Magazine, website & books written by teens since 1989

The Other Side of the COin: Truths About Creationism

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
Wood, James. We Believe. 2005.

Join the Discussion

This article has 342 comments. Post your own now!

Aug. 3, 2010 at 4:44 pm

The real reason why evolution is taught and not creationism? You can prove evolution- just google lenski e. coli- but the only proof for creationism is a book that was written a couple thousand years ago. The big bang theory may not be the only theory about the creation of the universe, but it is the most plausible because of microwave background radiation found throughout the universe. 

If creationism has any place in schools, it is in religion class.

Oct. 5, 2010 at 1:54 pm
There is a difference between a THEORY in common terms (i.e.-a guess) and a SCIENTIFIC THEORY!!!! A SCIENTIFIC theory has been RESEARCHED AND WELL-DOCUMENTED! So when they say that evolution is a theory, there saying it's right up there with the THEORY of gravitation and germ THEORY. So if you say you don't believe in evolution because it's JUST a theory, you might as well be saying that you don't believe that diseases are caused by germs because it's just a theory. I'm sorry... (more »)
clumsy_one123 replied...
Oct. 5, 2010 at 6:38 pm
a scientifice theory is no more provable than a theory. thats why its called the LAW (not theory) of gravity (really, haven't you ever taken a science class?)... it can be PROVED
A Smart Person replied...
Oct. 6, 2010 at 7:34 pm
It's called the theory of evolution because the original theory had some faults that are to be expected in any scientific work from that time period. The important fact is that the essence of the theory has carried through, although the scientific principle has an unfortunate misnomer. But hey, if you would like to use outdated terminology to defend your world view, that's fine by me.
clumsy_one123 replied...
Oct. 6, 2010 at 8:03 pm
i am not trying to defend my world view. that's not what my paper was about (oh unobservant one). what i wanted to say was that if you're going to teach evolution, why not teach creationism?
Another Smart Person replied...
Oct. 6, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Creationism can't be proven. A theory can only be accepted as science if it makes testable predictions for future phenomena, something that creationism does not do. If it were taught not as an alternative to evolution but an example of religious beliefs, that would be fine. If it is to be taught alongside evolution, then why not teach that the entire world was created by a flying spaghetti monster? 
clumsy_one123 replied...
Oct. 7, 2010 at 6:20 pm
EVOLUTION CANNOT BE PROVEN! not without going back in time and witnessing it! there is just as little proof for evolution as there is for creationism... neither can be witnessed
Oct. 8, 2010 at 9:57 pm
On the contrary, Dr. Richard Lenski has created a multi-decade experiment that shows evolution in action (in bacteria), so it has been witnessed.
clumsy_one123 replied...
Oct. 9, 2010 at 9:28 am
thats because evolution DOES happen. but not on a scale of monkey-to-man. THATS whats has never been witnessed, and never will be witnessed, because it DOESNT HAPPEN
Oct. 9, 2010 at 9:55 am
We didn't evolve from monkeys, however we share a common ancestor with monkeys and great apes. Evolution comes from mutations in DNA making some individuals more capable of reproducing and passing on those mutations, so millions of years ago there was one ape-ancestor who was able to walk more upright and could gather more food that way, making him/her better able to produce more offspring. These offspring all carried the walk-upright gene, and they passed it on, and on, etc. People didn't start... (more »)
Jan. 26, 2011 at 10:23 pm

hey, i'd just like to mention something that i learned in my very awesome science book about four years ago.  (note, i don't like the subject of science, but this chapter was very good.  it compared creationism and uniformitarianism.  which is evolution)

what i learned it: evolutionists base a lot of things on the fossil record.  they say that this layer is something million years old and comes before this other layer, and so on.  however!  there is not a ... (more »)

May 1, 2011 at 10:53 am
Uniformitarianism is a geological theory (opposed to catastrophism), it doesn't have anything to do with evolution. And yeah, of course the fossil record isn't complete. Fossils are incredibly difficult to make, and environmental conditions in any one place don't remain static for millenia. However, the fossil record is complete enough to show a rough outline of previous life on earth; enough to show approximately when different plants and animals existed.
Feb. 26, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Also, clumsy, the theory of gravity and the law of gravity are different things.
startrekfan said...
Aug. 3, 2010 at 11:41 am
umm...even humans are still evolving
Theskull215 replied...
Sept. 16, 2010 at 6:48 pm
 Evolution simply means 'change' or 'metamorphis' a frog evolves from egg to adult, as do fish. Humans 'evolve' from embryo to adult, to dead, to dust.  But that doesn't mean we Evolved. The essence has not changed, merely the form. Think of Water. It evolves from solid (ice) to liquid, to vapor. It is still H2O but it seems different.
startrekfan replied...
Sept. 17, 2010 at 2:52 pm
yes but we have scientific proof we evolved from chimpanzees. if you look closely at things like the average height of ppl, you will find proof that we are still adapting
Lilliterra replied...
Sept. 26, 2010 at 5:27 pm
the averege height of people does not prove that people came from pond scum.
startrekfan replied...
Sept. 30, 2010 at 6:27 pm
yes, but it proves that we are evolving
Lilliterra replied...
Oct. 3, 2010 at 4:25 pm
That depend how you define "evolving".
Oct. 15, 2010 at 10:24 pm
People are getting taller because of better nutrition and living conditions. We also evolved from a long-extinct primate, not chimpanzees.
AnotherJesusFreak replied...
Apr. 24, 2011 at 12:58 am

Earlybird, just because we are getting taller because of better nutrition does not mean we are evolving. And not everyone is tall. I'm below average height for my age, does that mean I'm not as evolved? Or what about little people, does that mean they are not as evolved as other people?

Evolution is so stupid it is not even funny.

Site Feedback