unfortunately for morris and other creationists, creation "science" is NOT a viable alternative to evolution. the whole creation "science" thing is to attack evolution. even scientific creationism was mostly attacking evolution, not supporting creation. they use an A or B theory, and that doesn't work because they don't take into account possibilities C, D, E, etc.

Resistance to teaching creationism is still very strong, however. Opposition usually centers around two related arguments. First, evolution is widely claimed to be the only acceptable scientific theory of origins.

evolution is the theory that, based on current scientific evidence, is the only viable theory for the way diversity of life found in the world and the fossil record came into existance. if there's a better theory, it's yet to be discovered

Second, creation is assumed to be strictly a religious concept, which on that account has no place in a public school curriculum.

creationism is a religion hidden under the word "science." it is psuedoscience, not true science

Creation can be shown to be a more effective scientific model of origins than evolution,

first of all, if it was, then it should be able to stand on it's own. not be based on the argument that "evolution is false, therefore creation!" (the same style of argument is virtually impossible against creationism, because it doesn't make many predictions or arguments for itself. any predictions it does make, can't be answered by a limited number of questions. except for the answer "god did it," which is NOT scientific since it involves a supernatural being.) second of all, creation can only be shown to be a "more effective scientific model" than evolution when facts are misused or misunderstood, creationists just plain lie about things, and when evolutionists are quoted out of context

evolution can be shown to require a higher degree of credulous faith than creation.

the "faith" in science is no different than other scientific theories. if you want to invalidate them of all, you can do that

If this effort is to succeed, creationists must first of all be able to support their claim that creation is as scientific as evolution and that evolution is as religious as creation.

wait a minute. religion is not allowed in schools, PERIOD. if something that is being taught is schools that is religious, the answer is to take the thing being taught out, not putting an opposing view in. (i.e., if the school is reciting prayers from the bible, you don't fix it by doing the same with the koran.)

Political or legislative efforts to require creationist teaching will be futile otherwise.

unless they occur in backwards states like alabama, mississippi, or north carolina

The only effective way to get creationism taught properly is to have it taught by teachers who are both willing to do it and adequately prepared to do it. Since most teachers now are neither willing nor able, they must first be both persuaded and instructed themselves.

they aren't willing because they know it's pseudoscience. they know what the evidence favors, and that's evolution

However, although a community-wide census would almost certainly show a large majority favoring the teaching of both creation and evolution

in the south, definitely. other places? i don't know. (although, to be honest with the south, the majority there would probably be in favor of kicking evolution out and stuffin' the bible in.) the one's that know the subject best (scientists) would be in favor of teaching evolution because it is the only theory that the evidence supports

In any case, the concerned creationist minority

wasn't it a majority in the paragraph before?

Each individual needs to be aware of the significance of evolutionary teaching

this isn't the "evolution is the cause of racism" garbage again, is it?

the scientific evidence favoring creation. He does not have to be a scientist to understand the latter, but he does need to take the time for a careful reading of some of the modern treatments of the subject by creationist scientists.

yay, he just needs to read the ICR's books full of pseudoscience to understand! you should also read books like abusing science by philip kitcher, the blind watchmaker by richard dawkins and other books like them

For example, he should read the two I.C.R. books, The Troubled Waters of Evolution(1) and Scientific Creationism,(2) or other books of comparable scope and treatment.

i haven't read the first one, but i don't know where the evidence that supports creation is in the second book even though i've got it a few feet from me. if you do know, i'd like to hear where. a lot of pseudoscientific arguments against evolution, though

the latter shows the scientific superiority of creationism in every phase of the problem of origins.

no it doesn't! it makes poor arguments against evolution, and that's really it

Some of these officials are creationists themselves

good for them. they should do their preaching on their own time, away from schools

many others are sufficiently dedicated to true education and service to the community as to be willing to provide the young people in their schools an opportunity to hear both sides of this all-important question.

it's good their dedicated to true education, because then they won't allow pseudoscience in

For example, when treating such a subject as human origins, the teacher can balance the usual evolutionary discussion of Ramapithecus, Australopithecus. Neanderthal, etc., by citing the creationists' evidence that such fossils are invariably either of apes or of men, with no true and unquestioned intermediates between men and apes.

