Should Evolution Be Taught In Schools Essay
Evolution or Creationism Let us go back in time to the roaring 1920’s where jazz was loud and dancing was known as an every night kind of exercise for everyone! Not only were things changing around us, but also school’s education. John Scopes is in court in Dalton, Tennessee for teaching his high school biology class Darwin’s theory of Evolution. Not only against the law according to William Jennings Bryan who is afraid the morals of others going down under with the tradition home. Thus making headlines in the Newspapers all around the United States. It has long been debated whether or not evolution or creationism should be taught in schools. Creationism is a belief that a divine being created all the creatures on Earth and there is no scientific evidence supporting that claim. In 1925 with the Scopes Trail took place, creationism was known to be taught at home, church, and school. Leaving students to question; what is the difference between a regular theory rather than a scientific theory? What exactly is the Theory of Evolution? Lastly what is Creationism? Now however, the theory of evolution has been proven right time and time again and because of that, evolution is vastly more popular than creationism and should be taught in schools. First
…show more content…
of all, there is a big difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory. A regular theory is drawing a conclusion based off of inconclusive evidence; for example saying “I have a theory on what might have happened” is forming a conclusion without all of the evidence. On the other hand, scientific theory isn’t drawing a conclusion at all. A scientific theory explains an aspect of nature with an overwhelmingly vast body of evidence. The majority of scientific theories are so well developed that no new evidence can really change how it is. A couple of examples would be that “…no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics).” The theory of evolution is no different from the rest of the prior scientific theories. Scientists are confident that the roots of the evolution theory will not be overturned by any new evidence but it can be tweaked as new technology emerges and gives them a better understanding of evolution. A common trait of scientific theories is that you can use it to predict a natural event that has not been observed yet. “For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik” (A 375 million year old creature that has not only gils but also a neck and limbs) “predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.” The theory of evolution has been tested so many times that there is no longer a reason to see if evolution is real. The matter of fact is evolution exists. This is why it should be taught in school because there is already a lot of evidence that supports it to the point where you can’t dispute it anymore. All of the other scientific theories mentioned are taught in schools and it’s only a matter of time before evolution is taught. According to dictionary.com Creationism is “the doctrine that matter and all things were created substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.” Christians will tell you that God created man as well as everything that surrounds us. They dare not say or even think whether the bible is true or not more because it is a sin. And whether they have proof for that they dare not to say. Thomas Paine once said “Whenever we read the obscene stories…with which more than half of the bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than that the word of God.” (D.M. Murdock/Acharya S. “Is the Bible True” Truthbeknown.com 17 Feb 2013) He was trying to explain that the bible is full of books that have only gruesome endings and he doesn’t understand how people take these stories to heart. The theory of evolution can be proven with facts and even fossils along with bones and diagrams. It is not by chance that God stretched out a giraffe’s neck until it could reach the tall trees rather that the ones that could reached them survived and evolved (Dr. Seikou Tsukioka. “Faulty Arguments of Creationists” ASwedeinGermany.de). If we were to look at these “cavemen” we would find that the skull is actually bigger than the average male or female. Oddly enough many people would think that they would have had a bigger brain, therefore they smarter. Not actually that has nothing to do with anything (Dr. Seikou Tsukioka. “Faulty Arguments of Creationists” ASwedeInGermany.de) gives us the example of a computer chip in comparison with our brain. The facts that we can see that we have evolved past “cavemen” should already be enough for the theory of evolution to be thrive passed creationism. Even though Scope was announced guilty. Today we all different mid set, and are as unique one wants to be. We have moved forward evolution research and have found astonishing facts that did make people question creationism. Evolution has not only made things clear to the average person but we have also seen science prove not only dinosaurs but also an ice age. So even though teaching evolution was illegal in the 1920’s now we have moved forward from that, along with so many things in history. History and Science has shown us the multiple theories from the past that have been prove correct, along with the Theory of Evolution, and can prove, if one wanted, if Creationism is true or not.
