Science & Religion, Evolution & Creation

CHRISTINE NGUYEN

Science and Religion, two of the most upheld genres that surround daily lives, both create an

impact of the utmost complexity and contradiction. Each of these possesses a variety of

connotations, relating towards the positive and negative nature of the two individuals. At the

most simplest terms, although one may aspire to grasp the full potential of either science or

religion, as we begin to delve into the deep, depths of knowledge, understanding the full extent

of a single idea may bring about appreciation towards its rival idea. That is to say, in the

majority of individuals, science will give rise to the awareness of religion; and vice versa; which

in turn, will render acceptance a formidable task.

Although each, in respective, do provide an assorted array of assumptions and the alleged

"evidence," it is the underlying, psychological characteristic of obstinacy, that truly keeps us

away from aligning ourselves towards a chosen ideology. However, it is through Dr. Kenneth

Miller's belief that by striving towards scientific reason, a more infinitely complex world is

revealed, allowing us to deepen religious faith. Yet, through the progression of the scientific

world, individuals of religion increasingly became divided at differing viewpoints for the newly-

founded theories. Throughout time, the world has questioned the overall shape of the Earth, age

of the Earth, position of the Earth, and progressive life on Earth. By which at every single point

in time, upholders of religion has supported their beliefs with contrasting, biblical passages.

Gradually, a sense of religion molded into that of science.

As scientific discoveries pressed onward, evolution became the most bolded topic to

discuss. Evolution has integrated into the educational main point. Since religious neutrality

must be maintained as managed by law, public schools do continue to instruct on this topic

simply as a matter of providing knowledge. Although, according to Eugenie C. Scott, the

purpose is not to change the students' religious views, a large amount of society are not amicable

towards the overall idea of Evolution. It is, as Dr. Miller noted, that rather than being connected

to the lesser beings believed to be below mankind, mankind would rather aspire to an ancestry of

divine stance.

As although most are indignant at evolutional idea of mankind being descendants of

monkeys, it is correct to say that this is a mis-commonly known fact. We are not descendants of

monkeys as much as we are more closely related to all primates through a single pivotal point, a

common ancestor. Furthermore, genetically speaking, almost 99 percent of genes are in common

with that of a chimpanzee. Through this knowledge, Phillip Johnson planted that idea that the

transition from chimpanzee to human, and vice versa, should be a relatively uncomplicated

process, which has given rise to questions towards the authenticity of evolution and what kind of

explanation can be inputted from evolutionary science and religion.

Through comparison analysis, the number of substantial evidence towards either case is

not within ample range and, it is through my opinionated argument that neither case can draw a

valid and reliable conclusion. Yet, it is by my understanding, that a true closure will be most

validated when science and religion come alongside each other towards a focal point. The

ideology that possesses vast potential, though, is the idea that the Creator has formed matter from

nothing and has continued to influence the creatures He had created in terms of what is known as

Evolution. To further forward, discovery of any considerable evidence should continue alongside

these two cases, for an obstacle in one genre may bring about an epiphany in the other. Although

debates between scientists and creationists may not conclude with a mingling viewpoint, the

heated expression of defending one's belief may draw about the wondering thought-processes of

the surrounding others.