Creationism is based on real science, more valid theory

I'm writing in response to the recent article featuring Susan Mule searching for a non-creation science textbook for her home-schooled daughter. I'm also home-schooled, and I love studying science. I believe in creation; however, I enjoy learning about evolution too. Knowing both sides of science is important to me because that's the only way to decide what I believe.

The reason you find so many creation science books for home-schoolers is because many home-schoolers believe the Bible. They want to learn a Biblical/creationist's worldview, not only an evolutionist's worldview.

Although evolution is often referred to as proven, it's the theory of evolution - which means that it's not 100 percent correct. It assumes many important things, such as the formation of the world, how geological formations were formed, millions of years for the formation of life, etc.

Darwin has often been proven wrong. One example is Darwin's observation of the Galapagos finches that led to many of his theories about evolution by natural selection has been proven wrong. Many of his later theories depended upon that observation. How many of those theories are also wrong.

If you choose to believe in evolution, you're forced to believe that everything - humans, animals, all the amazing processes in creation, the solar system, etc.- is a result of a random accident caused by a big explosion.

In many ways, creation is a more valid theory. Creation fits much of the evidence better, such as a worldwide (Noah's) flood being responsible for forming and distributing many fossils we find, many geological structures being formed in short periods of time by catastrophes, a young earth, etc.

I would encourage you to read both sides of science (yes, creation is real science). Don't judge without knowing what something is really about - you might be surprised.

Lindsey Stevens

Age 14

Palatine