Creationism has been a pillar of the Christian Faith since its early beginnings. Modern scientific theories, like Evolution, have created friction between the scientific and religious communities. Many religious followers are exposed to evolution in the classroom, and feel pressured to choose a side in the debate. I aim to prove that one who believes in both Science and God, is a better-rounded individual than someone on one side. This is not to argue between Evolution and Creationism, but to show how someone doesn't need to live a life in strictly faith or facts, and the best way to succeed, is with both.

People have always been best represented by the moderate middle, from politics to social issues, most people can identify themselves as somewhere in the middle. I feel this can apply to religious values as well. Highly regarded scientists, contrary to stereotypes, have been known to be traditional Christians as well. One example is a biologist named Gregory Brewer who is also a believer in Human Creationism. When interviewed, he talks about 'the pressures from his colleagues to fully commit to the scientific theories' (Religulous), as if his religious beliefs obscure his credibility as a scientist. Why can his credibility be up for question, because he puts his faith in God? What causes society to view these religious intellectuals as less than their colleagues? I believe these judgements are a good indication of where society is, in terms of where their own beliefs lie. The way society judges these scientists, allow us to analyze how society views the issue as a whole. 

We discourage these great minds from believing in anything that isn't written in a scientific journal. I think this general disapproval can help gauge how most people lean on the issue. According to a Gallop poll conducted in May of 2014, 'forty-two percent of Americans hold the traditional creationist philosophy while the remaining fifty-eight percent favor the theory of evolution'(Gallup.com). If the majority were to favor creation, would we see the same pressures to commit to a side? The fact remains that a majority of Americans are more comfortable living a life governed by logic rather than faith. Is this comfortability with logic prohibiting Americans from living a spiritual life? Or is it fear of putting their faith in something they cannot see? The ability to put faith in something that isn't tangible, seems illogical to most Americans. Although, almost half Americans believe in the human creationist theory. Why is it that these Americans choose to ignore the theory of Evolution? Scientists considered revolutionary in their time, have been disproven by the proceeding scientists of the next generation. An example would be Aristotle being proceeded by Galileo and eventually Newton, as the leading mind of their generation. This leaves room for argument in the religious community in terms of theory, this is due to the fact that it is still the Theory of Evolution, and not Law of Evolution.

When debating ideologies, some don't consider the benefits religion gives to its individuals and families. Faith can be a bonding component for families and supportive net for the discouraged. It can be a source of strength and become part of who you are as a person. This accounts for why people can act emotional or even hostile when their faith or God is questioned.  Individuals whom only believe in science don't share this attachment to their belief but have a passion. Scientists including Gregory Brewer, have found a middle ground for their two worlds. Theistic evolution is the ideology in which people believe in the powers and influences of God, but not the human creationist theory. Theistic evolution will continue to grow in the religious community as year's progress, with a growing rate of 'one point nine percent annually' (Gallup.com), and should be embraced by the religious youth. Accepting and teaching the logic of reality while maintaining a relationship with God is the perfect harmony.

Most of the conflict between Christianity and Science stems from the direct word of the Bible. Genesis tells us about how God created the earth and man from nothing but dust. If you interpret the book literally, he creates light, the Earth, then Adam and Eve from a void of darkness. A man that follows logic can find a hundred different reasons how that contradicts many fields of scientific study. If you were to interpret the book in a less literal way, you would receive the same lessons but be able to accept the scientific logic of the modern day. Francis Collins is one of those people who have found solace in science after growing up Christian. He was the Director of the Human Genome Project and would be categorized as a theistic evolutionary in the Christian sector.  He states," If God, who is all powerful and who is not limited by space and time, chose to use the mechanism of evolution to create you and me, who are we to say that wasn't an absolutely elegant plan? And if God has now given us the intelligence and the opportunity to discover his methods, that is something to celebrate." (Collins). This is the basis of the theistic mindset, and is rapidly growing through Christian sectors that are otherwise known for strict interpretation. 

This is the extent to which most religious followers are willing to accept. Some feel at a certain point you cannot remain a Christian while pursuing scientific truth and loosely interpret the Bible. This is the limitation that shrouds Christianity and frustrates those who feel science gives us all the answers. Some Christians simply deny the obvious evidence that is provided in years of research in areas such as paleontology, astrology, and geology.  This is where more friction lies in the scientific community, because creationism goes beyond natural law; a law that has governed science for millenniums and will continue to do so.  If scientists were to stop or only research things that don't question the great book or the creation of the Earth, it would be contradictory to science as a whole,which is to understand our physical world using previously confirmed information.

