Recent Articles
- New York Pizza Depot (NYPD): It’s an authentic slice!
- Clarksville for Obama team to meet July 10
- Chris Lugo presents “a case for impeachment”
- In a word, “SPECTACULAR!”
- Hancock: big jerk, bigger mess
- “Wanted” promises action; delivers
- City Judge salary restored
- Civil War Army-Navy Exhibit on display July 4-6 at Fort Donnelson
- Like the Phoenix, Tandoor rises anew!
- The Artist’s Voice: An exhibition featuring artists with disabilities
- Our beautiful Tennessee Smoky Mountains under attack by mining interests
- A WALL-E World we can all believe in
- “Tennessee’s Top Spot” gets failing grade at proper Nighttime National Flag Display
- “Unite For Change!” growing in Clarksville
- Journalist John Seigenthaler to speak at annual Clarksville Writers’ Conference
« Building it smaller, faster, cheaper: India’s Nano car changes the face of driving | Home | Candidates on the Issues: Abortion »
Creationism has no place in public school science classes
By David W. Shelton | January 14, 2008 | 
A growing movement among evangelical and fundamentalist Christian groups is working to bring the teaching of Intelligent Design and Creationism into public schools. This is disturbing on so many levels.
Should matters of faith be taught in schools? Of course not. Proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design have frequently claimed that “evolution” is little more than a belief as well. Some even assert that “evolution is a religion” because of that.
But what is evolution? Put simply, it is “change.” Now, there’s still plenty of discussion on how that change occurs since we learn more information every day. But the reality is that the world changes. Species change. The nature of the earth has changed.
My Christian faith has long been rooted in the grace of God and His love for all of us. However, I do not believe that there is a literal six-day creation period. While some people insist that the earth can not be more than 6,000 years old because “the Bible says so,” I maintain that the Bible is not now, nor has ever been a science book.
For example, the snows of Antarctica have been piling on for countless thousands of years. Every year, the earth’s CO2 emissions spike. The reason for that is that every winter in the northern hemisphere, the leaves drop, and the CO2 emissions increase. Since the vast majority of the earth’s land is above the equator, it’s a clear indicator of a yearly drop and spike of CO2.
So what does that have to do with anything? Simple. One of the best ways to measure long-term CO2 emissions is to drill into the ice at Antarctica. it’s several miles deep. Scientists have drilled deep into the ice and pulled out several ice cores, which reveal a clear history of up to 750,000 years’ worth of annual CO2 shifts. In fact, some of these cores have contributed heavily to the global warming discussion.
Creationist extremes
I’m not going to get into the whole global warming debate, but these ice cores reveal not only the quality of the earth’s air, but also the fact that the earth is far older than the 6000 years that many creationists claim. One of the leading proponents of the young-earth doctrine is Ken Hamm, president and founder of Answers in Genesis. Hamm’s organization not only assembles conferences across the world, but they’ve recently opened a new “Creation Museum” just outside Cincinnatti, just south of the Kentucky border.
Hamm and other young-earth proponents are also convinced that the entire earth was engulfed in a flood exactly as the Bible describes in the book of Genesis, hence the name of his organization. Of course, since the book of Genesis is 100% correct (as they claim), then the earth and universe was created in just six days. He writes:
I want to make it VERY clear that we don’t want to be known primarily as ‘young-Earth creationists.’ AiG’s main thrust is NOT ‘young Earth’ as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively ‘young Earth’ (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.
This is the core root of the Creationist goals: To base our education system on the complete literalist interpretation of the Bible. This isn’t about putting creationism into schools. The ultimate goal is to have our children be taught that the Bible is true whether we believe it or not. Hamm emphasizes the apparent need for Biblical authority:
Why would any Christian want to take man’s fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man’s word is infallible, but God’s Word is fallible!
Hamm also claims that for a person to be Christian, they must embrace the complete infallibility of the entire Bible, especially Genesis. Further, he and other young-earth creationists insist that the dinosaurs and humans once coexisted. Such claims are replete in the Creation Museum with several exhibits dedicated to this belief. Naturally, the museum has drawn over 200,000 people in its first six months. Apparently, bad science combined with religious hyperbole is a gold mine.
The splendor and greatness of our universe
To even accept the six-day creation requires one to stretch their imagination and to completely set aside basic laws of physics. According to Scripture, the sun was created after the earth, and the stars were created after the sun.
That’s simply not possible, and what’s more, it’s not what we’re seeing from the Hubble, Spitzer, and other space telescopes:
- HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Vast Stellar Disks Set Stage for Planet Birth in New Hubble Images (02/09/1999) - Release Images
- Circumstellar Dust Takes Flight In ‘The Moth’
- Telescope snaps distant ‘planet’
- Young Planet Challenges Old Theories
- Youthful Star Sprouts Planets Early
If the stars were created even within the six-day period, how could light (which has a constant speed) travel hundreds of thousands of light years in just a few days… or even seconds? The closest star is more than four light years away. Was the light from those stars created at the same time as the stars themselves?
Further, we’re seeing evidence of brand-new solar systems which are in formation. We’ve seen the new stars and the dust rings that surround them. We’ve seen the young planets as they orbit amidst these rings. It’s a glimpse into our own past and a picture of what might have been.
Thankfully, Hamm’s group isn’t the only organization out there in regards to Christian-centered science. Hugh Ross founded Reasons to Believe, and has written several books on the topic. Their website says:
Ross has been on the frontiers of making biblical and scientific the case against Darwinism for almost 2 decades. RTB believes that God has miraculously intervened throughout the history of the universe in various ways millions, possibly even billions, of times to create each and every new species of life on Earth.
Ross and RTB have been the brunt of heavy criticism from Hamm and other young-earth creationists, which only illustrates the sharp division among Christians just on this one topic alone. They’ve even posted a page to address some of these criticisms. And before someone starts talking about how “liberal” the folks at RTB might be, consider that the group is endorsed by several well-respected members of the evangelical community including Chuck Colson, Jack Hayford, and John Ankerberg. It’s doubtful that any of these names would be considered “liberal” (as if that would be a bad thing).
Belief in the Bible or in the Creator of the universe?
I’ve often said that everyone SHOULD question their faith. Blind faith actually hinders a person’s spiritual growth. Accepting something just because “the Bible says so” is as immature as it is irresponsible. Some assert that the Bible is clear in its message.
If that were really true, then there wouldn’t be tens of thousands of different denominations and sects within Christianity, would there? The reality is that nearly all of those groups claim to adhere to Scripture properly, while “those other guys” don’t. No, the Bible is NOT clear. It is as subjective as a person’s taste for food.
This is the very reason why teaching Creationism is not appropriate within an earth science class. Perhaps it would be better placed in history or social studies. Religious beliefs are just that: beliefs.
Beliefs are a powerful thing; people are willing to die for them, and in some cases, even willing to kill for them. Beliefs drive splits, tear apart families, and fuel the fires of hate and war across the globe.
Even among those of us who are Christians, we allow each other to be divided by beliefs; when Christ has called us to be One body with Himself as the head. So long as we worship our beliefs and doctrines above the Lord Himself, then we are committing the gross sin of idolatry.
Those that insist that we believe 100% of Scripture, no matter how unlikely it might be, do so because they believe that to question even one verse is to question the entire Bible and its infallibility. After all, if the creation account isn’t accurate, then how do we know its message of salvation is reliable?
This is an insult to Christians and theologians everywhere. If I require Scripture to back up my faith, then my faith is meaningless. The reality is that like most other Christians, my faith is in Christ. If that faith is challenged by a question of infalliblity, then it only shows how weak that faith really is. Christ called for us to build our faith on the Rock, who is Jesus himself. Okay, I wouldn’t know that if I didn’t read it in the Bible, which presents an interesting paradox. But in the end, A book does not define my faith, nor does a single verse within that book. It is defined by the Person of Jesus Christ.
The book can be burned, destroyed, or even invalidated, and my faith would remain. Even Scripture declares that in the end, only three things would remain: Faith, hope, and love. The greatest of these is love. Christ has called us to related to each other, to have hope in His message, and to have faith.
There are indeed many different doctrines that use the word “Creationism” or “Intelligent Design.” None of them, however, are appropriate in the context of a science class.
So yes, I do believe. I believe in the majesty and splendor of our God. His stunning creation has been concealed for billions of years, and now we’re just beginning to see just how magnificent it is.
