Sunday, 23 March 2014

Should evolution be taught in schools?

These days there are no end of scientists claiming that no-one should mention creation theory to schoolchildren, let alone teach it as an alternative theory to evolution. But let's look at evolution, or more precisely the theory that one species can mutate into another. There's no direct evidence that this has ever actually happened - there's only direct evidence that sub-species can evolve within a species, eg different breeds can evolve from a cow. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence in the shape of the fossil record, but that's all.

In other words evolutionism is a faith, just like creationism, for which plenty of circumstantial evidence exists (there is evidence of design in every living thing) but for which there is no direct evidence. Surely both faiths should be taught in schools, not one to the exclusion of the other? Children can then make their minds up which faith to believe in. But the militant fundamentalists of science won't have that. They remind me of the intolerant bigots of the catholic church, who once had it in for scientists - who ironically, have now become the the "new priesthood".

Evolutionists also preach that a bolt of lightning once struck some amino acids and turned them into self-replicating proteins, ie primitive life forms. But this idea can't be tested, as the atmospheric conditions necessary for it to happen no longer exist - and if it can't be disproved, then it isn't science. And frankly I've read a more plausible account of how life began in Genesis. (By the way, the Hebrew word for "day" - as in seven days of creation - can mean 24 hours or a period of unspecified duration, the same as in English. Like, say, billions of years.)


  1. There's a reason it's called the 'theory' of evolution. Certainly it fits the facts a little better than the world being 6,000 years old and that the fossils of dinosaurs were caused by the pressure wave of Noah's flood.

  2. The words "creation theory" are annoying. They mean the origin of man, do they?

  3. Can a Creationist explain The Linsky Project which is living proof of evolution? What about the work done on the genome which proves beyond doubt that every living thing on the earth is related?

  4. Sorry should have been Lenski

    1. Lenski's computer program which simulated evolution has its critics, and his work on E Coli was about the evolution of sub-species, not mutation from one species to another.

      Re the genome, that should read "potentially" related, since no direct proof of relatedness can exist.


Keep it clean.....