irreducibly complex system. If one part of the blood clotting process is missing, it wont work.
How could the blood clotting process evolve with out each part? Organisms that didn't have the fully formed blood clotting system would bleed to death if they got cut. One last example of irreducible complexity are the many instances where a specie needs another specie to survive (the food chain, symbiotic relationships, etc...). How did a specie survive without the other as they evolved? As you can see, this system of irreducible complexity is very difficult for evolution to explain. (Patterson AiG 79, 83, 86, and 160)
Another complication for evolution is the existence of morals (right and wrong). If I am just an evolved cell, how am I going to feel about myself, what will my self-worth be, and what is my reason for living? How do I determine what is right or wrong in the light of evolution? Morals then become
“relative”, whatever I think is right, is right. Let's consider what a couple of well learned and credible people are saying about evolution and Creation. According to two lawyers, Norman MacBeth and Phillip Johnson, if evolutionists had to
prove their case in court, evolution would have to be thrown out for lack of evidence. H.J. Lipson, Professor of Physics from the University of Manchester said, “I think we should go further than this and admit the only accepted explanation is creation. I know this is anathema to physicists, as it is to
me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History and author of museum articles on evolution according to Darwin said that beliefs in Creationism and Evolutionism are just a matter of faith. (Parker Internet ; Physics Bulletin 138 ; Mordente Internet)
“relative”, whatever I think is right, is right. Let's consider what a couple of well learned and credible people are saying about evolution and Creation. According to two lawyers, Norman MacBeth and Phillip Johnson, if evolutionists had to
prove their case in court, evolution would have to be thrown out for lack of evidence. H.J. Lipson, Professor of Physics from the University of Manchester said, “I think we should go further than this and admit the only accepted explanation is creation. I know this is anathema to physicists, as it is to
me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History and author of museum articles on evolution according to Darwin said that beliefs in Creationism and Evolutionism are just a matter of faith. (Parker Internet ; Physics Bulletin 138 ; Mordente Internet)
How does creation explain what evolution failed to? First of all, just as you need faith to believe evolution, you need faith to believe creation. Creationists believe that an intelligent designer created all that you see. According to the Bible, everything was made in six days. All that we see today are ancestors of the “original creation” and what we have today got here through a series of natural
selection (no changing from cells into humans was necessary since all was created in 6 days). The idea that the earth is only about 6,000 years old also comes from the Bible. The idea of “living fossils” is easier to understand if the earth is only 6,000 years old. Also, all of creation was originally created as
complex as it is now.Genesis 7, 8, and 9 (Bible) talks about a cataclysmic world wide flood. This flood could explain the Cambrian explosion which is a layer of rocks where an amazing variety of multicellular organisms occur suddenly (before this layer of fossils, there hadn't been much fossils). During the flood, many organisms could have been buried suddenly through landslides and earthquakes.
selection (no changing from cells into humans was necessary since all was created in 6 days). The idea that the earth is only about 6,000 years old also comes from the Bible. The idea of “living fossils” is easier to understand if the earth is only 6,000 years old. Also, all of creation was originally created as
complex as it is now.Genesis 7, 8, and 9 (Bible) talks about a cataclysmic world wide flood. This flood could explain the Cambrian explosion which is a layer of rocks where an amazing variety of multicellular organisms occur suddenly (before this layer of fossils, there hadn't been much fossils). During the flood, many organisms could have been buried suddenly through landslides and earthquakes.
The flood also can explain why whole dinosaur and standing trees fossils have been found. If the dinosaur hadn't been buried instantly, scavengers would have scattered their bones. Had the tree not been suddenly buried,
part of it would have rotted in the length of time it takes to fossilize the whole tree.Creationists who believe the Bible believe that God made humans in His image, which gives humans self-worth. Also, right and wrong (morals) are clearly spelled out in the Bible.As you can see, evolution has many problems with its theory. Why then does evolution have such a monopoly on the Science classes of our public schools? In the early 20th century, only creation
was used in teaching the origin of man. Let's get back to our grass roots! What do you think is easier to believe? We evolved from cells through billions of years and random chance or, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth?” It takes less faith to believe the latter.
part of it would have rotted in the length of time it takes to fossilize the whole tree.Creationists who believe the Bible believe that God made humans in His image, which gives humans self-worth. Also, right and wrong (morals) are clearly spelled out in the Bible.As you can see, evolution has many problems with its theory. Why then does evolution have such a monopoly on the Science classes of our public schools? In the early 20th century, only creation
was used in teaching the origin of man. Let's get back to our grass roots! What do you think is easier to believe? We evolved from cells through billions of years and random chance or, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth?” It takes less faith to believe the latter.
Bibliography
Darwin, Charles. Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. London: D. Appleton and Co., 1991. 2:400, footnote.
Darwin, Charles. Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. London: D. Appleton and Co., 1991. 2:400, footnote.
Hecht, Jeff. “Large mammals once dined on dinosaurs.” Internet (Jan.15, 2005): www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg18524824.400-large-mammals-once- dined-on-dinosaurs.html
Lipson, H.J. (F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK) Physics Bulletin. “A physicist looks at evolution.” Vol. 31, 1980. p. 138
Menton, David. “Inherit the Wind: an historical analysis.” Internet (Dec.1996):
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/il/scopes.asp
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/il/scopes.asp
Mordente, Simone. “Archeology and Paleontology.” Internet : www.journalinfinito.com.br/series.asp?cod=157
Neufeldt, Victoria (Editor in Chief) and Sparks, Andrew N. (Project Editor).
Websters New World Dictionary. New York, New York: Pocket Books, a division of Simon and Schuster Inc., 1995.
Olson, Steve. Evolution in Hawaii: A Supplement to teaching about Evolution and the nature of science. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004. Internet: www.nationalacademies.org
Parker, Gary. “Species” and “Kind”. Internet: www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-species.asp
Patterson, Roger. Evolution Exposed. Hebron, Kentucky: Answers in Genesis, 2006.
Sherwin, Frank. “Scientific discoveries continue to erode Darwinism.” Internet: www.icr.org/article/3191/
Wieland, Carl. “Muddy Waters: Clarifying the confusion about natural selection.”
Internet: www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/muddywaters.asp#b1r1
Internet: www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/muddywaters.asp#b1r1
Essay:
My paper, “Science in the Classroom, a different point of view”, was a very educational and interesting paper to write. What inspired me to use the topic I did was the fact that the book Evolution Exposed had so much data to disprove evolution. The topic I used, pointing out the holes in evolution and showing that creation has a right to be taught in public schools, allowed me to put a nice amount of this information into my paper.
As you can see, my teacher who graded the paper, wrote that my paper was done well and thought provoking.
A student who believed in evolution from apes read my paper and then my dad, the student, the student's boyfriend, the student's best friend, and I had a good talk about the shortcomings of evolution. We discussed how creation should be taught in schools also, not just evolution. They agreed that other ways of interpreting science, like creation, should also be taught in schools. We talked about the absence of transitional forms in fossils and about the fact that only creation used to be taught in science class. I also mentioned that we share ninety-eight percent of our DNA with apes and fifty percent with bananas. I know that some good seeds were planted in the lives of these three. My dad thinks, and I am in total agreement, that each student should have an opportunity, as they did, to be shown a different point of view in
science, like creation.
science, like creation.
Reading Evolution Exposed, writing the research paper, and sharing the paper with others has been a strengthening experience. It has given me a stronger foundation in my belief of creation. Isn't it reassuring that we aren't some random mutation, but are made by the Creator in His image!
