Should Creation be Taught as Science in Public Schools -- By: Norman L. Geisler

Journal: Christian Apologetics Journal
Volume: CAJ 06:2 (Fall 2007)
Article: Should Creation be Taught as Science in Public Schools
Author: Norman L. Geisler

Should Creation be Taught as Science in Public Schools

Norman L. Geisler, Ph.D.

Norman L. Geisler is Professor of Theology and Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC.

The creation evolution controversy has been raging in the courts for over eighty years now, and it shows no signs of subsiding. In recent decisions, including the Edwards 1987 Supreme Court Case, creation has lost all the battles. Two main reasons have been given by the Courts for not allowing the teaching of creation alongside of evolution in public school science classes: (1) Creation is not science and, therefore, has no more place in a science class than astrology or the Flat Earth view. (2) Creation and intelligent design (hereafter ID) are essentially religious and, therefore, violate the First Amendment prohibition against establishing religion.

It is noteworthy that most of the court’s objections were answered in my Scopes II testimony in 1981. But mysteriously the Arkansas court refused to type up my testimony until five years later, just after the Supreme Court ruled on the issue. Hence, it was not available for

the Justice to review before they made their decision. Now, for the first time my word–for–word testimony is available in our recent book, Creation in the Courts (Crossway, 2007). But before the court’s objections to creation can be addressed, we must define some crucial terms of the debate.


Creation: For the purposes of this discussion “creation” or “ID,” as many now call it, is defined as it was in the McLean (1982) case: “‘Creation science’ means the scientific evidence for creation and inferences from these scientific evidences” (Section 4). In contrast to evolution which allows only natural causes, creation allows for a supernatural cause. Likewise, creation affirms a common Creator of all basic forms of life, in contrast to evolution which affirms a common ancestry of all forms of life. While opposed to macro–evolution, creation allows for micro–evolution by natural processes that can account for some variation within basic kinds of life.

Evolution: By “evolution” is meant macro–evolution or the view of common ancestry. All higher forms of life are said to have evolved by purely natural processes without intelligent intervention from lower forms which Darwinians believe came ultimately from one simple form of life which came into existence by spontaneous generation from non–living material. So defined, creation and evolution are mutually exclusive views at every level.

A Response to Reasons Given for not Teaching Creation

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()