This is a hotly contested debate that many people are watching closely. Obviously, it’s probably not surprising to anyone that I feel that Creationism or Intelligent Design should be added to our Science curriculum to balance the Evolution theory…which is just that, a theory. Evolution can’t be proven because it can’t be replicated- therefore, it remains only a theory and not a fact.
The debate over teaching evolution in public schools is resurfacing at the Texas State Board of Education. This morning the board convened a two-day meeting to consider supplemental science materials for the upcoming school year and beyond. At least six people on the 15-member school board are advocating that “creationism” and “intelligent design” be added to state’s science curriculum.
The Republican-dominated board drew national attention in 2009 when it adopted science standards encouraging schools to scrutinize “all sides” of scientific theory….
Although science materials for several grades are up for consideration, most of the debate is expected to center on high school biology books and their coverage of evolution. The board’s social conservative bloc has been adamant that the e-books present both the evidence for and against key principles of Darwin — and a conservative think tank that has pushed for critical analysis of Darwin’s theories is arguing that the e-books generally fail to cover all sides of the various issues.
The state’s school districts will not be required to buy the materials, but the majority are expected to use the board-adopted books, as they will be best suited to address the state’s curriculum requirements and achievement examinations. It will be interesting to see how much the board is willing to budge, if at all, in the direction of equalizing the books’ coverage of evolution and creationism.
Nobody would happen upon a computer in the middle of a rainforest and tell themselves that it started out as simple as a piece of mud and just happened to end up a perfectly working computer. Clearly, we would look at the intricate equipment and realize that it had a designer. Somebody made it. Each single tiny cell in our body is more complex than an entire computerized city. Yet, we deny that there was a designer behind it and choose to tell ourselves that we came about as a completely undirected process.
Take our eyes for example… Even by the end of his life, Darwin couldn’t explain how something as amazing as the Retina could have just developed from random chance. In fact, he said, “The eye makes me shudder.”
The essential problem for Evolutionists is how so many intricate components could have independently evolved to work together perfectly when, if a single component didn’t function perfectly, nothing would work at all. Is it really possible that thousands upon thousands of lucky chance mutations happened coincidentally so that the lens and the retina, which cannot work without each other, evolved in synchrony? What survival value can there be in an eye that doesn’t see? None!
Never have we been able to make life from non-life. Every experiment since Pasteur concludes this:
The great scientist Louis Pasteur realized the futility of spontaneous generation. Francesco Redi had demonstrated long before that flies didn’t ‘arise’ from decaying meat but from the eggs that other flies laid on the meat! Pasteur definitively showed that microbes did not arise in a sterile meat broth until and unless other microbes had access to it. He and the great pathologist Rudolf Virchow formulated what later became known as the biogenetic law: Life comes only from life. The implication of this research was that life does not create itself, it required God to create it originally. Both of these Christian men of science were creationists.
I could spend hours writing on why more than one worldview should be taught in the classroom. And, if evolutionist are so certain about their theories than they should have nothing to fear when an alternate theory is produced and taught.
There is overwhelming evidence to denounce Darwinism but I don’t think anyone is asking that this be included in the class. Simply, that this outdated theory be balanced with other very plausible scenarios. At least, ask the questions and challenge students to evaluate the evidence and come to their own personal conclusions.
And, if liberals continue to insist that they come from monkeys- who am I to argue with that? The rest of us will believe that we are the product of a highly Intelligent Design!