Thesis: Through both scientific reasoning and consideration of personal belief, conclusions concerning the issue of creation and evolution can be reached that do not conflict with personal beliefs or scientific theory.

I. Introduction

II. History

1. US
2. Movement into educational setting
3. Legislation

III. Evolution

A. Definition
B. Earth age
C. Fossil record
D. Origin of life
E. Evolution of man

IV. Creation

A. Definition
B. Earth age
C. Fossil record
D. Origin of life
E. Evolution of Man

V. Conclusion

A. Christian perspective
B. Scientific reasoning
C. Integration

Introduction
The issue of origins has been long debated over the past century. Groups exist who believe anything from strictly the Bible creation account to abiogenesis to anything in between. Proving and/or adapting theories on the origin of the Earth and the universe, has been an ongoing process since the beginning of the twentieth century. The debate concerning what children should be taught in school has been ongoing for nearly as long. Christian scientists have both Christian beliefs and knowledge as scientists. Christian scientists have long been working to achieve personal beliefs on the origin of the Earth and life that does not conflict with either perspective. Through both scientific reasoning and consideration of personal belief, conclusions concerning the issues of creation and evolution can be reached that do not conflict with personal beliefs or scientific theory.

History
The controversy over biological evolution began in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his monumental book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection". Throughout most of the nineteenth century religious people rebelled against Darwin's theory. There were, however, some theologians and even some priests who saw no threat in Darwin's work (PBS, 1998, paragraph 2). The more recent history of this debate came to the forefront in the early 1900's with legislations prohibiting the teaching of evolution in schools. According to Phillip E. Johnson, this began as America emerged from World War I. People wanted back the simplicity and normalcy of prewar society. As groups turned to religion for comfort and stability, various states began to impose anti-evolution laws. By 1925, states such as Oklahoma, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky had all passed laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution (1994, 27). Almost immediately, groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union began to oppose laws such as these, saying that this was infringement on personal rights. Movements continued and in 1963 the Creation Research Society was founded. This group's goal was essentially to obtain scientific evidence to back Creationism that could be used to dispute the evidence that other scientists and unions were using to refute the teaching of creation in the science classroom. In 1972, Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Duane Gish established the Institute for Creation Research with the purpose of "meeting the need for an organization devoted to research, publication, and teaching in those fields of science particularly relevant to the study of origins" (Gish, 1993, 17).

Evolution
Over the next forty years, the laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution were invalidated or modified. Some states adopted laws requiring equal teaching time for creation and evolution. In most cases the courts determined the prohibition of teaching evolution unconstitutional on grounds that the First Amendment does not permit a state to require that teaching be tailored to any particular religious sect or doctrine (NCSE Court Cases, 1996, paragraph 1,2). Later, in 1982 and 1987, even the later-established "balanced treatment" laws were found unconstitutional. This was on grounds that "creation science" is not a science, and that by including it in a curriculum, the First Amendment was again being violated. In the early 90's, courts in various states determined that a school may prohibit the teaching of creation, and that this restriction does not violate a teacher's right to free exercise of religion (NCSE Court Cases, 1996, paragraph 4-7). In most recent history, Kansas State Board of Education changed Kansas' educational standards to "effectively eliminate consideration of any aspects of evolution that examine origins of the Earth and life and processes that may give rise to the formation of new species" (Alberts paragraph 3). This was a very controversial issue when passed, and the newly elected Board of Education is planning to change the curriculum back to include evolution, not creation, as the standard in the science classroom. The issue in Kansas somewhat renewed the debate, and the feeling of a need for absolute exclusion of creation from the science classroom.

Evolution has come under a lot of scrutiny, especially in terms of its possible religious implications. Many Christians, and people from other religions, who believe in creation by a divine creator see anything having to do with the word evolution as being contradictory to their beliefs. One problem, which has been a problem in this debate, is the definition of evolution and how it is being used. Scientists and non-scientists need to be very clear about the way they present their views, and one very important part of this is stating clearly their definition of evolution. According to the National Science Teachers Association's (NSTA), in the broadest sense evolution can be defined as the idea that the universe has a history: that change through time has taken place (NSTA, 1996, 53). Evolution can also be split between microevolution -the small changes within a species over time - and macroevolution - the appearance of new species at certain times (Wright, 1989, 123). Macroevolution has been called "the general theory of evolution", asserting that "nonliving substances gave rise to the first living material, which then reproduced and diversified to produce all extinct and existent animals" (Davis & Friar, 1983, 25).

