Who We Are

A Brief Description of the Creation-Science Research Center

The Creation-Science Research Center was founded in 1970 and incorporated in California as a non-profit educational and scientific corporation and is officially designated by the State Attorney General as a public-service corporation. C-SRC may be described as a public education and advocacy organization. The overarching operating principle of C-SRC is the development and application of a constitutional-legal strategy for redressing philosophical imbalance wherever tax-funds are being used to promote a particular philosophical-religious belief system. The Center’s primary objective has been to change the manner in which the public schools teach about evolutionary theories. The purpose is to protect the faith of Christian children from illegal offense against their faith in the God of Creation. In 1981 the Center sponsored a lawsuit, Segraves vs. the California State Board of Education, which was tried in the Sacramento Superior Court. A landmark trial judgment and a court order were achieved which forbid the State from teaching evolution dogmatically as fact. The task of forcing the State fully to obey the court order continues.

The Center’s service activities include providing students, parents, teachers, schools and churches with scientific and legal information, bibliographic materials, and answers to specific questions. The Center has prepared and published numerous books, films, audiovisuals, study guides and materials for use in home-schools, private schools, public schools, and churches. These materials relate scientific data to the Biblical record of creation and thus promote a Biblical Christian world view. C-SRC participates in the broad-spectrum public education effort, in obedience to our Lord’s Great Commission to bring the nation to a decision–for the Creator-God and Redeemer of the Bible, or against Him.

Creation vs. Evolution : The Basics Explained

Why Should Christians believe in Creation?

We believe in creation, first of all, not because of scientific evidence, but because of our faith in Jesus Christ and in His Word the Bible. The Lord Jesus is revealed in the Bible to be the Creator of all things (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:1-3), and He is for Christians the Lord of all and the Head over all things, including science (Acts 10:36, Ephesians 1:22). Our Head has said something about science in John 5:45-47, namely this: If we believe in Jesus Christ, then we must believe Moses’ writings. What did Moses write about first of all? He wrote about the creation of all things by God. So we judge science by the Bible and not the other way around. “We walk by faith, not by sight.” (I Corinthians 5:7)

God has given us Scientific Evidence for Creation

Since the beginning all men have been without excuse if they have not acknowledged the Creator God, for the evidence is all around them in the created world (Romans 1:19-20). And modern science has revealed a vast web of evidence which supports the biblical record of creation. Let us think first about the logic of the scientific argument for creation.

The Logic of the Scientific case for Creation

Creation is by definition a divine miracle, an act of God which is outside of and above the physical laws He has established in the world. Therefore, scientists who believe in creation do not try to devise theories to explain how God created, for human beings cannot understand how God created. On the other hand, evolutionary scientists say that they are devising theories to explain the evolution of all life and that they are discovering natural processes or mechanisms which can evolve new plants and animals. So we say to them, “The burden of proof is on you. Come on, now, give us theories which really explain evolution, and show us the natural mechanisms or processes which can produce new designs and evolve new plants and animals.”

Has evolutionary theory really explained evolution? No. Have they discovered any mechanism or process of genetics which can evolve anything really new. No, they have not. And, as long as this failure of evolutionary science continues, divine special creation continues to be an intellectually and scientifically viable belief for anybody, including scientists, to hold.

A Brief Look at the Evidence

The Fossil Evidence. Evolution is supposed to be a process of change. If some ancient species of worm or other creature without a backbone slowly changed into a vertebrate fish with a backbone, there should be a series of intermediate fossil species which document that actual process of change. These intermediate fossil forms are totally absent from the fossil record. Prof. Alfred Romer at Harvard University wrote that this evolution from invertebrate to vertebrate must have required 100 million years for which we do not have the fossil evidence. Prof. Stephen Stanley of Johns Hopkins University wrote in 1979 that the known fossil record provides not a single example of a series of fossils which prove that a process of evolution really took place to produce a new kind of creature.

