Paramo 1 Alex Paramo Mr.

Newman English 101: Rhetoric 25 November 2013 Simplicity is a Sin Is life on our planet the direct result of an intelligent design, constructed by some higher being? Or are we simply a result of a once infinitely dense point in space containing all weve ever known? Do our lives have a purpose, or better yet, do our lives need a purpose? Science and religion have butted heads in answering the most central question of humanity how did it all begin? The debate however, lies in whether or not creationism should be controversial, and why some are swayed one way or the other. My answer is that creationism can be controversial because, as in the case of Virginia Heffernan, author of Why Im a Creationist, many are swayed due to a lack of understanding, choosing instead to take a more simplistic route by ignoring scientific explanations to satisfy a sense of purpose. On one hand, science offers us to some extent undeniable evidence that our lushes, green Earth was created as result of the Big Bang the theory that all that has ever existed was once a single point in space. This view of the universe contrasts religion in that it does not explain why were here. Religion offers humanity a concrete purpose humans were created in the image of God, and we live to serve. After reading the stories of Genesis and Exodus, Heffernan wanted to know the truth of how the world began, but the Big Bang was not to her liking. Heffernan explains how, as a creationist, she was amused and moved by the Big Bang Theory, but considerably less amused and moved by the character-free Big Bang story (something

Paramo 2 exploded) than by the twisted and picturesque misadventures of Eve and Adam and Cain and Abel and Abraham. Simply put, Heffernan is less impressed by the story told by science than by the story told by religion. Even less impressed is Heffernan on the subject of evolution, possibly due to the arid English tone that Darwins On the Origin of Species was written in. Besides rejecting both the Big Bang and evolutionary theories, she continued to shy away from anything science related, even social science. In her boldest stance, Heffernan suggests that its time to retire the whole approach, referring to the use of observations and hypotheses Heffernan was calling for an end to the scientific method. Viewing science as an error-prone practice, Heffernan believes that her life her story is better told with God as the protagonist. I have no issues with believing in God; I have issues with discrediting logical reasoning. John Adams reminds us that facts are stubborn things, and as much as we try to elude the evidence, there is no hiding from the truth. Professor of law Douglas Linder also agrees that science has a reputation of answering critics with facts. Paleontology and molecular genetics makes it ever more difficult to believe in the pleasing creation stories, says Linder, and soon we will accept theories such as the Big Bang and evolution just as we accept the Sun-centered solar system today. It seems rather strange that in arguing against the scientific method Heffernan attempts to approach the subject empirically, that is, using the scientific method. By observing that a group of evolutionary psychologists had found new information which caused them to switch sides in an argument, Heffernan proposed or hypothesized that since these researchers had backtracked on themselves, then the entire practice was to be considered unreliable. David Redlawsk, professor of political science at Rutgers University, shares my concern. In his rebuttal to Heffernans essay, Redlawsk simply cannot understand how one can deny science, and suggests that these people must be quite misguided. These statements are

Paramo 3 not unfounded how can someone that publicly denies the scientific method presumably accept the scientifically derived medication prescribed by a doctor? Clearly Heffernans logic does not add up, and we are left with two explanations to consider: one religious and one scientific. Our physical lives are dictated by the laws and theories of the latter, but the former provides us with a spiritual oasis. Heffernan is doing what she can to preserve her spiritual sense, akin to preserving her sense of purpose. Heffernan publically announces her creationist position in spite of the negative responses she has received before. Possibly due to the negative reactions, Im the only creationist I know, says Heffernan, reinforcing the fact that not many publicly announce their creationist stance. By identifying herself as a creationist, Heffernan contrasts herself from the superskeptical scientists. Social identity theory helps explain why we reinforce our sense of who we are when we separate ourselves from a group, says Redlawsk, and that is exactly what Heffernan is doing separating herself. Clearly, if Heffernan is attempting to establish a sense of identity, or purpose, then the Big Bang a theory completely void of purpose or meaning would work against her ultimate goal. In the words of the opposition, we do not see our lives as meaningless, but as purposeful (Wax). Trevin Wax, author, summarizes that the worlds origins cannot be explained by naturalistic explanation, but by religious stories. However, what both Heffernan and creationists fail to realize is that our world cannot be explained by religious stories and that advancements in biology have taken us beyond the simple survival of the fittest perspective of evolution. As compelling and wonderful as the stories in Genesis might be, all literal readings of the Bible are to be taken lightly. As explained by Rev. Wil Gafney who holds a doctorate in Hebrew Bible biblical literalism usually emerges from a faithful impulse. Essentially, our

Paramo 4 trust in God leads us to interpret the bible at face value, however, the dangers of reading literally are often overlooked. Of course no one believes that there are four corners to the earth, but that is what a literal reading of the bible would lead us to believe. To effectively read the Bible, one must have knowledge of original language in order to understand how meaningful the text actually is, and as Rev. Gafney elaborates, not many are willing to indulge in a truly comprehensive analysis of the text. But as with any piece of literature, bias plays a crucial role in deciding what we can take away from what we read. Heffernan, and other creationists, could not only have skewed their own perceptions through bias, but they are also misunderstanding scientific theories, specifically the theory of evolution. Heffernan seems to have skewed perceptions of what the theory of evolution, as proposed by Darwin, aims to accomplish. Heffernan believes these theories, both the Big Bang and evolutionary, explain why certain things occur. However, science is not suited for explaining why, rather it is used to explain how. Furthermore, creationists are suspect to oversimplifying the theory of evolution down to just the survival of the fittest. The reality is that it is much more complicated than that, and instead of constantly hearing of Darwin and natural selection, we might in the near future hear of Margulis and symbiogenesis. As her worst offence, Heffernan cannot accurately discern a hypothesis from a theory. Constantly, Heffernan refers to the theory of evolution even the Big Bang as a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a prediction, while a theory is a well-defended explanation of natural phenomena. When the opposition expresses such a neglect of scientific terminology, let alone scientific purpose, there is not telling what else they may be confused about. There is no right or wrong answer in questions regarding the beginnings of the universe. However, in defending a position especially that of a creationist it is invaluable that such a

Paramo 5 heavily contested position provide not only knowledge of their position, but knowledge of the opposing position. However, creationism should not even be considered as an opposing theory, due to the overwhelming evidence standing behind theories such as the Big Bang. Religion has a place and purpose explaining the beginnings of the universe is not one of them.

Paramo 6 Works Cited Gafney, Wil. "The Risk of Reading Literally." Room for Debate. The New York Times, 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2013. Giberson, Karl W. "The Science Can Be Seen as Purposeful." Room for Debate. The New York Times, 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. Heffernan, Virginia. "Why I'm a Creationist." Yahoo! News. Yahoo!, 11 July 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2013. Linder, Douglas O. "What We Risk by Accepting the Science." Room for Debate. The New York Times, 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. Wax, Trevin. "Science, Too, Calls for a Leap of Faith." Room for Debate. The New York Times, 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.