Creationism vs. Evolutionism The quandary continues of whether or not creationism should be taught as an alternative viewpoint to the theory of evolution within the American public school systems. If scientific creationists believe that God's message is the defining element for the content, aims, and conditions of educational practice, then the argument can be made that creationism belongs in the classroom. On the contrary are those who assert creationism is not science and further suggests that "creation science" is a misnomer and oppose religion into public educational programs. They maintain the position that public educational programs should be made separate from concerns of the church.

Fundamentalist Christians differ from liberal Christians with respect to the basic theories to how life began. Liberal Christians mold their lives around the theory of evolution; forging their spiritual doctrine around their lifestyle, where as fundamentalist Christians remain faith based; life created by God and their lifestyle strictly follows biblical doctrine. Those who side with the theory of Darwin and claim that creationism is really anti-science are in direct conflict with adamant creationists; and somewhere among these groups are a third group, scientific creationists, who use scientific terminology to prove that only life can come from other life.

During the 1960’s the United States began an initiative to catch up with newer science teaching standards which ultimately reintroduced the theory of evolution as well as breathed life into the creation science movement. In a landmark case by the Supreme Court (Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)) overturned the 1928 Arkansas law that banned the teaching of evolution and it ruled that such bans are unconstitutional as it violates the establishment clause of the US constitution, which forbids the government from advancing a particular religion.

It soon became clear to creationists that the only way to inject creationism into American public schools is by advocating alternate scientific theories. For Ronald L. Numbers, Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, the topic is not purely academic. Raised as a creationist, he has a reputation as a fair-minded scholar with credibility to reconcile theology with science; as explained in an interview:

“In the early 1970s, creationists made a conscious and concerted effort to repackage Price's flood geology, biblical creationism, creation science, or scientific creationism. This was simply biblical creationism stripped of all references to the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, and Noah's flood.”

When Professor Numbers refers to flood geology as stated in the above passage, he is referring to George McCready Price's analysis that dated the age of rock layers based upon which fossils were present. This theory then restricts the history of life on earth (and in some accounts the history of the entire universe) to no more than ten thousand years. If this flood geology theory is accepted, one can take the genesis story and the story of Noah along with the universal flood that destroyed most of life on earth as literal.

A recent creation science convention in Calgary concerned differences in theory among those who are "creationists," in principle. Creationists differed in explanations as to how life first appeared, in all of its diversity, on earth. However, at Calgary's First Alliance Church, they were united on one point:

Creationism must be presented as fact in the public schools.

According to one conference participant in Shafer Parker Jr's coverage of the convention:

“Our real purpose is to counter-balance the overwhelming emphasis on evolution [i.e., blind fluke] in the schools, and to inform teachers and parents there is a scientifically defensible alternative to evolution.”

According to Mr. Parker, "a constant tone of the weekend was that God and science are mutually exclusive, and as such, wrecked havoc on Western civilization.”

As important as this point is, it should not be misled by educators who persist in "either-or" thinking about the creation of the universe. To paraphrase Einstein, “God may not, in fact, shoot dice with the universe." The blind fluke theory of creation may be less defensible than the big bang theory of creation, which advocates that everything living came out of nothingness; life from inanimate matter.

In addition, educators should realize that there are paleontologists that are now admitting to the fossil record that Charles Darwin predicted over a century ago. Parker maintains, "Despite episodic press hype, scientists have never found a fossil halfway between fish and amphibian or reptile and bird". If this is a true statement, can educators in the public schools selectively discriminate the fossil record at the expense of their students' knowledge?

The fundamental difference between creationists and evolutionists concerns the origin of life. Creationists believe that only life can come from life. On the other hand, evolutionists, who hold that everything can be explained by material and motion, believe that life comes from matter, as the big bang theory.

Evolutionists could be termed "rational," or "secular" or as preferred by creationists; humanists. Creationists could be termed fundamentalist Christians due solely to their strict devotion to religious doctrine and orthodoxy. Labeling the two may appear trifle, but it's important to distinguish between them. Both groups have a significant place in the public educational arena. Rational humanism and religious orthodoxy are two ideologies that have their place in our public school system. As Elliot W. Eisner of Stanford University puts it:

"There are consortia and organizations whose primary mission is to expand and improve the practice of schools embracing both ideological positions".

Evolutionary theory is based on the principles illustrated by Charles Darwin, whose theory of natural selection explains how species are in a continual process of adaption to their environments. In "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Stephen Jay Gould presents the theory of evolution as a scientific fact, in response to those who present "scientific" views of creationism. He discounts scientific creationism as nonsense, and scrutinizes the arguments of creationists contrary to evolutionary fact.

Gould maintains that if you view the world without the blinders of creationism, you will have clear vision to see that evolution is fact. Evolution is explainable by theories and that theories are explained by facts. As Gould says, "Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them". In his essay, Gould notes that "our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon some general arguments". He argues:

"We have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both field and the laboratory". "Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent". In other words, the imperfections of nature (contrary to the creationists' view) reveal evolution.
Gould gives several examples of the imperfectability of nature to prove his point. He states that the structures with which he types his essay are from the same bones common to rats, bats, porpoises, and any other mammal one would care to name; as we humans share a common ancestor with other mammals. We are the total of innumerable, minute evolutionary changes, not all of which could be perfectly suited to us as humans. The fact that we are still carrying around the vestiges of our ancestral past; appendixes, wisdom teeth, and body hair--are indicative that, at least in this atomic glimpse of time, we are imperfect.

Gould highlights that evolution is a fact, explained by theories; many of which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In other words, more than one theory may help explain a single scientific fact. How Darwin's theory of natural selection operates (how insects adapt themselves to more highly potent insecticides; how insects grow in size and number in response to a limitless feeding area of a single crop; fossils record trends of adjustment is dependent upon theory, while the fact of evolution remains constant. However, creationists argue that evolution is only a theory, and the debate continues.

Perhaps there is a place for both creationism and evolutionary theory in the public school system. Evolutionary fact, explainable by a theory, should remain in the science classroom. However, owing to the diverse cultural population of most of today's public schools, there should also be a place for creationism for the American public school system as personal belief rather than scientific fact. Although this position represents the centerline of discussion for both the radical secular humanists and the radical creationists, it will never please either. School boards should give curriculum space to creationism as another world view, and enthusiastic humanists should be content with the fact that evolution is based on scientific fact. Works Cited
James Trefil, Robert M. Hazen, The Sciences, An Integrated Approach, Copyright 2007
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, 1985.
Colliers Encyclopedia, P.F. Collier,INC, Copyright 1980
Eisner, Elliot W. The Educational Imagination.
New York: McGraw College Publishing Company, 1994.

Gould, Stephen Jay. "Evolution as Fact and Theory."
Discover 2, May 1981. Reprinted with Permission.

Evolution in Public Schools and Creation in Student's Home:
What Creationist Can Do (Part I) by Wendell R. Bird, J.D., Attorney

http://www.talkorigins.org
Exploring the creation/evolution controversy

When Science and Christianity Meet (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003). Edited with David C. Lindberg
Science and Christianity in Pulpit and Pew (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2 (May 1981): 34-37; Reprinted here with permission