(Note:  1. read Chapter 2 for information on the Second Law of Thermodynamics )
            2. read Chapter 6 for The Legal Aspects of Teaching Creation Science

Chapter 1:  THE NATURE OF SCIENCE & OF THEORIES ON ORIGINS

A.  The Nature of Science:
   Science is our attempt to observe, understand and explain the operation of the universe and of the living things found here on planet Earth.  Since a scientific theory, by definition, must be testable by repeatable observations and must be capable of being falsified if indeed it were false, a scientific theory can only attempt to explain processes and events that are presently occurring repeatedly within our observations.
    Theories about history, although interesting and often fruitful, are not scientific theories, even though they may be related to other theories which do fulfill the criteria of a scientific theory.
    While operating within the domain of empirical science, creation scientists in exactly the same way evolution scientists, assuming that what they see happening today happened in the past and will happen in the same way in the future.
    Science is empirical, and thus this is the only way a scientist can operate.

(Note:  Empiric, Empirical, and Empiricism are defined by The New Lexicon WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY Of The English Language Encyclopedic Edition; 1989 edition, as following:

Empiric:   n.  Someone who believes that in science and philosophy there is no truth other than that obtained by sense observation and experiment.  Someone who acquires knowledge or practices a science by methods of trial and error without constructing an ordered or scientific system.

Empirical:  adj.  Making use of, or based on, experience, trial and error, or experiment, rather than theory or systematized knowledge.  Derived from the senses and not by logical deduction.

Empiricism:  n.  The scientific method of proceeding by induction reasoning from observation to the formulation of a general principle, which is then checked by experiment.  The philosophical system, esp. that of the British philosophers Locke, Berkeley and Hume, which confines knowledge to what can be perceived by the senses and rejects what cannot be verified.

B.  The Nature of Theories on Origins:
   ... the theory of creation and the theory of evolution are attempts to explain the origin of the universe and of its inhabitants.  There were no human observers to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or as a matter of fact, to the origin of a single living species.  These events were unique historical events which have occurred only once.  Thus, no one has ever seen anything created, nor has anyone ever seen a fish evolve into an amphibian nor an ape evolve into man.  Furthermore, it is impossible to go into the laboratory and test any theory on how a fish may have changed into an amphibian or how an ape-like creature may have evolved into man.  The changes we see occurring today are mere fluctuations in populations which result neither in an increase in complexity nor significant change.  Therefore, neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory.  Creation and evolution are inferences based on circumstantial evidence.
    Thus the notion ... that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false.  This is being recognized more and more today, even by evolutionists themselves.  Karl Popper, one of the world's leading philosophers of science, has stated that evolution is not a scientific theory but is a meta-physical research program(Karl Popper, in The Philosophy of Karl Popper, ed. P. A. Schilpp, Vol. 1 (La Salle, IL: Open Court), pp 133-143.)
    Birch and Ehrlich state that:  "Our theory of evolution has become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observation.  Every conceivable observation can befitted into it.  It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false.  No one can think of ways in which to test it.  Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity.  They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."  (L. C. Birch and P. R. Ehrlich, Nature 214 (1967); 369
    Green and Goldberger, with references to theories on the origin of life, have said that:  "... the macromolecule-to-cell transition, is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis.  In this area all is conjecture. (D.E. Green and R.F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights into the Living Process (New Your; Academic Press, 1967), p. 407)
    It seems obvious that a theory that is outside of empirical science because no one can think of ways to test it, or a theory that lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis, cannot qualify as a scientific theory.  ...
    Futuyma ... states ... "Two major kinds of arguments about evolutionary theory occur within scientific circles.  There are philosophical arguments about whether or not evolutionary theory qualifies as a scientific theory, and substantive arguments about the details of the theory and their adequacy to explain observed phenomena ... A secondary issue then arises:  Is the hypothesis of natural selection falsifiable or is it a tautology? [The 1989 edition of The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary defines tautology as 'the useless repetition of an identical meaning in different terms'] ... the claim that natural selection is a tautology is periodically made in the scientific literature itself ..." (D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial; New Your: Pantheon Books, 1983, p. 171)
    It is evident that the major challenge to the status of evolution as a scientific theory comes from within the evolutionary establishment itself, not from creation scientists.
    Creation and evolution are thus theoretical inferences about history.  Even though neither qualifies, strictly speaking, as a scientific theory, each possesses scientific character, since each attempts to correlate and explain scientific data.
    Creation and evolution are best characterized as explanatory scientific models which are employed to correlate and explain data related to origins.  The terms "creation theory," "evolution theory," "creation science" and "evolution science" are appropriate as long as it is clear that the use of such terms denote certain inferences about the history of origins which employ scientific data rather than referring to testable and potentially falsifiable scientific theories.
    Since neither is a scientific theory and each seeks to explain the same scientific data related to origins, it is not only incorrect but arrogant and self-serving to declare that evolution is science while creation is mere religion.  Creation is in every sense as scientific as evolution.

C.  The Relationship of Theories on Origins To Philosophy and Religion(page 4-6)"
    No theory on origins can be devoid of philosophical and religious implications.
    Creation implies the existence of a Creator (a person or persons, a force, an intelligence, or whatever one may wish to impute).  The creation scientist assumes that the natural universe is the product of the design, purpose and direct volitional acts of a Creator.  Science can tell us nothing about who the Creator is, why the universe was created, or anything about the relationship of the things created to the Creator.
    ... evolution is a non-theistic theory of origins which by definition excludes the intervention of an outside agency of any kind.  Evolutionists believe that by employing natural laws and processes plus nothing it is possible to explain the origin of the universe and of all that it contains.  This involves the acceptance of a particular philosophical or metaphysical world view and is thus basically religious in nature.
    The fact that creation and evolution involve fundamentally different world views has been frankly admitted by some evolutionists.  For example, Lewontin has said:  "Yet, whatever our understanding of the social struggle that gives rise to creationism, whatever the desire to reconcile science and religion may be, there is no escape from the fundamental contradiction between evolution and creationism.  They are irreconcilable world views." (R. Lewontin, in the Introduction to Scientists Confront Creationism; ed. L. R. Godfrey; New Your: W.W. Norton and Co., 1983; p. xxvi)
    Thus, Lewontin characterizes creation and evolution as irreconcilable world views, and as such each involves commitment to irreconcilable philosophical and religious positions.  This does not imply that all evolutionists are atheists or agnostics, nor does it imply that all creationists are Bible-believing fundamentalists.
    While it is true that teaching creation science exclusively would encourage belief in a theistic world-view, it is equally true that teaching evolution science exclusively (as is essentially the case in the U.S. today) encourages belief in a non-theistic, and in fact, an essentially atheistic, world view.  Indoctrinating our young people in evolutionism tends to convince them that they are hardly more than a mechanistic product of a mindless universe, that there is no God, that there is no one to whom they are responsible.
    Thus, Julian Huxley asserted that:  "Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion ... we can dismiss entirely all ideas of a supernatural overriding mind being responsible for the evolutionary process." (J. Huxley, in Issues in Evolution, ed. S. Tax; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960)
    In his review of George Gaylord Simpson's book Life of the Past, (G.G. simpson, Life of the Past; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1953; p. 157) Huxley says:  "And he concludes the book with a splendid assertion of the evolutionists' view of man.  Man, he writes, 'stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material process ... He can and must decide and manage his own destiny.'" (J. Huxley, Scientific American, 189; 1953: 90.)
    In his eulogy to Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the world's leading evolutionists until his death, Ayala wrote that: "... Dobzhansky believed and propounded that the implications of biological evolution reach much beyond biology into philosophy, sociology, and even socio-political issues.  The place of biological evolution in human thought was, according to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage he often quoted from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: '(Evolution) is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true.  Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow - this is what evolution is.'" (F.J. ayala, J. Heredity 63; 1977:3)
    The above statement is as heavily saturated with religion as any assertion could be, and yet it is quoted approvingly by Ayala and Dobzhansky, two of the main architects of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.
    It is no wonder that Marjorie Grene, a leading philosopher and historian of science, has stated that: "It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds men's minds.  The derivation of life, of man, of man's deepest hopes and highest achievements, from the external and indirect determination of small chance errors, appears as the very keystone of the naturalistic universe ... Today the tables are turned.  The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." ((M. Grene, Encounter; Nov. 1959; pp. 48-50)
    Birch and Ehrlich have used the term "evolutionary dogma", Grene has referred to Darwinism as a "religion of science", an "orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor", and Dobzhansky and Teilhard de Chardin proclaim that all theories, hypotheses, and systems must bow before evolution in order to be thinkable and true.  One could easily search the evolutionary literature to find many other examples that reveal the religious nature of the evolutionary world view.
    It can thus be stated unequivocally that evolution is as religious as creation, and conversely, that creation is as scientific as evolution.

D.  Creation and Evolution are the Only Valid Alternative Theories of Origins:
    Evolutionists often assert that creationists have constructed a false dichotomy between creation and evolution, that there are actually many theories of origins.  while it is true that there are several sub-models within the general creation model, just as there are several sub-models within the general evolution model, all theories of origins can be fitted within these two general theories.  Thus, Futuyma, an evolutionist as we have noted earlier, states:  "Creation and Evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things.  Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not.  If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification.  If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."
(D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial,  p. 197)
    No professionally trained teacher should thus hesitate to teach the scientific evidence that supports creation as an alternative to evolution.  This is recognized by Alexander, who stated that: "No teacher should be dismayed at efforts to present creation as an alternative to evolution in biology courses; indeed at this moment creation is the only alternative to evolution.  Not only is this worth mentioning, but a comparison of the two alternatives can be an excellent exercise in logic and reason.  Our primary goal as educators should be to teach students to think ... Creation and evolution in some respects imply backgrounds about as different as one can imagine.  In the sense that creation is an alternative to evolution for any specific question, a case against creation is a case for evolution, and vice versa." (R.D. Alexander, in Evolution versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy; Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1983; p91)
    In a sense, both creation and evolution are based on axioms, assertions that are assumed to be true and which have predictable consequences.  In his conclusion to a paper in which he gives an axiomatic interpretation of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, C. Leon Harris states:  "First, the axiomatic nature of the neo-Darwiniam theory places the debate between evolutionists and creationists in a new perspective.  Evolutionists have often challenged creationists to provide experimental proof that species have been fashioned de novo.  Creationists have often demanded that evolutionists show how chance mutations can lead to adaptability, or to explain why natural selection has favored some species but not others with special adaptations, or why natural selection allows apparently detrimental organs to persist.  We may now recognize that neither challenge is fair.  If the neo-Darwinian theory is axiomatic, it is not valid for creationists to demand proof of the axioms, and it is not valid for evolutionists to dismiss special creation as unproved so long as it is stated as an axiom." (C.L. Harris, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine; Winter 1975; p.179)

E.  Teaching Both Theories of Origins is an Educational Imperative.
    Thus, since creation is as scientific as evolution, and evolution is as religious as creation; since creation and evolution between them exhaust the possible explanations for origins; a comparison of the two alternatives can be excellent exercises in logic and reason; no theory in science should be allowed to freeze into dogma, immune from the challenge of alternative theories; academic and religious freedoms are guaranteed by the United States Constitution; public schools are supported by the taxes derived from all citizens; therefore, in the public schools in the United States, the scientific evidences which support creation should be taught along with the scientific evidences which support evolution in a philosophically neutral manner devoid of references to any religious literature.
 

Chapter 2  CREATION/EVOLUTION - THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

p11    ... if creation is true, matter would not be expected to have a tendency to organize itself into higher and higher levels of organizatiion.  If, however, something has happened since creation to change the original created state, this change could only be in a downward directiion.  Thus, based on the creation model, matter might be expected to have a natural tendency to go from order to disorder, from complex to simple.

p12    ... What have scientists actually discovered out there in the real world?  What is the universal tendency of matter:
    First we note that so scientist has ever detected a tendency of matter toward self-organization.  Matter does not tend to promote itself from disorder to order, or from simple to complex.  No such law is known in science.
    On the other hand, there is a natural tendency of matter to go in exactly the opposite direction.  This tendency is so universal, so all-pervasive, so unfailing, it is called a law of science - the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    "There is a general tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformation - the law of increasing entropy." (R.B. Lindsay, American Scientist, 56; 1968: 100.)

    "All real processes go with an increase of entropy.  The entropy also measures the randomness, or lack of orderliness of the system:  the greater the randomness, the greater the entropy." (H. Blum, American Scientist, 43; 1955: 595)

    "Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'  ... we can see the second law all about us.  ... everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about." (I. Asimov, Smithsonian Institution Journal; June 1970; p.6.)

p13    If, as these scientists state, that is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about, then indeed there is an obvious and fatal contradiction between the theory of evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
    The natural laws and natural processes that now govern the universe are leading inexorably to its death and destruction, and if, as evolutionists believe, these natural laws and processes are all there is and all there ever has been, how then could these same natural laws and processes have created the universe in the first place?  Is it possible for the same processes that are destroying the universe to have been responsible for its origin?  What sort of tortured logic must one use to reach such an impossible conclusion?
    Certainly there is no doubt that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to an isolated system (an isolated system is a system on which no work is being performed by anything on the outside and a system into which nothing is being brought in from the outside).
    Everything that takes place within an isolated system occurs by a process of self-transformation.  According to the Second Law, such a system will inevitably become more random, less orderly, less complex - it will never, absolutely never, become more ordered, more complex, more highly structured.    Yet evolutionists believe that the universe is an isolated system which transformed itself from primordial chaos and simplicity into its present state of vast complexity, structure, and organization, clearly in contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
    What an incredible faith!  Creation scientists reject this pseudoscientific faith and accept the empirically established fact that the universe cannot be an isolated system that created itself - there must be a Creator external to and independent of the natural universe that was responsible for its origin.

    ... The usual answer of evolutionists to the creationists arguments against evolution based on the Second Law is that the Second Law applies only to an isolated system but not to an open system receiving energy from the outside.  Thus, they say, the earth is an open system, receiving an enormous amount of energy from the sun, far more than would be required to fuel the evolutionary process here on the earth.  This is an exceedingly naive and totally inadequate answer.
    First, in the evolutionary view, the universe is an isolated system, so there is no doubt that the Second Law applies to the origin of the universe.  Therefore, the universe could not have created itself naturally.

    Secondly, suggesting that order and complexity can be generated in one portion of the universe at the expense of another portion of the universe is circular reasoning, for it leave unanswered where did the other portion of the universe get its order and complexity which is being utilized to generate order and complexity in the first portion?

p14    Thirdly, the simple expenditure of energy without a proper energy conversion system and an adequate control system will not generate and maintain a complex and dynamically functional system.  Raw, uncontrolled energy is destructive, not constructive.
    Thus, Beck and Sinpson (both evolutionists) ... admitted that:  "... the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order.  A bull in a China shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization.  The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed." (G. G. Simpson and W. Beck, Life_An Introduction to Biology; New Your: Harcourt, Brace & World; 1965; p.466)

...    The energy from the sun can be utilized by living things here on the earth only because of the existence of green plants.  Furthermore, green plants have the capability of converting radiant energy from the sun into chemical energy only because they possess photosynthesis.  Photosynthesis, however is an incredibly complex energy conversion system.
    Not only is this so, but photosynthesis must be coupled with the complex, marvelously integrated metabolic machinery of the plant, and the whole must be regulated and continuously controlled.  This control ultimately resides, we believe, in the genetic system of the plant, a system so complex that little about its structure and function is understood by scientists.

p15    ... For order, complexity, structure and organizatiion to be formed within a system, four conditions must first be met:
    1. The system must be open to the outside.
    2. An adequate outside energy source must be available.
    3. Energy conversion systems must be available.
    4. The system must be under proper control.

    In any naturalistic evolutionary origin of the universe, none of these conditions are met, and on the hypothetical primordial earth only the first two conditions could be met - there were no energy conversion systems or control systems.
    All evolutionary scenarios for the origin of life thus employ the simple expenditure of energy, nothing more than a bull in a china shop approach.
    To imagine that under these conditions the complex machinery necessary for life would spontaneously creat itself is contrary to all common experience available from the science of thermodynamics.  In fact, if complex molecules, such as protein or DNA, were present under such circumstances, they would be rapidly destroyed by ultraviolet light and other energy sources (even simple gases such as methane and ammonia are rapidly broken down to more simple substances by ultraviolet light).
    Creation scientists thus reject the scientifically untenable notion that the universe created itself following some primordial "big bang", or that life arose spontaneously on this planet.
    Creationists are true scientists, accepting the inevitable conclusions from the empirical facts of science.
Evolutionists, on the other hand, ... insist on attempting to force the data to fit the theory, and failing, they simply ignore the logical consequences.