What does Scripture have to say? Quite a lot, really:
Psalm 19:1: 1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Proverbs 25:2: 2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.
God has concealed a great deal from us, especially in this vast universe of creation. With every step, every picture, and every journey that we take in this–the creation of our Lord—in all its splendor—we learn just how glorious He really is.
Common sense should prevail
These are matters of faith, though. It is not science. This is illustrated very well in a response from the RTB website to the 1999 Kansas Board of Education decision, which allowed creationism and evolution to be taught in schools. The response concluded with:
Christians cannot afford to allow history to repeat itself. The Fundamentalist retreat from the university and culture in the wake of the Scopes trial only resulted in Christian ideas being further marginalized. For this reason we find ourselves still embattled in the same culture war 75 years later. Moreover, we must go beyond “evolution-busting” and challenging the atheist’s worldview assumptions - although these scholarly endeavors are important and must be accomplished. At the same time, we need a scientifically responsible model to stand in the old one’s place. The challenge before us is to make a concerted and positive effort to put forth an origins model that can be rigorously and openly researched and tested. Only then will Christians have the opportunity to demonstrate that the God behind the Bible is also the God behind the facts of nature.
I believe Scripture not only declares the glory of God, but it also challenges us to explore the universe around us… His creation is magnificent, stunning even. Yet no matter how staggering a sight might be, we can know that the glory of the living God is far greater. We don’t have to believe in a six-day creation period or even a young earth to know that God is indeed a master craftsman.
Let’s just leave it out of the science classroom.
About David W. Shelton 
Posts by David W. Shelton are copyright (c)2006, 2007, 2008 by the author. All rights reserved.
David W. Shelton is a writer, speaker and activist in Clarksville, and serves on the Clarksville Human Relations Commission. His passions include film and complete equality for all people, and he has worked in various capacities to work toward this goal. He is currently an illustrator, graphic designer, trainer, and is the owner of Imagine Media Solutions. He is an Adobe® Certified Instructor in Photoshop®.
Web Site: http://www.skippingtothepiccolo.com/
Email:
dwshelton@charter.net
Sections: Issues, Opinion, Spirituality
Topics: creationism, Hubble telescope, hugh ross, ice core, intelligent design, ken hamm, Science, Spitzer telescope
6 Responses to “Creationism has no place in public school science classes”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Archives
Official Sites
- City of Clarksville, TN
- Clarksville Department of Electricity
- Clarksville Gas and Water Department
- Clarksville Montgomery County School System
- Clarksville Police Department
- Clarksville, Montgomery County Economic Development Council
- Clarksville, TN Ordinances
- Fort Campbell, Ky
- Montgomery County, Tennessee
- Montgomery County, Tennessee Sheriff’s Office
- Parks after Dark
Local Community
Affiliated Web Sites
January 14th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
In regard to 2 statements in the article:
1.) “But what is evolution? Put simply, it is “change.”"
If evolution only meant “change”,
everyone would believe in evolution.
Micro-evolution, or variation within a kind, tells us that small changes occur but that there is a limit to these changes.
As an example:
dogs can be large, medium or small in stature,
and they can have short, medium or long fur.
… but dogs always breed dogs,
they never change into a different kind of animal.
Macro-evolution, or the belief that small changes can enable bacteria to change into fish,
then to change into reptiles,
then to change into mammals,
has never been observed.
Variation … Yes.
(Macro)evolution … No.
This is in accord with creationism and the Bible:
Genesis 1 (New International Version)
24 And God said,
“Let the land produce living creatures
according to their kinds:
livestock, creatures that move along the
ground, and wild animals,
each according to its kind.”
And it was so
25 God made the wild animals
according to their kinds,
the livestock
according to their kinds,
and all the creatures that move along the
ground according to their kinds.
And God saw that it was good.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1;&version=31 ;
More info on this subject is available online at:
One Blood by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
Chapter 2:
Natural selection and speciation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/OneBlood/index.asp
2.) The last 2 paragraphs of the article say:
“I believe Scripture not only declares the
glory of God, but it also challenges us to
explore the universe around us…
His creation is magnificent, stunning even.
…
Let’s just leave it out of the science
classroom.”
Those who “explore the universe around us”
do so using science,
and to exclude their scientific findings from science classrooms would be a great dis-service to everyone.