Dr. Seikou Tsukiokia. ASwedeInGermany.de N.p, n.d. Web 20 Apr. 2014
Faulty arguments of creationists D.M. Murdock/Acharya S. TruthBeKnown.com N.p, n.d. Web 20 Apr. 2014
Is the Bible True? Douglas O. Linder. Law2umkc.edu N.p, n.d. Web 20 Apr. 2014
State v. John Scopes(“The Monkey Trail”)
Creationism vs. Evolution
Why is Creationism not interpreted in schools across America? It solely has to do with a number of Supreme Court rulings including Everson vs. Board Of Education, Edwards vs. Augillard, and etc. The determent that made it illegal to teach this in schools was, The Establishment Clause brought up by evolutionists. “Principles cast shadows of constitutional doubt over efforts to use the institutions of public education to inculcate students with a view of mankind’s origins that comports with the view espoused by religious teachings” (The American Journal of Comparative Law Vol. 58 Pg. 54). What the passage is saying about the clause is that we cannot have the beliefs of any one religion taught in school. This can be understandable by the means of our constitution, but I still repudiate. Religion is taught in our schools whether we like it or not. It could simply be the moment of silence we have every day that was once known to be the prayer time not too long ago or just hearing our classmate’s opinions in class over certain morals or beliefs. As it would turn out according to The American Journal of Comparative Law, from a survey of two thousand people only 39 percent actually believed in evolution. So what would this mean if we are teaching evolution in public schools, but what is not taught is more socially accepted and believed by a larger group of people? The journal continues by saying this would not be the first time that The Supreme Court has made a decision and an even larger part of the population has not agreed, nonetheless people have tried to form to societal needs with these court rulings. Intelligent design is pretty much creationism without citing the bible. It was created by creationist and placed into the science community and is now accepted as theory. It went through the Supreme Court to be taught in schools but was struck down even though it had nothing to do with the same clause, as was the reason creationism was not to be accepted in schools. This to me sounds like it has way more to do with our society than it does religion. Why is it that they have come up with an alternative, still to be taught in schools though it was not accepted? I found no arguments over the thought of creationism in schools, being bad for the society. I mean during the time it was accepted in schools, there was no difference in intelligence so why is it that we are not able to choose if this is my generations’ education at risk. I will bring up that 39 percent again and point out that they did not all fully understand the science of evolution, because of its “unknowns” and the curriculum that had to do with it in our schools. So where in this world does this make sense not to teach creationism in school? Why not both? I admit that there are different types of people in this world and ones of course, that do not believe in creationism and are not Christian for that matter, but the truth is a large majority of our population in Texas and the country as a whole are Christian. The National Consensus shows that, in and of itself. So why is there even an argument over this and why must we fight for what we want to be taught, when it should be a given to be taught in the first place.
We have gone over why this is a plausible theory, how it can be proven in many ways, how many people would actually believe in it, and the obvious reasons of why it should be in our schools education. The main point is the obvious, if not one or the other, why not both? Title: Religion, Science and the Secular State: Creationism in American Public Schools Author(s): GENE SHREVE Source: The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 58, Supplement: Welcoming the World: U. S. National Reports to the XVIIIth International Congress of Comparative Law (2010), pp. 51-58 Publisher(s): American Society of Comparative Law Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20744532
Creationism vs. Evolution
Education systems across the nation teeter with the question of should creation or evolution be taught in the classroom?
Though some states do teach both and very few teach how evolution is wrong, the majority of public school students in the US are taught evolution. Creation is a belief and evolution is a scientific theory. Different published works will say contrasting things about this controversy and how well, scientifically speaking the two sides stack against each other. Neither creation nor evolution can be proven using the scientific method because they can’t be tested. All that is left to do is take the evidence left by both sides and compare them to how well they fit into the science and history of the
world.
Students who believe in creationism attend classes that speak of how one object evolved from another and became what life is today: people, animals, air, water, plants and everything in between. They do papers and presentations over something they do not believe in and-in Princeton ISD-they do so without the complaining of having to be taught something that is completely unbelievable compared to their beliefs.
This controversy arises because of separation of church and state. Since the state government determines what students will study, technically it can’t enforce creationism to be taught in schools because it is the religious beliefs of the birth of our world. The idea of creation should not be disregarded as unworthy or something that can’t be compared with science.