These systematic gaps in the fossil record mean that every basic type of plant or animal seems to appear suddenly in the fossil-bearing rocks. The fossils speak of sudden appearance of the kinds, not the slow, gradual change of one kind into another kind. But this fossil evidence appears more in agreement with special creation than with evolution, doesn’t it?

Biological Design. Nature is rich everywhere with biological designs which defy evolutionary explanation. Secular scientists, when pressed, have to admit that they cannot offer testable or even plausible explanations for the origin of biodesigns. For just one example, consider the little intestinal microbe, Escherichia coli. Each tiny single-celled microbe propels itself around with six corkscrew propellers which are connected by universal joints to six constant torque, variable speed, reversible rotary motors!

Evolutionary scientists have not the slightest idea how this complex assembly of complex, interdependent parts could have evolved. Yet, they believe it happened. They have faith in dumb atoms. Faith in the Creator God is far superior.

Genetics: For thousands of years intelligent humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals to develop varieties which are of special value to man. So there are 150 varieties of dogs, scores of varieties of roses, many different varieties of cattle and sheep, of apples and potatoes, etc. But they are still dogs, roses, cattle, sheep, apples and potatoes. There is much variation under artificial selection. Also, there is much variation in nature in the wild. But the changes are always limited. Genetics teaches that there are barriers through which genetic change cannot go. Species of plants and animals exist in groups of species which are separated from all other such groups. And this is just what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1 where Moses tells us that God created the “kinds” of plants and animals to reproduce each one “after its own kind.” Genetics gives the lie to Charles Darwin’s notion that, given time, genetic variation has been unlimited, so that an amoeba could evolve into a university professor in 3 billion years.

Molecular Biology. In 1953 Crick and Watson demonstrated the helical structure of the DNA molecules which are the genes that control inheritance of characters. Since then the new science of molecular biology has opened up a vast new field of knowledge. The amazing accomplishments of molecular biologists are a tribute to the power of the human intellect and of the scientific method. The knowledge of cell biology at the level of the individual molecules is expected to give understanding of life and of evolution. However, after over 30 years of molecular biology it can be said the evolutionary theory has yet actually to explain or demonstrate the origin of anything new. He can boldly say that today there are no testable scientific theories for inheritance, development of the embryo from egg to animal, formation of new species, or the evolution of anything new.

Evidences for Evolution. The standard evidences adduced for evolution can either be shown to be invalid or be reinterpreted within the framework of the creation model of origins. For example the stages and similarities of embryos of different species can be shown to be related to the condition and needs of particular species at each stage. Similarities revealed by comparative anatomy (of the vertebrates, for example) can be explained in terms of the Creator’s use of basic designs modified for particular applications. Biological classification reveals the separateness of the kinds, and the data for alleged molecular evolution also shows the separateness of the kinds. Limited space forbids more discussion of these subjects in this brief paper.


The advocates of evolution are unable to adduce fossil intermediate forms which show an actual historical process of evolution of new kinds of organisms. They have failed to devise scientific theories which really explain evolution, and they cannot demonstrate the evolution of anything new by any known genetic mechanism or process. Furthermore, there is no evidence which proves that the alleged evolution of all life really occurred. Throughout the history of the world no new complex design has been observed to originate except from an intelligent mind. In the absence of an evolutionary explanation, divine special creation remains as the only scientifically viable explanation for the origin of life and of all biological designs.


You and I are not being unscientific in the least because we believe that in the beginning God created the kinds of plants and animals, each to reproduce after its own kind. As Christian citizens we should openly avow our faith in the biblical record of creation. And we should work to stop the dogmatic teaching of evolution and the persecution of Christians in the tax-funded public schools and universities.

