Deconstructive Essay - Creationism Should not be Taught in School Science Classes as an Alternative to Evolution.
Creationism Should not be Taught in School Science Classes as an Alternative to Evolution.
My view is that creationism is not a science, it is a belief. Because it is a belief it has no place being taught as a science, and hence does not belong in a science classroom. I will not only show that creationism is wrong, but also that evolution is the only reasonable explanation for the development of life.
There is no physical or scientific evidence that supports the beliefs of creationism, while there is a vast amount of evidence from a wide range of sciences that together point to the evolution over time of life on Earth. The many disciplines of science that have contributed to the formulation of the theory of evolution include geology, botany, chemistry, taxonomy, molecular biology, genetics, palaeontology, nuclear physics and biochemistry to name a few. These have contributed thousands of articles in peer-reviewed journals to painstakingly describe how the forces of natural selection have shaped the character and nature of life over billions of years.
Furthermore, evolution has provided a framework for understanding the complex interrelationships found between living things and no study of biology can be coherent without an understanding of evolution as its overriding principle. The overwhelming majority of specialists in their scientific fields support evolution as a fact. 
This is a preview of the whole essay
It has recently become common for religious groups to call for creationism (or ‘Intelligent Design’ as it is now called) to be recognised as having scientific support, but this is not as convincing as it seems. As the theory most supported by scientists, the onus of proof is on the creationists to show why a hundred years of solid science is now believed to be faulty. They have convincingly failed to do so. 
One of the fundamental flaws of creationism is that is begins with the assumption that a creator is responsible for life on earth, that the earth is around 6000 years old, and that the theory of evolution is wrong. It then tries to find evidence to support these views. Apart from the fact that no evidence to support this combination of assumptions exists, it is not how science is done. Science does not assume an outcome before the evidence suggests it. Beliefs about the world come from the results of experiments and reasoning, i.e. as the end point of inquiry, not the starting point. 
Science is also ‘falsifiable’, meaning we should be able to give examples of what would disprove a theory. This is simple in evolution. For example, if the remains of a fossilised human were to be found in the same rock layer as a fossilised dinosaur, with no obvious distortion of the surrounding rock, then that would count as evidence against evolution, which clearly states the humans did not exist at the time of dinosaurs. Or if any one of the many dating techniques that scientists employ were to consistently give the same age for organisms that were supposed separated by millions of years, then this would count against evolution. Creationism allows for no such procedure. Faced with countless examples of evidence supporting an old earth, or of the gradual evolution of animals as shown in the fossil record, or with molecular studies showing how evolution occurs at a genetic level, they simple refuse to accept the evidence.  Not only this, but creationists assume that if they cast doubt on evolution that they must be right by default. As though if I show that your football team is not the best it automatically makes mine the best….
One of the common arguments against this from creationists is that scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to protect their jobs and their status by denying the ‘obvious’ fact of creationism and deliberately misinterpreting data. This beggars belief. That scientist from across racial, religious, cultural and national boundaries overcome their differences and unite in the sole purpose of mass deception is an example of deranged reasoning. Indeed, they respond to sound and verifiable science by claiming that the work is compromised, inaccurate or otherwise flawed with no robust justification. Their ignorance is invincible.
The argument is also made that evolutionists are atheists , that creationists are upholding the ‘morality’ of their religion in the face of godless scientist. This, while demonstrably untrue (many evolutionists are Christians, just not creationists), is also completely irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of evolution. It simple does not address the evidence. Anyway, are they suggesting that the only reason people behave morally is because they are scared of God? If so, then surely atheists (and I suppose evolutionists) should be rioting in the streets!
Perhaps most disturbingly for a group who are attempting to hijack the process of reason in science, the creationists work from the assumption that God exists to go on and “prove” that God exists. This is like starting out by believing that 2+2=5 to show that 5-2=2 !
It can be seen that the reasoning of creationists does not come close to the rigor and openness demanded of a proper science. Nor does it mirror the scientific process in any way. As such, the notion that it be given equal time in a ‘science’ focused educational environment (or, indeed, any educational environment) is simply ludicrous. It should not be taught period. Creationism is an affront against both science and religion.
 Stating my position.
 Direct argument
 Main reason for why I have this view
 Supporting evidence for my position
 Other resons for my posiiton
 Burden of Proof on my opponents
 Main belief of my opponents
 Main reson they are wrong
 Other reasons why they are wrong
 Demonstrates the problem of a direct attack in this context
 Ridicule of my opponent’s view
 Attributing the non rational argument of ‘invincible ignorance’ to my opponents
 Demonstrating that my opponents argument is not related to the point at issue.
 Rhetorical question
 Black & White fallacy
 Emotive language
 Circular argument.
 Emotive language