Creation can be proved scientifically in ways evolution can not be such as The Law of Biogenesis, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, fossil records and languages.
By definition, a scientific law is a statement based on the observation of repeated experiments describing how the world works. The Law of Biogenesis states that life comes from life, and to have been created, there would have to have been something to be from. This statement follows the creationist views stated in Genesis 1:27, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them,” (The Holy Bible p. 1) The spontaneous generation that evolution insinuates was disproven after nearly four hundred years of research.
I will admit to believing in the evolutionist idea of natural selection (survival of the fittest.) However, the idea of natural selection only helps when applying it to adaptation. A fish did not become a bird to survive the Ice Age, they adapted to their conditions, but they did not evolve into a different species. “It might explain survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place)” (Batton).
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is best described by placing a glass of hot water or an ice cube on a table. The hot water will cool to room temperature while the ice cube would melt. This law disproves the theory of evolution because it requires that the thermodynamics allow the creation and production of stars and planets which results from heat-something that is no longer being produced based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
If evolution followed science, fossils would consist of mutant animals. The theory that birds evolved from reptiles is thrown out the window because there are no fossils providing evidence of a part scaly, part winged creature. Fossils of animals have not changed by the extreme course they would have to prove evolution. Yes, fossils have changed ever so slightly over time, but only for the purpose of adaptation, but the oldest fossils were of fully developed creatures. No fossil record has shown a lizard turning into a bird or a monkey turning into a human being, thus finding fault in Darwin’s theory of evolution. In addition, if evolution were to be more scientifically correct, fossils would have appeared slowly and gradually over the period of numerous centuries or even millennia rather than having a sudden appearance of everything. This sudden appearance of fossils corresponds with the already scientifically proven worldwide flood told in the story of Noah’s Ark (on a separate note, archeologists believed to have found the Ark in Turkey-which corresponds with the Biblical tales given its geographical relation to the Black Sea.)
Language differentiates humans from animals and language is something that evolutionists do not have an explanation for. If human beings derived from monkeys, how is it that every attempt to teach monkeys and apes to talk has failed? During the creation of Adam, God gave him the ability to speak and in the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, origins of different languages are explained. “Now the whole earth had one language and one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there. Then they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They had brick for stone and they had asphalt for mortar. And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand another’s speech.” So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the earth, and they ceased building the city. Therefore its name is called Babel, because the there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth,” Genesis 11:1-9, (The Holy Bible p. 7). Though this simple story may be difficult for some to believe, evolutionists have yet to find a better argument of how people can speak and animals cannot and how different languages appeared all over the world. In fact, when searching Google for “How evolutionists explain language,” the only things that come up to be applicable are Yahoo Answers pages. Within those Yahoo Answer pages, evolutionists do not answer the question to explain how language came about, instead they try and shoot down the statement of humans being the only creatures to have a language. They state that other animals have the ability to communicate as well, but communication was not what the question was about. Anything can communicate with body languages, for example people can tell when dogs need to go outside and relieve themselves because of their body language. Sure other animals have a way to vocally communicate with other animals of their species by vocal chord vibrations, sound waves, and vibration frequencies, but they do not speak words or have a written language the way humans do. This use of the straw-man fallacy only hinders the argument made by evolutionists.
Evolution is faulty science, as stated above and again with the example of circular reasoning: thing one dates thing two, but thing two also dates thing one. An example of circular reasoning in evolution is geologists dating fossils by the rocks they were found in and then dating the rocks by the fossils they found in them. Published in the American Journal of science, January 1976, “Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy, “The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy (the study of rock layers) cannot avoid this kind of reasoning…because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales,” (O’Rourke.)
One of the main problems creationists have with the theory of evolution is that it is taught as though it is a fact, that creationism is only a myth and has no factual evidence of happening. Based on the few points made above, creationism has more evidence and follows the laws of science better than evolution does, yet it is not taught in the majority of schools while evolution is taught as if it is the only answer to the question “how did the universe form?” I am not saying that strictly teaching creationism is the way to go, but teaching a bit of both, like some states do, would be beneficial to students who are willing to broaden their knowledge and is a median point in the everlasting debate. Also, by observing creation from a scientific stand point rather than a philosophical or mythological one, this allows people to see how the connections that exist. With so many discoveries to come and so many more things in creation being proven as acceptable by the laws of science, there isn’t a reason creation should not be taught in schools.
