Why science should teach creation

Why do those who teach science in our schools object to teaching creation? There should be none. In fact, if the whole truth of evolution was told, teaching creation would be necessary.

The creationist has no problem with the facts of science. It is interpreting the facts that present the problem. Science in itself will support creation.

For example, take anthropology. Wherever man has been found, no matter how primitive, he had a language, he had clothing, he made tools, he had weapons, he used fire, he had music and he had religion. Except for a monkey who used a straw to catch ants, none of these characteristics are found among animals.

In archeology we learn that at the same time primitive man was living a simple life, there were other civilizations of high intelligence. Classroom science teachers should explain to students the missing links between the species - none have been found. The evolutionary process must proceed through mutations, yet many mutations are not successful and the offspring are usually defective and die.

Dr. Richard Dawkins, professor of zoology at Oxfprd University, was asked if he could give one example of a mutation or an evolutionary process that produced one new species, and he could not.

If the information in the DNA does not have feathers, feathers will not be in the offspring. This is also true with scales, skin and fur. DNA data can be lost, but never gained. For evolution to take place, new information must be added to the DNA.

This why evolution will always be only a theory.

Gilbert Ward, Evans