Charles Darwin’s Hidden Agenda for Science

The standard, long held view of the connection between Darwin’s religion and his theory is wrong. Supposedly he was a Christian who studied at Cambridge to become a minister. But then, during his voyage around the world on the Beagle, the scientific facts persuaded him to believe in evolution and give up his Christian faith. However, an examination of the various influences upon the youthful Charles Darwin reveals an entirely different story.

Family Background

Charles’ grandfather, Erasmus, a successful and wealthy physician in the 18th century, wrote the book, Zoonomia (Laws of Life), which portrays a pantheistic world in which all life and species evolved. Erasmus’ close friend, industrialist Josiah Wedgwood I, embraced Unitarian theology. Erasmus’ son and Charles’ father, Robert Darwin, also a wealthy physician, probably an atheist, married Susannah Wedgwood. Other marriage ties between the two families followed. Not surprisingly, Darwin males generally were freethinkers, following the Unitarian, pantheistic and atheistic views of their principal sires.

The Son, His Father and His Wife

Charles Darwin, was born in 1809. His dominant, atheistic father, Robert, advised him to conceal his unorthodox beliefs from his wife. Should he predecease her this would spare her from unnecessary grief because of her spouse’s dying an unbeliever. Charles never spoke publicly about his religious views. However, before he married Emma Wedgwood in 1839 he told her about his rejection of Christian faith. Though probably not herself evangelical, she was nevertheless pious, and the rather gross unbelief of her husband was painful to her. But during his life and even after his death she protected his reputation by concealing his unbelief.

Charles’ Education

Robert Darwin sent his son off to Edinburgh University in 1825. The sixteen-year-old boy found himself in a university community which was in a continual ferment of radicalism of all sorts advanced by dissenters from the Anglican church, freethinkers, anti-Christians and atheists, materialists and evolutionists. Evolution was in the air. Most influential in this phase of Charles Darwin’s life was Robert Grant, a dozen years his senior. Holding the medical degree from Edinburgh, he had made himself the leading British authority in invertebrate zoology. Grant was an avowed atheist, and evolutionist, and also a social and political radical. On zoological field trips with Grant young Charles listened to his persuasive private lecturing but kept his own counsel. Deeply interested in biological science, Charles abhorred medicine The sight of blood sickened him. After two years he returned home without a degree.

Disappointed, father Robert Darwin decided to send him off to Cambridge University for a degree in theology, after which he could purchase for him a “living” in an Anglican country church. There he could be a sportsman, a scholar, or an amateur naturalist, supported by a government stipend for life. Charles dutifully signed onto the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England and entered Cambridge. He surely saw the hypocrisy in an atheist father’s financing his son’s preparation to be a minister of the gospel.

At Cambridge Prof. Adam Sedgwick, a leading English geologist, took Darwin with him on a geology field trip in the south of England. Impressed with the young man’s abilities, he predicted that his student would make his mark in science. Though studying for a degree in theology, Darwin put his greatest energies into geology and other natural sciences. Darwin read Archdeacon William Paley’s classic book on the evidence for God in the designs of living creatures. Darwin was impressed with the book but devoted the rest of his life to disproving it. Reading the standard theology texts, he concluded that he could accept intellectually the arguments for Christianity. Later, however, with a fellow student he decided that he could not affirm having a divine call to the Christian ministry.On the other hand, naturalist Von Humboldt’s reports of his travels to exotic places stirred in Charles a yearning to follow in his steps. Thus when he received his theology degree in 1831, his future was doubtful. With a young friend he was planning a trip around the world when a letter arrived from the Royal Navy inviting him to be the official naturalist on a voyage around the world on H.M.S. Beagle. He accepted and his destiny was sealed.

Darwin’s Theology and His Theory of Evolution

On the five-year voyage on the Beagle Darwin’s abilities in natural history became apparent. The large collections of specimens of rocks, fossils, plants, fish, marine invertebrates, insects, birds and land animals which he sent back to England made him famous before his return. Shortly after his return to England in December, 1836, Charles moved to London to arrange for the proper use of his specimens and write several books about his observations. He was also reading voraciously, seeking support for his ideas about evolution. Mostly between 1837 and 1840 he filled a number of notebooks with his private brain storming speculations about geology and evolution. Within five months of debarking from the Beagle Darwin had written down his espousal of the theory of evolution of all species. Those early notebooks contained the germinal ideas for most of his research and writing for the next forty years.

His Notebooks also reveal his theological views in those early years from 1837 to 1840. The Creator God of the Bible is discarded, man is degraded to an evolved animal and his mind, thoughts, religion, emotions, language and facial expressions are made into products of evolution. The philosophy of materialism is enthusiastically embraced and human freedom of the will is repudiated. By 1842 Darwin wrote out a lengthy essay in which he gave a detailed summary of his theory of evolution.

Darwin’s Duplicity and Opportunism

During the five years on the Beagle Darwin was a close companion of Captain Robert FitzRoy. FitzRoy was an opinionated conservative Anglican. It is interesting indeed that on the long voyage young Charles maintained a reputation for being a biblical literalist. Yet as we have seen, after only five months or less off the ship Darwin had written down some of his basic ideas on evolution and his repudiation of the God of the Bible. It is incredible that his thinking could have undergone total transformation from biblical literalism in that short time. No, on board ship he must have acted like an orthodox Christian in order to please his opinionated captain. In the period from 1837 to 1840 Charles Darwin’s reputation was rising, promoted especially by Adam Sedgwick who sponsored him in the Royal Society. Yet to Sedgwick evolution was an abomination, so Charles had to keep his chief love absolutely to himself. In one of his notebooks he wrote out a verbal strategy he could use to conceal his belief in evolution. If Sedgwick had guessed what his young protégé was thinking, Darwin’s career would have suffered a severe setback. Yet he yearned to tell his associates about his theory. It was during this time of great inner stress before 1840 that he began to suffer from severe headaches and stomach trouble. Darwin kept his ideas from general circulation for some years until his reputation in the scientific community was established. Nevertheless, he delayed publication of the Origin of Species for 17 years, offering in that book only a few hints on the subject of human evolution. He delayed the publication of his book on The Descent of Man another 12 years until 1871. Always the consummate social and political strategist, he waited for decades for the right intellectual and religious atmosphere and political climate to develop which would assure his victory when his infamous book, The Origin of Species, was published in November, 1859.

When another naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, in 1858 sent Darwin a short essay outlining the essence of Darwin’s own theory, his hand was forced. An arrangement was made for joint credit to be given the two men, but Darwin wrote the definitive book. In the fifteen months of the crash writing project, Darwin’s illnesses all converged on him. He could scarcely write twenty minutes without excruciating stomach pains, and he suffered from violent headaches and vomiting. During the two weeks when the book was being printed and bound for sale, Charles was undergoing treatment in the hydropathic clinic at Ilkley. In a letter to fellow scientist J.S. Dalton he wrote: “I have been very bad lately; having had an awful ‘crisis’ one leg swelled like elephantiasis–eyes almost closed up–covered with a rash & fiery Boils…it was like living in hell.” Could it be that God was trying to tell Darwin something? He would not listen. A lost soul ruled by satanic power, he had to be a man of iron will wholly given over to a consuming vision.

Darwin’s Hidden Agenda for Science

There is no evidence in all of Charles Darwin’s published correspondence and writings that he ever embraced biblical Christianity. As we have seen, virtually all the formative influences on his thinking were contrary to Christian faith. He always concealed his rejection of Christianity, but in his 1876 Autobiography he stated his unbelief in very blunt, even crude words. His closest scientific associates were all men who had given up biblical Christian faith, and some of them were committed enemies of the faith. For example, Sir Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology, was determined to discredit the biblical record of earth history, and Charles’ “bulldog,” anatomist T.H. Huxley, wrote that he was “sharpening [his] claws,” ready to “disembowel” any clergymen who criticized Darwin’s Origin of Species.

It is clear that Charles Darwin’s hidden agenda for science was to drive out of the thinking of all scientists any concept of divine special creation, divine intervention into the world, and divine teleology (purpose, plan or goal) in the natural world. This amounts to redefining science wrongly to make it an automatic weapon against Christian faith. Darwin’s theory has often been criticized by secular scientists, but his agenda for science has long enjoyed universal success in the secular establishment.

The Responsibility of Christians

We Christians must as a part of our faith boldly reassert the Lordship of Jesus Christ over all things, including science. If the Lord Jesus delays His coming, those whom God calls to serve Him in science, education or other fields of scholarship must labor to get science correctly redefined. We must, in the name of truth and correct science, demand a level playing field so that all kinds of believers or unbelievers may work in science. Thus all will have the opportunity to demonstrate by the quality of their work the value for science of their faith or non-faith. The persecution of Christians in the scientific-educational-scholarly establishment because of their faith must be stopped. Christians must be free to glorify their God and Redeemer in all areas of endeavor. Especially this is so wherever tax dollars are involved.

The Teaching of Evolution in the Science Curriculum

Controversy in Science

Controversy has not been uncommon in the history of the scientific enterprise. Generally the controversies among scientists have centered around questions of the interpretation of scientific data and the validity of theories old or new. It is central to the scientific method that all hypotheses must be so constituted as to be subject to rejection on the basis of empirical evidence. Therefore, when a new hypothesis has been put forward it is immediately a potential object of controversy, of a process of “natural selection,” so to speak. The hypothesis, in order to survive and become established as an accepted scientific theory, must survive numerous empirical tests. It may be a candidate to replace another long accepted theory, a theory in which some or many scientists have vested interests of one kind or another. Or other new hypotheses may be in competition with it. Controversy may well result, with more or less heated disagreement between two or more parties. Empirical science provides the means by which such a controversy can be moved toward resolution, and this involves the objective examination of all pertinent data and all logical implications of the data, with willingness to discuss all sides of the controversy in a logical, rational way. Professional scientists are bound to conduct themselves under such circumstances in a manner which reflects respect for those with whom they disagree. In scientific circles it is commonly assumed that all parties are motivated as professional members of the scientific community by a commitment to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Controversial Issues in the Science Classroom: the Creation / Evolution Controversy

Controversy should not be excluded from the science classroom, but should be one of the means used to give students a correct understanding of the processes of science. It is necessary that controversial issues which arise in connection with the science curriculum be handled in the classroom in a way which helps all students, without compromising their personal beliefs, to mature in their understanding of how to relate to and work with others with whom they may have important differences, even strongly conflicting convictions. The procedures in the public schools for handling some controversial issues in the science curriculum have already been established by state legislation and actions by state boards of education. In California, for example, the correct procedure for teaching about reproductive biology and special accommodation for the laboratory dissection of animals are mandated in the California Education Code sections 51550 and 32255.1 [Chapter 65, Statutes of 1988], respectively. There has been, however, no definitive policy adopted for the treatment in the science classroom of theories of origins, i.e., the evolution/creation controversy. Private secular and religious schools have up to now enjoyed complete freedom to teach about theories of origins in any manner they may choose, without state influence or intervention.

All subjects included in the science curriculum must be taught in a manner which is at once scientifically, pedagogically, and legally and constitutionally correct. On each of these aspects much controversy has arisen in recent decades, between factions of the general public, in the ranks of scientists, and among educators. Often more heat than light has been generated, and as a result many teachers are fearful in their treatment of the subject of theories of origins, often compromising science and correct pedagogy, as well as the constitutional rights of students. Therefore, it is important that this Science Framework delineate unambiguously the fundamental principles and guidelines for the correct treatment of the origins issue in the science curriculum materials and classrooms. For this purpose the following is provided:

Erroneous Past Handling of Theories of Origins in the Classroom

In the public controversy, legislation, and legal actions characterizing the past two decades of creation/evolution issue in the tax-funded educational system there have been numerous errors on the part of virtually all parties involved. Principal errors include the following:

1. Many secular scientists and educators who are personally committed to an evolutionary view of nature have insisted that all science education, especially biological science must be taught by indoctrination in evolution as a fact of earth history. They have also insisted that students be taught that belief in divine creation can have no part in their interpretation of the observed data of science or in their classroom discussions of the data and theories of science.

2. Conversely, many parents and other citizens, some active in science or science oriented professions, have insisted that creation, “creation science,” or “scientific creationism” should be included in the science curriculum. Some have even attempted to convert this into a totally secular scientific subject, devoid of any religious content.

3. Most science textbooks and other curriculum materials in the past have offered no critical evaluation of evolutionary concepts, nor informed students of the problems, weaknesses and failures of evolutionary theories.

4. Boards of education, administrators, and teachers have sometimes attempted to muzzle students in the classroom by forbidding them to discuss their reasons for believing in creation and rejecting evolution.

5. There continue to be many reports by students of science teachers’ ridiculing the concept of divine creation and those who believe in it.

The above cited actions are errors for the following reasons:

1. There is no place in science and, therefore, no place in science education for indoctrination, dogmatism or authoritarianism.

2. There is no place in science and, therefore, no place in science education for the protection of concepts and theories from criticism.

3. Science properly defined offers no justification for tying science exclusively to a materialistic philosophy or world view, making it by definition opposed to religious faith which holds to divine special creation. Thus, there is no justification for teaching that the evolutionary view of nature is the only one which is admissible for scientists.

4. Dogmatism, protectionism and exclusivism in the teaching of evolutionary ideas put the State, through its agents, the public school teachers, in the position of attempting to change the religious faith of students who believe in divine special creation. But the State has no compelling interest in changing the religious beliefs of students. By attempting to do so, the State violates the rights guaranteed to all students by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

When the State teaches students who hold to special divine creation as a part of their sincerely held religious faith, in effect, “You were not created, but you evolved from ancient ape-like animals,” the State is really saying to them, “Your religious faith in the God of creation is a falsehood, and you cannot be `scientific’ until you change your faith.” This is a gross violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise guarantee. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to all students equal treatment under the law and, therefore, a quality science education which is devoid of gratuitous insult to their religious faith or to them as religious believers.

It is obvious that the above cited errors must be corrected in the California public schools.

The Teaching of Evolution

The following policies are to be implemented in all curriculum materials and classroom teaching of science:

1. References to concepts, interpretations and theories relating to evolution must be properly qualified to reflect both the support and lack of support for them. Until such time as this is effected in the adoption of new curriculum materials, all dogmatism in current curriculum materials is to be identified and properly qualified by the teacher.

2. Students are to be given, in curriculum materials in the classroom, adequate access to scientific evidence and opinion, from the secular scientific literature and other qualified scientific literature, which reveal the problems, weaknesses and failures of evolutionary concepts as well as their successes and strengths.

3. Students are to be given the correct understanding of the relation of evolution to science, specifically, that although a majority of scientists may espouse an evolutionary view of the universe, life, species and man, their belief is not required by the definition of science for people to be scientists, teachers, or students of science. It is not acceptable to teach that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” other than as the opinion expressed by one scientist, Theodosius Dobzhansky.

4. Students may not be forbidden to question or criticize any scientific theory or interpretation in the classroom. When evolutionary concepts are discussed in the curriculum materials or in the classroom, students should be given appropriate opportunity to introduce alternative, anti-evolutionary interpretations for discussion of the pertinent scientific evidence in the classroom. Differences of opinion, discussion and debate are proper in the teaching of science, because they help develop the critical thinking of students. The discussion of theological doctrines, however, is not appropriate in the science classroom. On the other hand, it is also wrong to advocate or promote a materialistic philosophical world view in the name of science.