Proponents of evolution, including microevolution, macroevolution, or anything in between, have found certain evidence in favor of their view of the changing Earth. Some of these have been key in the arguments between those in favor of evolution and those believing in creation. One of the biggest factors in the evidence against creation is the age of the Earth. The NSTA states, "Independent scientific methods consistently give the age of the Earth at about five billion years, and an age for the galaxy and universe that is two to three times greater" (1996, 13). According to the strictest evolutionists, "proof" this solid should disprove creation in itself. A few other arguments that seem to point to a very old Earth are analyses of erosion and deposition rates, plate tectonics, and the relationship of the speed of light and how far humans are able to see into space (Johnson, 1994, 172). The fossil record is sometimes related to this issue. Evolutionists see the strata and fossil contents as having been laid out over vast time spans, each layer having evidence as to the creatures that had existed in that time period. In this way, scientists could determine the changes made in a species over time, thus proving the evolution of animals and the great amount of time that would be required on Earth for these changes to have happened.

Possibly the most controversial issue regarding evolution would be the Theory of Evolution maintaining that life originated from non-living organic molecules. According to The Creation Controversy & The Science Classroom,
"Organic molecules were synthesized by natural chemical processes. Basic organic chemistry shows that organic molecules must form in a hydrogen-rich environment, and the universe is about 98% hydrogen. Experiments verify that some organic molecules must form in virtually any non-oxidizing environment. Further, organic molecules are found within some meteorites and are routinely detected in interplanetary space by radio-telescopes"(NSTA, 1996, 44).
Even with the formation of these organic materials something would have to begin the genetic code required for life forms as we know them. According to one book, this question is answered as follows: " Experiments conducted under conditions intended to resemble those present on primitive Earth have resulted in the production of some of the chemical components of proteins, DNA, and RNA. Scientists have concluded that the 'building blocks of life' could have been available early in Earth's history" (NAS, 1999, 42). The book also concludes "For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving non-biological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells" (NAS, 1999, 43).

Along with this idea that all life arose from the same original beginning cells and evolved into many different species according to location and necessity for survival, comes the idea that human beings evolved from "lower" primates. This is another one of the most controversial and problem-causing issues between proponents of the two groups. "This idea was probably first addressed with the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species as Darwin's book suggested that instead of being specially created by God, humans were the product of biological evolution. As he later wrote: 'Man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits'" (PBS, 1998, paragraph 3). Since then, the strictest evolutionists continue this idea, finding evidence to support it in the findings of multiple hominid fossils which some see as proof of the intermediate forms linking man to African apes. These fossils include those of Australopithecines, Pithecanthropines, Neanderthaloids, and Cro-Magnons. The hominid fossils show progression from bipedal apes, with lower brain volume, to structure much closer to that of the modern-day Homo Sapien (Davis & Friar, 1983, 175).

Creation
There are of course other issues involved in the argument for and against evolution; however, these have become some of the more prominent ones. Creationists have taken it upon themselves to disprove these evolutionary "proofs", and in some cases use the same scientific data to prove creation. Once again, it is necessary to establish the possibility of differences of definition. As defined by the National Teachers Enhancement Network (NTEN), in its broadest meaning creationism is the idea that a supernatural power or powers created [Earth and the universe]. In a narrower sense, "creationism" has come to mean "special creation": the doctrine that the universe and all that is in it was created by God in essentially its present form, at one time (3)

Creationists have varied views on the age of the Earth. Francis Harrold and Raymond Eve write that the strictest creationists (Young Earth) believe that the Earth is only six to ten thousand years old, and that there are several groups of Old Earth creationists who would support the idea that the Earth is several billion years old (1991, 46). Creationists see the fossil record as proof of species being created as they are and of different organisms having existed at the same time. Creationists see the existence of the strata formations and fossil depositions of today as proof that there was, at one time, a giant flood (Davis & Friar, 1983, 21). Since all the fossils were formed at the same time, they existed together on the Earth. Another approach to this issue is that the evolutionists use of this as proof is invalid. Some creationists would say that the fossil record is invalid because only long-lived, dominant species would show (Davis & Friar, 1983, 23). Others maintain that the fossil record proves creation by the lack of transitional animals that would support the changes proposed by evolutionists (Gish, 1993, 114).

This view of the fossil record also goes to prove the origin of life, and that all species began at the same time. A flood would give a relatively accurate measure of the majority of life forms at that time. Finding fossils of unicellular bacteria and dinosaurs and humans in the strata from one giant flood would suggest their coexistence, thereby disproving that all the lower forms evolved to the more-complex animals of today over billions of years. All plants and animals arrived fully formed on the planet, and the fossil record could not be accurate proof for evolution as there are too many large, systematic gaps between major categories (Harrold & Eve, 1991, 127). As to the origin of man, creationists believe that Adam was created directly by God, in His image, and he cannot have evolved from lower mammals (NSTA, 1996, 15). Many view the hominid fossils as being too similar to modern man to account for the link between apes and Homo sapiens of today.

Another point addressed by many creationists is that they have no problem with science. They believe that their fight is not with science, but with evolutionary philosophy and faith. Since there were no witnesses to the creation of the Earth or life, there is no definite way to prove or disprove either. This would imply that the study of origins is outside of empirical science. Some would even argue that evolution is as religious as creation, that working to prove either side will make a person see evidence with a certain predisposition (Gish, 1993, 32).

