Should creationism be observed?

To the editor: I am a homeschooled freshman in high school in the Delaware Valley school district, and I am disturbed by the predisposed approach to the origin sciences that I see when I talk to my friends who are uninterested in hearing about my creationistic point of view. It dismays me to see that one theory is taught and another discarded, especially when the theory of evolution has many holes that simply don’t allow it to hold as much water as is suggested by scientists in that field. Take for example the geological column, which is commonly studied in high school textbooks. Darwin suggested that fossils were arranged in layers of strata in a progression from more complex organisms to gradually less complex organisms as you dug deeper. This is not proof for evolution, as most professors of science suggest. Several occurrences in the past, including the Cambrian Explosion, are proof that these creatures are not necessarily imprinted in only certain layers of rock. The geological column is rarely found in the form that Darwin suggested, to be mixed up, with all kinds of rocks on the same level. In other words, it very well could have been formed by a series of catastrophes and cataclysms. Another case in point that is widely acclaimed is the embryonic drawings that Ernst Haeckel created to demonstrate similarities between the embryos of humans and animals. The drawings he presented showed the embryos of a fish, a salamander, a tortoise, a chick, a hog, a calf, a rabbit, and a human. However, his sketches were counterfeit and enormously over-embellished. Haeckel was disproved in 1868, and again in 1997, yet we still read about his drawings in modern science textbooks! Yet another instance of the same problem is the Miller-Urey experiment. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tried to create life in a laboratory by using water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sealed in a number of glass tubes connected in a loop. However, the experiment was a flop. It did not prove anything, except that the substances would have to be separated in the universe to produce the few building blocks of life that were created in the lab. A laboratory is far different from our universe, and far less stable in terms of what can be produced chemically. If, in fact, our universe was created, we could explain so much more. There would be no need to explain the absence of intermediate species, because there would be no need for them. There would be no question as to why the axis of the earth is tilted at a perfect 23 degree angle, which allows equal global distribution to the rays of the sun. We wouldn’t need to know how life can be created at random, because it would not have been created at random. We wouldn’t have to wonder why there are only a few inches of dust on the moon rather than fifty feet, because we would not have billions of years to accumulate it. Moreover, we would not need structural homology, because each individual living thing would have been created with its own unique purpose in the scheme of life, the universe, and everything. Gabrielle Cerberville, age 15 Milford