5. The principal goal of science instruction is to produce students who know how to examine and evaluate all evidence pertinent to a question, dispassionately and logically, and who have a commitment to practice this process consistently in the search for knowledge and truth. Able to distinguish opinion from scientific fact, these students will understand that the final authority in science is the observable, reproducible scientific data. They will understand the relationship between the hypotheses, theories and laws of science. They will appreciate the place and importance in science of creative imagination or inspiration. And, finally, they will understand the freedom of all practitioners of science to espouse their own personal belief systems and to draw on them for inspiration, motivation and goals in their professional endeavors.

6. A correct, philosophically neutral definition of science is to be taught. This means that students are to understand that science is essentially a method for studying and understanding the working of the natural world and for testing all ideas about the natural world, and that neither the definition of science or the rules of its methodology restrict what a scientist, teacher or student of science may or may not believe. The students are to understand that all have freedom to function in science, provided simply that they with integrity perform in accord with the rules of the method of empirical research.

7. The public schools and teachers cannot be mandated to teach about creation in the science classroom, since creation is basically a theological concept. However, it is not allowable to ignore the fact that the concept of divine special creation is one that has been held historically and at present by many scientists. Nor is it permissible to teach or imply that a person in any way violates the canons of science by believing in creation and even conducting his or her scientific thought and research guided by that belief.

8. It is proper, even necessary, for the teacher to identify the two competing explanations of origins and to outline the fundamental assumptions of each perspective. This prepares students to make their own personal examinations of the controversy. Some of the basic assumptions are as follows:


1) All basic biological designs and systems are the products of purely spontaneous materialistic processes, devoid of any intelligently directed plan, purpose or goal.

2) All species living and extinct are related by common descent from one or a few original simple organisms.

3) Biological variation has been effectively unlimited, in the sense that some original protist could evolve into the human species in three or four billion years.


1) All basic biological designs and systems are, indeed, the products of intelligent, purposeful design and special creation.

2) All species living and extinct have existed in groups or “kinds” which have always been separate from each other, separated by uncrossable genetic boundaries.

3) Biological variation is limited within the boundaries of the originally created kinds.

A science teacher is not “teaching religion in the science class” by outlining for the students the basic assumptions of organic evolution and the creation perspective for biology. This simply identifies the two alternative views in a rational way so that students can then pursue the controversy by further personal study, if they so desire. It also lays a proper groundwork for any classroom discussion of scientific evidence related to that controversy. And, finally, it gives students a correct basis for understanding that both perspectives involve certain faith propositions. This, in turn, helps engender in the students mutual respect for others with whom they may have very fundamental disagreements on matters both scientific and philosophical.

9. Since this Science Framework mandates a science curriculum which is empirical and encompasses a sequence of intermediate objectives and final objectives which stand related in a hierarchy of dependent facts, concepts and theories, it is in accord with the historical and logical process by which scientific knowledge has advanced. In this context, theories of origins are high level concepts which, for their understanding and critical evaluation, require much underlying knowledge of science and a degree of intellectual sophistication. Therefore, the concept of organic evolution should not be presented in textbooks or studied in the classroom until the high school level science courses. To present evolutionary concepts in elementary and junior high school courses without a thorough discussion of their empirical basis, is only to indoctrinate the students with authoritarian ideas. This is not in accord with either the method of empirical science or proper pedagogy, especially in a pluralistic society in which the creation/evolution issue is so controversial.

Creation Essays

2. The World Prepared for Darwin, and the World he Made

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” “God…has in these last days spoken…by his son…by whom also He made the worlds.” Genesis 1:1, Hebrews 1:1, 2 Ancient and Medieval Views of Origins The biblical revelation alone proposes that the infinite-personal Spirit, God the Creator, is the only eternally existent entity. Only the …