Much of the argument surrounding whether or not creationism should be taught in schools along side evolution is based on the false assumption “Evolution is a science and therefore fact” vs. “Creationism is a religious myth and therefore should be left in Church”

This is of course false as neither evolution – that is the commonly taught version Macro Evolution – or creation is “science” for neither has been observed or could be repeated for observation.

As I pointed out today micro-evolution is a fact and is observable in nature. Macro-evolution has never been observed, either in the past or now. Therefore it cannot be science in the pure definition of the word for science is the observation of facts after experimentation. Again, micro is the evolution within a species over time, whereas macro is the change of one species into another via adaptation. Of the latter there has never been one example of a transitional change of a species into another in the history the question. Not one. As I’m fond of saying “The missing links are still missing.”

Much of the move to have Creationism, or as some refer to it incorrectly “intelligent design” in schools has failed because of incorrect defining of the terms involved. Simply put if creationism cannot be taught in schools because it is not considered a “science”, than neither should macro-evolution, for it is not a science either.

Of the many people I have debated off and on over the last 20 years I’ve found that there is no disagreement between the creationist and those who teach micro-evolution. The argument is solely along the lines of macro evolution vs. creationism.

There is underway a current move to challenge the teaching of macro-evolution in schools simply by presenting the facts as they are and by the way accepted by scientists world-wide. So far the challenge will take place in several States beginning next year. According to the suits I have reviewed they are very strong arguments and you can bet they will bring out the worst of the opponents.

Much of the testimony will be presented by over fifty much respected members of the science community, whose credentials will no doubt be called into question by opponents but cannot be disputed on record.

I look forward to working with them in this endeavor.