Although some search for the answers, they may not be willing to accept the results. This unwillingness to accept scientific discoveries acts as a barrier for any medium to be reached. This denial also allows religion to give answers of their own. Religion originated in order to give meaning to everyday phenomena that couldn't be explained or understood without giving credit to an intangible creature. These phenomena were occurring and couldn't be truly understood until the recent past. Developing more complex scientific theories and establishing laws, split the population into new ideologies, creating the friction between the logical and the faithful. One argument is the need for religion in our modern times, but I feel this argument is from lack of knowledge about Religion and its many benefits. Faith will always have a place in humanity, because it provides definite answers and moral support that thrives in any environment. For parents that pass on religion to their kids, 'about two thirds of those kids stick with their faith while one third loses or changes their ideology' (PewResearch.org). A number that looks disturbingly high for those hoping to pass on their religion to their children.

If you were to ask any Christian whether Science and God can coexist; most would agree with a few exceptions on human creation and the degree in which to follow the bible. These exceptions must be considered when analyzing your own ideology, for these exceptions will be the beginning or end to a life mixed with logic and faith. The very act of accepting an all-powerful being as a creator, is not a step for the logical. But, someone malleable and open-minded is vulnerable to many influences including the positive support that religion can provide individuals. This is where individuals must draw their own line, in terms of ideology. If you're able to accept the Christian god and still see the logic behind scientific theories as valid, you set yourself up with the best tools to tackle life. The emotional support that god can provide in the spiritual world and the scientific understanding of the physical world, will give you an advantage in most scenarios you'll face. 

This ideology cannot, however, be followed by full Christians. This poses and interesting question, "Can one follow the Christian bible and not be considered Christian?" According to Werner Gitt from Creation Ministries International, " ... you can't be a traditional Christian while following the Theistic model of evolution ... ", He states that, "this goes against the central biblical teachings of Christianity by placing God in a position that isn't all powerful and is susceptible to time, weather, evolutionary factors, and matter"(Gitt). That means if God is not above all, then you cannot be Christian. So another important question arises, is one comfortable not being seen by their peers as a full Christian? To some, this can mean sacrificing a spot in the social aspect of Christianity that is so profound; especially in the Bible belt. Families pride themselves on their status and how they act when comparing to neighbors. I stayed in a Catholic household for half of spring break, and their faith was almost palpable. I had never experienced a family that was more a unit than the Byrnes family. The single, most prominent, aspect was the undying gratefulness and faith in God. This gives me the perspective to know which ideology breeds the tightest family unit, and by far and away, the Catholic family has the better dynamic. They ate together, prayed together, and went to church every Sunday, as if they didn't spend enough time together already. These are the positive influences that come with the Christian lifestyle,.

There are also benefits to living in a non-religious family. If you were to compare families that had religion and families that didn't, you would see a whole different outlook on life. This could be seen in two different lights; on one hand you have a family that is bonded with faith but live in a reality censored by religion, and on the other, you have a family grounded in an unfiltered reality but no net of faith to fall on. Not having this net breeds stronger individuals, but loses strength as a whole unit. You can then argue, that the family with faith breeds a stronger family, but lacks individual strength when faith is lost. Filtering everyday life through religion can even be dangerous; leaving you unprepared to deal with the cruelties the world is riddled with. In order to get the most out of both scenarios, you must find a middle ground by combining these two worlds giving you the most rounded individual. Having the individuality and real-world insight of a family without religion, and the safety net of faith and a strong family unit will provide the best moral defense for life. 

One can never live in both faith and logic without leniency in both worlds. You cannot be a devote Christian while fully living in an unfiltered reality, and you cannot fully be a man of logic while having faith in the improbable. Accepting this compromise will exclude you from full acceptance in either community, but will allow you to mingle in them both. The need for these hybrid thinkers are critical for the development and furthering of our future in science, as well as, practicing and preserving our religious past. If one side ever fully outweighs the other, there will be a loss of understanding; either in the physical or spiritual world.