The Holy Bible. Colorado Springs: International Bible Society, 2001. 1. Print
The Holy Bible. Colorado Springs: International Bible Society, 2001. 7. Print
Creation Science Today. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
Best Bible Science. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
Batten, Don. Creation.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia. Fossils and Rocks: Circular Reasoning. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
of all, there is a big difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory. A regular theory is drawing a conclusion based off of inconclusive evidence; for example saying “I have a theory on what might have happened” is forming a conclusion without all of the evidence. On the other hand, scientific theory isn’t drawing a conclusion at all. A scientific theory explains an aspect of nature with an overwhelmingly vast body of evidence. The majority of scientific theories are so well developed that no new evidence can really change how it is. A couple of examples would be that “…no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics).” The theory of evolution is no different from the rest of the prior scientific theories. Scientists are confident that the roots of the evolution theory will not be overturned by any new evidence but it can be tweaked as new technology emerges and gives them a better understanding of evolution. A common trait of scientific theories is that you can use it to predict a natural event that has not been observed yet. “For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik” (A 375 million year old creature that has not only gils but also a neck and limbs) “predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.” The theory of evolution has been tested so many times that there is no longer a reason to see if evolution is real. The matter of fact is evolution exists. This is why it should be taught in school because there is already a lot of evidence that supports it to the point where you can’t dispute it anymore. All of the other scientific theories mentioned are taught in schools and it’s only a matter of time before evolution is taught. According to dictionary.com Creationism is “the doctrine that matter and all things were created substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.” Christians will tell you that God created man as well as everything that surrounds us. They dare not say or even think whether the bible is true or not more because it is a sin. And whether they have proof for that they dare not to say. Thomas Paine once said “Whenever we read the obscene stories…with which more than half of the bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than that the word of God.” (D.M. Murdock/Acharya S. “Is the Bible True” Truthbeknown.com 17 Feb 2013) He was trying to explain that the bible is full of books that have only gruesome endings and he doesn’t understand how people take these stories to heart. The theory of evolution can be proven with facts and even fossils along with bones and diagrams. It is not by chance that God stretched out a giraffe’s neck until it could reach the tall trees rather that the ones that could reached them survived and evolved (Dr. Seikou Tsukioka. “Faulty Arguments of Creationists” ASwedeinGermany.de). If we were to look at these “cavemen” we would find that the skull is actually bigger than the average male or female. Oddly enough many people would think that they would have had a bigger brain, therefore they smarter. Not actually that has nothing to do with anything (Dr. Seikou Tsukioka. “Faulty Arguments of Creationists” ASwedeInGermany.de) gives us the example of a computer chip in comparison with our brain. The facts that we can see that we have evolved past “cavemen” should already be enough for the theory of evolution to be thrive passed creationism. Even though Scope was announced guilty. Today we all different mid set, and are as unique one wants to be. We have moved forward evolution research and have found astonishing facts that did make people question creationism. Evolution has not only made things clear to the average person but we have also seen science prove not only dinosaurs but also an ice age. So even though teaching evolution was illegal in the 1920’s now we have moved forward from that, along with so many things in history. History and Science has shown us the multiple theories from the past that have been prove correct, along with the Theory of Evolution, and can prove, if one wanted, if Creationism is true or not.