Chapter 6:  The Legal Aspects of Teaching Creation Science
p59    ... In view of the decision of the United States Supreme Court, ( Supreme Court of the United States.  No. 85-1513.  Edwin W. Edwards, etc., et al.  Appellant v. Aguillard, et al.; June 19, 1987)  ... that the Louisiana "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction" Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, can creation-science be taught in the public schools in the United States?  The answer to that question is an emphatic "Yes".
    The decision of the Court was not directed against teaching creatin-science per se, but against the particular wording of the Act, its perceived "religious" motive, and the motives of the legislators involved in its enactment.  ...
    The majority opinion of the court stated that: "The Act does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentations of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life"
    Teachers are "free to teach any and all facets of this subject" of "all scientific theories about the origin of humankind".
    "Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science education."

    That this decision of the Supreme Court concerning the Louisiana law did not prohibit the teaching of creation-science in public schools has been explicitly stated by leading evolutionists following the Supreme Court decision.  We cite just four examples.
p60    Harvard professor and leading spokesman for evolution theory Stephen Jay Gould states:  "Creationists claim that their law broadened the freedom of teachers by permitting the introduction of controversial material.  But no statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science.'  It could be taught before, and it can be taught now."  (Stephen Jay Gould, "The Verdict on Creationism," New York Times Magazine; July 19, 1987, p34)
    Evolutionary biologist Michael Zimmerman says,  "The Supreme Court ruling did not, in any way, outlaw the teaching of 'creation science' in public school classrooms.  Quite simply it ruled that, in the form taken by the Louisiana law, it is unconstitutional to demand equal time for this particular subject.  'creation science can still be brought into science classrooms if and when teachers and administrators feel that it is appropriate.  Numerous surveys have shown that teachers and administrators favor just this route.  And, if fact, 'creation science' is currently being taught in science courses throughout the country."  (Michael Zimmerman, "Keep Guard Up After Evolution Victory," BioScience 37; 9 October 1987; 636)
    Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education, the sole goal of this organization being the total suppression of teaching creation-science, stated,  "The Supreme Court decision says only that the Louisiana law violates the constitutional separation of church and state:  it does not say that no one can teach scientific creationism - and unfortunately many individual teachers do.  Some school districts even require 'equal time' for creation and evolution."  (Eugenie Scott; Nature 329; 1987: 282
 
p61    Thus, evolutionists themselves have clearly stated that no provision of the U.S. Constitution nor any law in any state prohibits the teaching of creation-science in public schools.
    William Provine, a self-professing atheist and professor at Cornell University in the section of Ecology and Systematics and Department of History, states,  "Teachers and school boards in public schools are already free under the Constitution of the USA to teach about supernatural origins if they wish in their science classes.  Laws can be passed in most countries of the world requiring discussion of supernatural origins in science classes, and still satisfy national legal requirements.
    And I have a suggestion for evolutionists.  Include discussion of supernatural origins in your classes, and promote discussion of them in public and other schools.  Come off your high horse about having only evolution taught in science classes.  The exclusionism you promote is painfully self-serving and smacks of elitism.  Why are you afraid of confronting the supernatural creationism believed by the majority of persons in the USA and perhaps worldwide?
    Shouldn't students be encouraged to express their beliefs about origins in a class discussing origins by evolution?"  (William B. Provine, Biology and Philosophy 8; 1993; 124.)

    There are thus no legal, pedagogical, or scientific reasons for excluding the teaching of creation-science in public schools.  Having generated fragil towers of hypotheses piled on hypotheses where fact and fiction intermingle in inextricable confusion, evolutionists apparently are fearful of allowing students to be exposed to the scientific evidence supporting creation.
    Evolutionists consider themselves to be the intellectual elite, sole possessors of truth, whose misguided duty is to indoctrinate students in evolutionary theory while protecting them from error.

Chapter 7:  Summary
p63    There is a vast body of well-established scientific evidence that supports creation while exposing fallacies and weaknesses in evolution theory.
    Thus creation of the universe and of its living inhabitants by the direct volitional acts of a Creator independent of and external to the natural universe is not only a credible explanation for our origin but is an explanation that is far superior to the notion that the universe created itself naturally and that life arose spontaneously on this planet.
    It is unconscionable in the tax-supported public schools of our plurlistic democratic society to indoctrinate our young people in evolutionary theory while denying them the opportunity to even consider the scientific evidence for creation that thousands of scientists have found to be compelling.
    This results in a denial of academic and religious freedoms, indoctrination in a materialistic, mechanistic philosophy that encourages belief in atheism and agnosticism, and is poor science and poor education.
    The stifling stranglehold that Darwinism has exerted over our educational system must be loosened, and both the creation model and the evolution model of origins must be taught in a philosophically and religiously neutral manner.