Evolution And Creation Evolution versus creation has been a debate lasting decades upon decades in the United States and around the world. The mock trial held during class, however, was not to prove one view as right and the other wrong. Rather, the focus of the trial, from the view of the prosecution, was simply to prove that creation should not be taught as a science in schools. The prosecution and the defense were each allowed four witnesses. A fifth grade science teacher, a preacher, a world religions professor, and Dawkins were called to the stand by the prosecution.
My part in the trial was that of the preacher. Our argument was simple; the preacher believed creation to be true, of course, but did not see how creation could be taught as a science. Instead, the view of creation should be a part of a religion or philosophy class. According to the scientific method, a true scientific hypothesis or theory about anything must be able to be proven false. “There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis, which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: it must be ‘falsifiable’. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue” (Wudka 2).
If there is no way to disprove something, it can not be classified as a science. In addition, a true science must be reproducible. According to Behe, origin of life scientists have created life using the same conditions that would have existed on the early earth. It is impossible, however, to duplicate creation. In addition to the argument of testability, creation should not be taught as a science because it goes against the rulings of the federal government. In 1987, in a case known as Edwards versus Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana’s ‘Creationism Act.’ The Creationism Act stated that evolution could only be taught when it was accompanied by the teaching of creation. “The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion” (Court Decisions).
As a result, the Court decided that a comprehensive science education could not be received unless evolution, without creation, existed in the class syllabus. Long ago, the government decided that a separation of church and state should exist. The prosecution reasoned that since “everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God” (Romans 13:1). As Christians, we should accept what the authorities tell us, since that is what God commanded.
Therefore, creation should not be taught as a science in school. Creation, however, should not be completely written out of a child’s education. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). A religion or philosophy class should insert the teachings of creation into their curriculum. If this method is adopted, then the views of creation would not be forced upon students.
Forcing religion on people rarely benefits anyone. “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” (2 Timothy 2:3-4). According to the basic point of the scientific method, creation is not a science because it can not be proved false.
Not only is creation not testable, but according to the United States Supreme Court, creation should be kept out of the science class. The Bible tells us to obey figures of authority; therefore, the argument seems null and void. Without question, creation’s place is in a religion or philosophy classroom. Bibliography “Background: Six Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution/Creation Issues.” http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/voice s/legal/bkgrd. htm Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box.
Romans 13:1. “Bible Gateway.” http://bible.gospelcom.net/ 2 Timothy 4:2-4. “Bible Gateway.” http://bible.gospelcom.net/ Wudka, Jose. “What is the ‘scientific method’?” http://rom.pomona.edu/scien method/node6.html.