Dr. Seikou Tsukiokia. ASwedeInGermany.de N.p, n.d. Web 20 Apr. 2014
Faulty arguments of creationists D.M. Murdock/Acharya S. TruthBeKnown.com N.p, n.d. Web 20 Apr. 2014
Is the Bible True? Douglas O. Linder. Law2umkc.edu N.p, n.d. Web 20 Apr. 2014
State v. John Scopes(“The Monkey Trail”)
Creationism vs. Evolution
Why is Creationism not interpreted in schools across America? It solely has to do with a number of Supreme Court rulings including Everson vs. Board Of Education, Edwards vs. Augillard, and etc. The determent that made it illegal to teach this in schools was, The Establishment Clause brought up by evolutionists. “Principles cast shadows of constitutional doubt over efforts to use the institutions of public education to inculcate students with a view of mankind’s origins that comports with the view espoused by religious teachings” (The American Journal of Comparative Law Vol. 58 Pg. 54). What the passage is saying about the clause is that we cannot have the beliefs of any one religion taught in school. This can be understandable by the means of our constitution, but I still repudiate. Religion is taught in our schools whether we like it or not. It could simply be the moment of silence we have every day that was once known to be the prayer time not too long ago or just hearing our classmate’s opinions in class over certain morals or beliefs. As it would turn out according to The American Journal of Comparative Law, from a survey of two thousand people only 39 percent actually believed in evolution. So what would this mean if we are teaching evolution in public schools, but what is not taught is more socially accepted and believed by a larger group of people? The journal continues by saying this would not be the first time that The Supreme Court has made a decision and an even larger part of the population has not agreed, nonetheless people have tried to form to societal needs with these court rulings. Intelligent design is pretty much creationism without citing the bible. It was created by creationist and placed into the science community and is now accepted as theory. It went through the Supreme Court to be taught in schools but was struck down even though it had nothing to do with the same clause, as was the reason creationism was not to be accepted in schools. This to me sounds like it has way more to do with our society than it does religion. Why is it that they have come up with an alternative, still to be taught in schools though it was not accepted? I found no arguments over the thought of creationism in schools, being bad for the society. I mean during the time it was accepted in schools, there was no difference in intelligence so why is it that we are not able to choose if this is my generations’ education at risk. I will bring up that 39 percent again and point out that they did not all fully understand the science of evolution, because of its “unknowns” and the curriculum that had to do with it in our schools. So where in this world does this make sense not to teach creationism in school? Why not both? I admit that there are different types of people in this world and ones of course, that do not believe in creationism and are not Christian for that matter, but the truth is a large majority of our population in Texas and the country as a whole are Christian. The National Consensus shows that, in and of itself. So why is there even an argument over this and why must we fight for what we want to be taught, when it should be a given to be taught in the first place.
We have gone over why this is a plausible theory, how it can be proven in many ways, how many people would actually believe in it, and the obvious reasons of why it should be in our schools education. The main point is the obvious, if not one or the other, why not both? Title: Religion, Science and the Secular State: Creationism in American Public Schools Author(s): GENE SHREVE Source: The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 58, Supplement: Welcoming the World: U. S. National Reports to the XVIIIth International Congress of Comparative Law (2010), pp. 51-58 Publisher(s): American Society of Comparative Law Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20744532
Creationism vs. Evolution
Education systems across the nation teeter with the question of should creation or evolution be taught in the classroom?
Though some states do teach both and very few teach how evolution is wrong, the majority of public school students in the US are taught evolution. Creation is a belief and evolution is a scientific theory. Different published works will say contrasting things about this controversy and how well, scientifically speaking the two sides stack against each other. Neither creation nor evolution can be proven using the scientific method because they can’t be tested. All that is left to do is take the evidence left by both sides and compare them to how well they fit into the science and history of the
world.
Students who believe in creationism attend classes that speak of how one object evolved from another and became what life is today: people, animals, air, water, plants and everything in between. They do papers and presentations over something they do not believe in and-in Princeton ISD-they do so without the complaining of having to be taught something that is completely unbelievable compared to their beliefs.
This controversy arises because of separation of church and state. Since the state government determines what students will study, technically it can’t enforce creationism to be taught in schools because it is the religious beliefs of the birth of our world. The idea of creation should not be disregarded as unworthy or something that can’t be compared with science.
Creation can be proved scientifically in ways evolution can not be such as The Law of Biogenesis, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, fossil records and languages.
By definition, a scientific law is a statement based on the observation of repeated experiments describing how the world works. The Law of Biogenesis states that life comes from life, and to have been created, there would have to have been something to be from. This statement follows the creationist views stated in Genesis 1:27, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them,” (The Holy Bible p. 1) The spontaneous generation that evolution insinuates was disproven after nearly four hundred years of research.