there are intermediates, though

Such a discussion need not deal with such theological topics as the divine purpose for man, but only with the factual evidence concerning the unique physical and mental characteristics of men.

well, if it's factual evidence you want, then i wouldn't go to the ICR for my information!

purpose of which is to provide basic scientific orientation in the creation model of origins and in the deficiencies of the evolution model.

here are deficiencies in all scientific theories. however, most of the questions asked in scientific theories have been answered in a limited number of ways

For those teachers who, for personal reasons, are unwilling to teach creation along with evolution

for "personal reasons," eh? he means "scientific reasons," doesn't he?

substitutes can be provided who could come in, say, for a special three-week unit on scientific creationism.

a special three-week unit on "scientific" creationism? we should spend three-weeks a year for false science? it's fine to question a scientific theory, but those questions should involve science, themselves

In fact, the exclusive teaching of evolution is not constitutional, legal or proper, since belief in evolution requires at least as much faith as belief in creation and is therefore a religious belief.

if it were true that evolution was a religious belief, then creationists should try and get evolution kicked out of school, not put creationism in it. however, evolution is based on science and evidence and is therefore science

Evolutionary philosophy is the foundation of atheism and humanism

and irrelevant. a lot of christians accept evolution, too. just because a certain "religion"(which, last time i checked, atheism and humanism weren't) supports a view doesn't mean it is a religious belief

Exclusive teaching of evolution has the effect of establishing religious systems of this sort as state-endorsed and state-supported religions.

no they don't because no science teacher says "there was no god involved." just because they don't say a god was involved doesn't mean they're promoting atheism. science says nothing about the existence or non-existence of god. that's not science's job

As far as the teacher's own classes are concerned, by all means creationism should be included, no matter what the course subject or grade level may be.

"no matter what the course subject?" so. . . would that include, say, including it in math class? or does he mean whatever part of science?

In some courses—for example, biology, ancient history, etc.—it may well be feasible to incorporate a formal unit on scientific creationism into the course content.

if creationism were truly scientific, then it would be alright. too bad it isn't, eh?

For example, when an earth science textbook discusses the geologic age system and the great age of the earth, the teacher should also discuss the geologic evidence for the catastrophic interpretation of the fossil record and some of the scientific evidences for a young earth.

what scientific evidences are these? the flood of the bible can NOT explain the fossil record

Young people are often led to believe that all scientists and other educated specialists are evolutionists

about 5% of scientists are creationists. 1 in 20. 8 in 20 believe evolution occured with a god in charge of it, 11 in 20 believe evolution occured without the need of a god

best argument against this fallacious claim is the personal testimony of scientists who are not evolutionists. The fact is, of course, that today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists, and usually there are at least several in every community.

and there are nearly 20 times as many scientists that are evolutionists than there are scientists that are creationists

Somehow an attitude of sweet tolerance toward the unbelieving philosophies of anti-Christian scientists

anti-christian and non-christian are different things. most scientists that are not christian are not "anti-christian."

The facts of science, as well as the teachings of Scripture, are squarely against the evolutionary system

maybe the teachings of the bible are against evolution, but not the facts of science

If feasible under the particular local circumstances, such citizens should establish a formal community organization, with some appropriate name (Citizens for Scientific Creationism, Parents Concerned for Educational Integrity, Civil Rights for Creationists, Committee for the Improvement of Education, etc.).

ha. it's fine to have the first of those four names, but the other three are absurd

Committee should be as certain as possible that the reporter really has an understanding of the whole issue.

i hope they do, because they'll see right through it

Debates between evolutionists and knowledgeable creationists might be arranged.

the problem with this is creationists usually come up with their lies and misusing of information in these. the evolutionist doesn't have enough time in their part of the debate to refute the claims of the creationist. then, even if he can, he can't present evolution. odd how kent hovind goes around the country debating evolutionists and teaching creationism in the traditional form. but, when 300 lies in his seminar are shown on the internet, he doesn't respond to any of the lies

1. Estimated publication date April 1975.

2. Now available in both a Public School Edition (no Biblical or other religious material) and in a General Edition (including extensive section on Biblical aspects of creationism).

complete version of impact #20

email me