Escamilla1

Kimberly Escamilla Mr. Hackney English 101: Rhetoric 27 November 2013 Controversial Creationists In recent discussions regarding the essay, Why Im a Creationist, written by Virginia Heffernan, a controversial issue has been the question of why it is so contentious to believe in creationism rather than scientific theories. On one hand Carl W. Giberson argues that controversy trails closely behind the belief of creationism because the underlying issue becomes one regarding the importance of human life. From this perspective, individuals are made to choose between two polar beliefs being that either a higher being has purposely created them and their surroundings or that both they and the universe were created without tangible purpose by chance, leaving persons with no in between choice to select from. However, another side to this issue is that the belief in creationism has evolved into a controversial one because so many facts are coming forth to discredit it. Douglas O. Linder contends that although creationism may be what most people want to believe, facts are facts, meaning that opposing evidence will continue to appear discrediting creationism thus proving scientific theories about the universe and its inhabitants correct. My own view is that creationism is controversial because of its linkage to the idea of creationism meaning we are purposeful versus scientific theories about life meaning we are accidents. Since people are confused themselves about what belief they want to have faith in, of course there will be controversy amongst a larger group about what everyone else should believe. Though I concede that the findings of facts which have discredited creationism may be

Escamilla2

the cause for some controversy surrounding creationism, I still maintain that the main cause of dispute lies in the fact that individuals themselves cant make up their own mind as to what to believe. While some may say that controversy surrounds creationism because it is simply an illogical way to view life, I say that most of those individuals are still internally debating whether or not they must accept the theory that labels them as aimless coincidences. Creationism is

the belief that life, earth and the universe were produced by a supernatural being. It serves as a comfort to those who need to believe that there is a purpose for them and that morality is related to something other than our biological drive to keep the human race alive and reproducing. Creationism has been a popular belief for centuries, while scientific theories regarding the origin of the earth and its inhabitants are more recent yet growing increasingly popular. The reason for the growing popularity of theories such as the big bang theory, is that they emphasizes proof and validation, acting as a more logical yet disappointing belief route for those searching for an explanation as to why and how they are here. The difference between these two beliefs is remarkably evident as one is basically saying you are meant to be here, while another offers You are an accident. In other words the fact that the two philosophies are so different offers those searching for something to believe in with options that are very black and white with few shades of gray in between accounting for inevitable spectacle. However there is also the issue of whether or not certain scientific theories actually disprove creationism or simply offer further explanation detailing the process in which the universe was created. Some believe that

believing in scientific theories about the creation of the universe requires just as much fate as does creationism, as expressed in Trevin Waxs article, Science, Too, Calls for a Leap of Faith, he states that science neither proves nor disproves the existence of a creator. Evidence leads us only to a point, and then we draw conclusions. In other words Wax believes that we can only

Escamilla3

acquire so much evidence regarding the creation of the universe before we have to make our own conclusions, either of, whichever creationistic view or not require a certain degree of faith since neither has been proven thoroughly a hundred percent true. Another point brought up is that even those who choose to live by a naturalistic point of view live as if creationism is true, abiding by morals and values that have been put in place by religious stories, seeing humans as purposeful not accidents of nature. For instance Trevin Wax states we are living against the survival of the fittest principle of natural selection. A purely naturalistic explanation of the worlds origins does not explain the way we live. Religious stories do, exercising the idea that although some may dismiss the creationist theory all together, there has got to be some part of them, as perhaps in most human beings that holds hope that the creationist theory is true, which could be the cause of the accumulating disputes regarding the creationist theory. Although there are reasons

to believe that controversy circulates the idea of creationism simply because it is outrageous to believe in something with not much factual evidence backing it up, I believe that the controversy instead surrounds the idea because as human beings our narcissistic attitudes drive us to desperately want to believe a principle such as creationism in order to feed our desire to feel special, purposeful and meaningful. The longing we feel to be singular ad destined for something combined with facts supporting that perhaps we are not so special after all provides for endless confusion of the psyche resulting in anger directed towards those who have chosen to believe something other than what we have. In her article, The Story Doesnt Have to be Soulless, Mary Tucker explains that evolution and an aesthetic and spiritual sensibility about the beauty of nature need not be separated. Whether we start from a scientific or spiritual angle, if we arrive at a large-scale evolutionary perspective of deep time, it can only enhance our sense of wonder and awe at lifes complexity and value. She offers that if perhaps we offer a middle ground,

Escamilla4

somewhere in-between creationism and naturalism, bickering about what exactly we believe in would fizzle out, not only that, but humans could expand their horizons regarding what they believe about the world and themselves and open their eyes to beliefs they shut themselves out from before. There is only so much evidence we can acquire before we have to take a chance and believe in something we cannot know for sure, that goes for both naturalists, creationists and anyone in between.

Escamilla5

Works Cited Giberson, Carl W. "The Science Can Be Seen as Purposeful." nytimes. The New York Times, 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2013 Linder, Douglas O. "What We Risk by Accepting the Science." nytimes. The New York Times, 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. Tucker, Mary E. The Story Doesnt Have to be Soulless. nytimes. The New York Times, 16 Aug. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. Wax, Trevin. "Science, Too, Calls for a Leap of Faith." nytimes. The New York Times, n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2013