The reason creation is not discussed in academic circles (schools and universities) is due to the separation of faith and science. The academic world is held in the grip of naturalist who insists that science be defined in terms of that which simply cannot be faith. Yet within this naturalist view are the same, if not stronger tendencies, toward faith like beliefs, assurances about the world and eternal consequences.
Simply put whenever the evolutionist is stuck, say in providing evidence for the needs of thousands of positive evolutionary mutations within one generation of a species, the answer is the same. That answer is usually somewhat faith based to say, “It just happened.” There are fish and there are men, so something occurred for fish to become land dwellers. There is no evidence for this claim, just the theory that all life evolved from a single cell. Darwin was positive that the millions of missing links would be found in the fossil records, now that he pointed science in the direction to look. Yet no such record of proof has manifested. Yet, if the rebuttal theory is interjected that maybe God just made all living things independently and simultaneously, the counter statement is inevitably, “but that’s not science.”
It’s interesting that in statistical odds it is more likely for a tornado to assemble a fully functioning NASA Space Shuttle while passing through a junk yard, than for a random pool of non-living chemicals to produce life. The producing of life is by fact harder; being man can make space shuttles but have yet to produce life from chemical reactions. This is where in faith we would talk about the miracle of life, and science would call it chance assembly. Some may state that we just need more time to recreate the right balance. Even if man were to create life from chemicals it would only prove the difficulty and intelligence needed to do so. This would not yield ultimate proof of the evolutionist theory because it does not occur in a hostile environment (outside a lab). Many scientists who have studied the complexity of the double-helix design of a molecule understand that such a thing is of design and not random. Even in breeding of already living creatures, dogs are still dogs and have their limitations in size and other features. If released into the wild all hybrids within just a few generations revert to their mongrel state.
Some have asserted that if the reason and beginning of life cannot be found within the molecular world then we must have come from space, transplanted by another form of life and deposited here. This only expands and transplants the same questions from this world and impresses them equally upon that supposed new starting point. Although it just complicates the questions of life to suggest we come from an alien world, the evolutionist can assert that at least this is still science.
The problem society faces in the mass acceptance and teaching of the theory of evolution is the destructive mindset it offers. Morality is only so as to support the benefit of a mass of people, but the “survival of the fittest” concept within evolution renders this futile. There is really no moral basis for animals and so people begin to feel less inhibited to kill or fornicate because we are only animals acting as animals do. We have no real responsibility to each other or any accountability toward God so life is futile, for in the end we only return to nature as base elements. This gives rise to the plague of depression that faces the nation at this time because people have not been taught that their life means anything to anyone other than themselves. As such there is no real meaning or purpose to what people do or accomplish. It is only within the context of creation by God that gives purpose, meaning and stimulated accountability to us as we are called to be.
The time of evolution is fading as the evidence piles up standing in stark contrast to the claims it propounds. Darwin himself only proposed the theory in the hope that evidence would surface. These many years later no evidence has surfaced and many very logical questions and points have been raised to start and support the opposite. It begs the question as to how much longer the educational system will support such destructive theories, with the one futile hope of releasing themselves from accountability to God. “The fool says in his heart there is no God.”