As with the information already presented on evolution, there are many more issues dealt with by creation scientists today that are not mentioned here. This was merely an attempt to give a brief summary of the main parts of the issue in consideration. One of the biggest problems that makes it so hard to make any noticeable headway in this debate is that people tend to argue things that they don't really understand. One of the main frustrations for scientists is when non-scientists attempt to use scientifically managed data to argue when they may or may not understand the actual significance of the data (Harrold & Eve, 1991, 16). A theory, in contrast with the idea that it is just a guess or a hunch, is actually a scientific explanation that is backed with substantial evidence and has been tested. Yet, it is not proven absolutely (Wright, 1989, 104). In the educational setting it seems that this has caused a few problems for proponents of including creation in science classrooms. Those who understand that the theory of evolution is just a guess do not think it has any place in proven, scientific teaching. Those who understand that the theory is something proven become very upset that it is taught as such since the theory of evolution (in terms of the origin of life) has not been proven as absolute truth.

Conclusion
In addition to these somewhat extremist views on evolution and creation, there are also a wide variety of groups that tend to belong somewhere in the middle. This range of different groups and their beliefs has been called the creation continuum (Johnson, 1994, 79). These groups have adopted different ways to integrate various parts of the evidence for evolutionary points and their beliefs in creation. This continuum has been presented to science students who feel that the information they learn on evolution is in direct conflict with their religious beliefs in a creator (NCSE Continuum, 1996, paragraph 4). According to the National Center for Science Education, groups within this continuum that incorporate religious beliefs and some evolutionary concepts include the following:

· Progressive creationists have no problem with the theory that the Earth is billions of years old. Members of this group may cite the Big Bang as evidence of the creative power of God. God creates kinds of animals sequentially, and no descent with modification occurs. God is seen as acting through natural law, but also as an active creator.
· Intelligent design creationists believe that the finding of order, purpose, and design in the world is proof of an omniscient creator. This group allows for microevolution but believes that some biological phenomena are to complex to be explained through natural processes, thus demanding the role of an intelligent designer.
· Evolutionary creationists believe that the Creator uses evolution to bring about the universe according to his plan (this view tends to be held by more conservative evangelical Christians).
· Theistic Evolutionists believe that God creates through evolution. Some members allow a very limited intervention by God, and others see God as intervening at critical intervals throughout the history of life. (In 1996, Pope John Paul II reiterated the Catholic position that God created, evolution happened, humans may have indeed descended from more primitive forms, but the hand God was needed to create the human soul)(NCSE Continuum, 1996, paragraph 4-10).

As a Christian, Biblical beliefs cannot be simply thrown aside; however as a scientist, scientific theories and data cannot be ignored simply because they may be inconvenient. According to some writers in the National Science Teachers Association, "Both scientific education and religious education are important in society"(1996, 2). As can be seen by close examination of the arguments from evolution and creation, as well as the above examples, there is no reason that beliefs as a Christian and knowledge as a scientist must be mutually exclusive. "Religious people have no reason to fear the results of scientific research, because these results cannot contradict authentic religious experience" (NSTA, 1996, 16). Saying that the two are not mutually exclusive does not mean that a person must believe at least some parts of both evolution and creation. "The point here is not that one must see God in the process of evolution, but rather that there is nothing inherently incompatible between an evolutionary view of life and commitment to the Christian scriptures" (PBS, 1998, paragraph 4). Christian scientists can reach personal conclusions regarding creation and evolution that do not conflict with religious beliefs or scientific reasoning.

Works Cited

Alberts, Bruce. (No date). Kansas Board of Education [Online]. Available: http://www4.nas.edu/opus/evolve.nsf [2000, Oct 29].

Davis, P. & Friar, W. (1983). A Case for Creation. Chicago: Moody Press.

Gish, Duane T. (1993). Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics. El Cajon, CA : Institute for Creation Research.

Harrold, F., & Eve, R.(1991). The Creationist Movement in Modern America . Boston : Twayne Publishers.

Johnson, Phillip E. (1994). Creation Hypothesis. Downers Grove, IL : Intervarsity Press.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (1999). Science and Creationism: A View From the National Academy of Sciences . Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Center for Science Education (NCSE). (1996). Creation Continuum [Online]. Available: http://www.natcenscied.org/continuum.html [2000, Oct 29].

National Center for Science Education (NCSE). (1996). Seven Significant Court Cases [Online]. Available: http://www.natcenscied.org/courtdec.html [2000, Oct 29].

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (1996). The Creation Controversy & the Science Classroom. Arlington, VA : NSTA Press.

National Teachers Enhancement Network (NTEN). (No date). The Teaching of Evolution [Online]. Available: http://www.nsta.org/handbook/evolve.asp [2000, Nov 3].

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS). (1998). Faith and Reason-Evolution [Online]. Available: http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/stdweb/info.html [2000, Oct 29].

Wright, Richard T. (1989). Biology Through the Eyes of Faith. San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers.