Creationism Should Not Be Taught in School Science Classes as an Alternative to Evolution.

929 Words4 Pages
My view is that creationism is not a science, it is a belief. Because it is a belief it has no place being taught as a science, and hence does not belong in a science classroom. I will not only show that creationism is wrong, but also that evolution is the only reasonable explanation for the development of life. There is no physical or scientific evidence that supports the beliefs of creationism, while there is a vast amount of evidence from a wide range of sciences that together point to the evolution over time of life on Earth. The many disciplines of science that have contributed to the formulation of the theory of evolution include geology, botany, chemistry, taxonomy, molecular biology, genetics, palaeontology, nuclear physics and biochemistry to name a few. These have contributed thousands of articles in peer-reviewed journals to painstakingly describe how the forces of natural selection have shaped the character and nature of life over billions of years. Furthermore, evolution has provided a framework for understanding the complex interrelationships found between living things and no study of biology can be coherent without an understanding of evolution as its overriding principle. The overwhelming majority of specialists in their scientific fields support evolution as a fact. It has recently become common for religious groups to call for creationism (or ‘Intelligent Design’ as it is now called) to be recognised as having scientific support, but this is not as convincing as it seems. As the theory most supported by scientists, the onus of proof is on the creationists to show why a hundred years of solid science is now believed to be faulty. They have convincingly failed to do so. One of the fundamental flaws of creationism is that is begins with the assumption that a creator is responsible for life on earth, that the earth is
Open Document