3.2. Alternative to Evolution . 6.
3.3. Violation of Education Philosophy . 7.
4. TRANSITION STATEMENTS 7.
5. SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS 8.
5.1. Educational Problems 8.
5.2. Scientific Problems . 9.
5.3. Legal Problems . 10.
6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11.
6.1. Conclusion 11.
6.2. Recommendations . 12.
7. REFERENCE LIST . 14.
1. INTRODUCTION.
A leading creationist, Henry Morris, was quoted by McCollister (1996) as saying, "No Adam, no Fall; no Fall, no atonement; no atonement, no savior. Accepting evolution, how can we believe in a Fall" Creationism theory suggests that the entire universe and all its varied forms of life were created as they are now by a Divine Being through an act of Divine Will. Nevertheless, when it comes to the origins of life, creationism is not the only theory. Darwin's evolution theory, which is based on scientific evidence, proposes that the universe and all life gradually evolved from less to more complex, and therefore, has been acknowledged and taught in public schools as valid scientific theory. But, should creationism also be included in science curricula This is an important issue because it raises the question of which theory best caters to what science requires and if creationism is as scientific as evolution theory. A variety of arguments have been put forward on this issue, and some people suggest that "creation-science is scientific and therefore should be taught in public schools science courses" (Shermer). However, this essay will argue that creationism should not be taught as science in public classes due to a number of educational, scientific, and legal reasons.
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
2.1. The Origins of Life.