I will admit to believing in the evolutionist idea of natural selection (survival of the fittest.) However, the idea of natural selection only helps when applying it to adaptation. A fish did not become a bird to survive the Ice Age, they adapted to their conditions, but they did not evolve into a different species. “It might explain survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place)” (Batton).
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is best described by placing a glass of hot water or an ice cube on a table. The hot water will cool to room temperature while the ice cube would melt. This law disproves the theory of evolution because it requires that the thermodynamics allow the creation and production of stars and planets which results from heat-something that is no longer being produced based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
If evolution followed science, fossils would consist of mutant animals. The theory that birds evolved from reptiles is thrown out the window because there are no fossils providing evidence of a part scaly, part winged creature. Fossils of animals have not changed by the extreme course they would have to prove evolution. Yes, fossils have changed ever so slightly over time, but only for the purpose of adaptation, but the oldest fossils were of fully developed creatures. No fossil record has shown a lizard turning into a bird or a monkey turning into a human being, thus finding fault in Darwin’s theory of evolution. In addition, if evolution were to be more scientifically correct, fossils would have appeared slowly and gradually over the period of numerous centuries or even millennia rather than having a sudden appearance of everything. This sudden appearance of fossils corresponds with the already scientifically proven worldwide flood told in the story of Noah’s Ark (on a separate note, archeologists believed to have found the Ark in Turkey-which corresponds with the Biblical tales given its geographical relation to the Black Sea.)
Language differentiates humans from animals and language is something that evolutionists do not have an explanation for. If human beings derived from monkeys, how is it that every attempt to teach monkeys and apes to talk has failed? During the creation of Adam, God gave him the ability to speak and in the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, origins of different languages are explained. “Now the whole earth had one language and one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there. Then they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They had brick for stone and they had asphalt for mortar. And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand another’s speech.” So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the earth, and they ceased building the city. Therefore its name is called Babel, because the there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth,” Genesis 11:1-9, (The Holy Bible p. 7). Though this simple story may be difficult for some to believe, evolutionists have yet to find a better argument of how people can speak and animals cannot and how different languages appeared all over the world. In fact, when searching Google for “How evolutionists explain language,” the only things that come up to be applicable are Yahoo Answers pages. Within those Yahoo Answer pages, evolutionists do not answer the question to explain how language came about, instead they try and shoot down the statement of humans being the only creatures to have a language. They state that other animals have the ability to communicate as well, but communication was not what the question was about. Anything can communicate with body languages, for example people can tell when dogs need to go outside and relieve themselves because of their body language. Sure other animals have a way to vocally communicate with other animals of their species by vocal chord vibrations, sound waves, and vibration frequencies, but they do not speak words or have a written language the way humans do. This use of the straw-man fallacy only hinders the argument made by evolutionists.
Evolution is faulty science, as stated above and again with the example of circular reasoning: thing one dates thing two, but thing two also dates thing one. An example of circular reasoning in evolution is geologists dating fossils by the rocks they were found in and then dating the rocks by the fossils they found in them. Published in the American Journal of science, January 1976, “Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy, “The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy (the study of rock layers) cannot avoid this kind of reasoning…because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales,” (O’Rourke.)
One of the main problems creationists have with the theory of evolution is that it is taught as though it is a fact, that creationism is only a myth and has no factual evidence of happening. Based on the few points made above, creationism has more evidence and follows the laws of science better than evolution does, yet it is not taught in the majority of schools while evolution is taught as if it is the only answer to the question “how did the universe form?” I am not saying that strictly teaching creationism is the way to go, but teaching a bit of both, like some states do, would be beneficial to students who are willing to broaden their knowledge and is a median point in the everlasting debate. Also, by observing creation from a scientific stand point rather than a philosophical or mythological one, this allows people to see how the connections that exist. With so many discoveries to come and so many more things in creation being proven as acceptable by the laws of science, there isn’t a reason creation should not be taught in schools.
The Holy Bible. Colorado Springs: International Bible Society, 2001. 1. Print
The Holy Bible. Colorado Springs: International Bible Society, 2001. 7. Print
Creation Science Today. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
Best Bible Science. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
Batten, Don. Creation.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia. Fossils and Rocks: Circular Reasoning. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.