Creationism has been a pillar of many religions and can be found in various sacred documents of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam to name a few. Modern scientific theories, like Evolution, have created friction between the scientific and religious communities. The debate ensues to this day: I aim to prove that one who could believe in both Science and God, might be on paper, a better-rounded individual but will never seamlessly integrate the two due to the absolutism they require. This is not to argue the logic behind Evolution and Creationism, but to prove how someone will never be able to be fully accepted by the religious or scientific communities if they choose to live in faith and logic, using current attempts.

People have always been best represented by the moderate middle, from politics to social issues, most people can identify themselves as someone in the middle. This can apply to religious values as well, despite the contradiction of faith and logic. Highly regarded scientists, contrary to stereotypes, have been known to be creationists despite the views of their peers. One example is a biologist named Gregory Brewer. When interviewed, he talks about 'the pressures from his colleagues to fully commit to the scientific theories' (Religulous), his willingness to accept religious beliefs has naturally obscured his credibility as a scientist. Scientists like Brewer will never be able to achieve the level of acceptance experienced by his peers because of the absolutism science calls for. 

We discourage these great minds from believing in anything that isn't written in a scientific journal because we assume they shouldn't refute the evidence of their peers. Shouldn't this common view of absolutism towards scientists, held by most Americans, reflect a far greater percentage than fifty or sixty percent? Not 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 pressure on these scientists or would the common acceptance of creationism shift the public's stance on how logic is interpreted? The fact remains that the absolutism both faith and logic demand in their followers, causes a permanent schism despite the spiritual and real world benefits of the two ideologies. This raises the question, does this comfortability with logic prohibit Americans from living a spiritual life? I believe it is the fear of putting their faith, which is already illogical by nature, in something they cannot see or comprehend. 

The ability to put faith in something that is intangible, is now illogical to most, but until modern day was common and widespread throughout all of human history. Are forty-eight percent of Americans ignoring all the evidence modern science has provided simply because of the texts the older generations have followed?  It would seem so, because despite all the evidence that was available in 2014, almost half of all Americans believe in the creationist theory or some closely related variant. Why would these Americans voluntarily choose to ignore the data and evidence complied by the best minds of the world? This thought process is a result of two lines of reasoning that essentially carry most creationist's arguments. The first being that faith goes against all aspects of logic: essentially, to have faith you must discard logic. For example, in 2010 thirty-three Chilean miners were entombed for over two weeks in under three miles of rock in a mine lacking any sort of escape route. They attributed survival to their faith in God's abilities and forgiveness. Any man of logic would have accessed his situation and either ended his suffering right then or when the hunger would become too great to endure. But, being men of faith, and discarding the logistics of their situation ultimately paid off. I would attribute this heroic feat to the undying commitment of the drilling teams. Creationist could counter by attributing the commitment of the drillers, whom continued after seventeen days with no contact, was a god sent miracle. Of course sympathy in humans is created by chemicals in the brain and not by divine intervention, but then again I don't extensively research brain chemistry and I hold this to be fact. This allows for a second line of reasoning to evolve: If you personally haven't learned or understood the intricacies of science, there must be some level of faith in the people that claim too. After all, scientific theories that were considered modern for their day were later disproved. Revolutionary scientists of their time, have been continually disproven by the proceeding generations of scientists. An example would be Aristotle being proceeded by Galileo and eventually Newton, as the leading mind of their generation. Each would make astounding advancements in their field that withstand today, but later some aspects were proven to be false. This leaves room for religious zealots to question the accuracy of scientists in our era despite the near eradication of human error, thanks to modern technology. This blatant disregard of logic and reason seems barbaric and almost inhuman due to the unwillingness to adapt, which is instinctive in all animals to survive and arguably is what got humans this far. Which raises a scary question; is half of America stuck in a circle of reluctant thinking?