The Bible makes statements concerning science:
Isaiah 44:24
This is what the LORD says—
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:
I am the LORD,
who has made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself,
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=44&verse=24&version=31&context=verse
More info on this subject is available online at:
Astronomy by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.
First published in Refuting Evolution Chapter 7
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/index.asp
When scientists make observations concerning such things as the “stretched out … heavens”
their scientific findings should be included in “the science classroom”,
even if they “declare the glory of God”.
Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=19&version=31&context=chapter
January 14th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
At our present level of ignorance, we can conclude one thing….Intelligent Design is a fact. Its a fact not “because of” anything. Its just a fact. The origin of anything falls into one of two categories, natural or designed. Look around you, anything you see is either made by nature or designed. Intelligent Design is scientific because it is an observed occurrence. ID does not need to be proved in order to be considered a possibility for the origin of species. ID is a fact and a real possibility for the origin of species because design is an actual scientific cause.
Claims that ID is not science, or unprovable, are irrelevant to the fact of design. If ID is unprovable then our science lacks the ability to distinguish the two major scientific causes, nature and design. The inability to distinguish nature from design is not a basis on which to claim that life was made by nature. In fact, just the opposite is true, evolutionists should hail the claim that ID theory can distinguish nature from design since it would finally prove once and for all that life evolved. However, evolutionists’ claim that design is not identifiable only serves to undermine the theory that life evolved.
The current evolution of a “thing” is not necessarily its origin. Even designed things evolve(change.) Showing that something evolves does not explain how it came into existence(origins). Sand dunes change, and cars change, but both are not products of nature. Organisms change and genes change; does this mean they originated in nature? Maybe life did originate in nature, but until design is considered a real possibility, and until science can distinguish nature from design, and until design is disproved, the biological theory of evolution remains a belief, not a fact.
Evolution is a fact.
Intelligent design is a fact.
All things evolve.
Some things are intelligently designed.
All designed things evolve.
Therefore, the fact of evolution does not necessarily rule out design as the origin.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
As far as it being taught in science class, its definitely ONE theory, but the importance religion plays in society as a whole needs to be taught to our children. Social studies may be the best subject for this, but we are trying to prepare our kids for the world. How can we say we are accomplishing their preparation if we leave out what is arguably one of the most integral parts of everyday life(religion)?
January 14th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
But that is what Church and Sunday school is for Scott. Not the public school system.
You have one set of beliefs, I have another, Native American’s have another. There are almost as many versions of religion as there are people on this planet. We certainly are not going to give equal time to them all as alternatives to Science.
Judaism
Christianity
Islam
Druzes
Sabians
Ismailis
Qadianis
Hinduism
Buddhism
Jainism
Sikhism
Ayyavazhi
Taoism
Confucianism
Shinto
Chondogyo
Tenrikyo
I-Kuan Tao
Caodaism
Jeung San Do
Chinese folk religion
Bábísm
Bahá’í
Akan
Ashanti
Dahomey
Efik
Igbo
Isoko
Yoruba
Bushongo
Bambuti
Lugbara
Akamba
Dinka
Lotuko
Masai
Khoikhoi
Lozi
Tumbuka
Zulu
Candomblé
Umbanda
Quimbanda
Santería
Regla de Arará
Regla de Palo
Vodou
Obeah
Winti
Kumina
Spiritual Baptist
Hoodoo
Let not forget the native american and eskimo traditions. Anyway I can go on and on and on.
The problem is you want to teach an alternative to science, in a science class. Makes absolutely no sense.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:04 am
Couple of questions for you Bill. First you say that is what Sunday school and Church are for. Yet public education was started by and ran by the Church until WWI. So what has changed so much that now the church has no say? Please tell me you dont believe in that nonsense of separation of Church and State?
Next, Intelligent Design is more scientifically grounded than Evolution. Maybe you should look at the new documentary coming out called Expelled with Ben Stein. He has a huge issue with the educational system and their refusal to allow any scientific discussion that is at odds with the religion of Evolution. I am not sure what your background is but if you want I can give you some scientific stuff that shows why evolution is still scientific theory and not scientific fact:
April 15th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Sorry, John… gotta disagree with you here.
Focus on the Family” is not now, nor ever has been a scientific organization. FOTF is simply a political organization that has disguised itself as a religious group.