Not when you consider the benefits religion can provide for individuals, families, and society. Faith is a bonding component for families, and supportive net for the morally discouraged. It can be a source of strength and become an integral part of who you are as a person. Families often pride themselves on their status and how they act when compared to their 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. They ate together, prayed together, and went to church every Sunday, as if they didn't spend enough time together. This justifies why people can act emotional or even hostile when their faith, or God, is questioned because of where religion occupies in their hearts.  Individuals whom only believe in science don't share this spiritual attachment to their belief but have a passion for knowledge. Scientists including Gregory Brewer, have found a middle ground for their two worlds, despite criticisms. Theistic evolution is the ideology in which people believe in the powers and influences of God, but not the human creationist theory. Theistic evolution is growing in the religious community as year's progress, with a growing rate of 'one point nine percent annually' (Gallup.com). Accepting and teaching logic and reason, while maintaining a relationship with God would be a theoretical perfect harmony if it were ever possible.

Most of the reluctance from Religious communities stems from the direct word of the accounts and sacred documentation that govern the law of these religions. Genesis, which is a section in the Christian Bible, explains how God created the earth and man from absolutely nothing. Other religious texts carry similar beliefs like The Puranas of Hinduism or the Qur'an in Islamic faiths. Interpreting the Bible literally, God created light, then the Earth, then Adam and Eve from a void of darkness. A vacuum no human could ever fully comprehend. A man that follows logic can find a hundred different reasons how that contradicts essentially all fields of scientific study. If you were to interpret the book in a less literal way like a work of fiction, you would receive the same lessons and core values but be able to see the employment of symbolism which could possibly bring the two that much closer. However if a follower begins to question the direct word of his religion, it can carry earthshattering consequences for that individual. It's similar to if one were to abandon the logic of science, the world would seem unfamiliar and cruel. Francis Collins is one of the scientist 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 follower of the theistic evolution theory 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 all religious sectors that are notorious for strict interpretation. With God's moral support and the reasoning skills of science, an individual has a great set of tools to navigate life. However, individuals that choose this ideology will sacrifice their own credibility and possibly sever future acceptance in either communities. The possibility of disassociation alone is cause for many to stay silent or just solidify their commitment.  

This extent to which most religious followers are willing to accept, is notoriously limited. Most followers would agree that at a certain point you cannot remain a devoutd follower while pursuing scientific truth, and especially not individuals whom loosely interpret texts that are held by many others as sacred. This limitation shrouds nearly all religions, and can be frustrating for those who feel science gives us the clear answers. This is where more tension is created in the scientific community, because creationism goes against all laws that have governed science for many millennia and will continually do so.  If scientists were to stop or only research things that don't question sacred books or the creation of the Earth, it would be contradictory to the objective of science: which is to fully understand our physical world using confirmable information. The unwillingness to accept scientific discoveries only helps to solidify the barrier between ideologies. This culture of denial also allows religion to manufacture answers of their own: if people are willing to ignore the understandable laws that govern our physical world, there is then no telling what their threshold for belief is. A huge problem with religion is that it originated in order to give meaning to everyday phenomena that couldn't be explained or understood without giving credit to an intangible being. In most cases these religions origins can be traced, either to a time period or specific location. These phenomena were being taken as an act of God because of the lack of understanding of the geo-processes in these early periods of man. By developing more complex scientific theories and publishing laws to help further understand these phenomena, creating the first sense of friction between the logical and the faithful. 

One could never live in both faith and logic without sacrifice in areas of both ideologies. You cannot be a devout follower while fully living in an unfiltered reality governed by reason, and you cannot fully be a man of logic while having faith in the seemingly impossible. In conclusion, the lossless mixing of ideologies is similar to attempting a flawless mixture of water and oil. Simply by their nature the two will never be able to fully merge no matter the effort given. However, this compromise is still possible and growing more popular by the year, but in doing so you will surely exclude yourself from full acceptance and credibility in either community. Theoretically, a person that could seamlessly embody both ideologies of thought would be built perfectly to navigate our reality. Unfortunately, the absolutism that is demanded by both communities is forever engrained into the structures of these ideologies and causes a permanent polarization the logical and faithful. Spawning a never ending series of debates and lectures that will continue indefinitely. There is no correct ideology, but choosing one can alter your reality for as long as you allow.

B
