End of the Line

So, here we are at the end of this blog. What have I learned? To be perfectly honest, in the context of the actual debate itself, my opinions haven’t changed. I started this blog with the opinion that creationism is pseudo-science, and I’ll be ending it on the same notion. However, my position is not the result of blind bias—I think that I’ve demonstrated in my blog rational thinking and honest inquiry, and not blind dogmatism to an ideal. Additionally, I feel like in the process of writing this blog I’ve gained a better perspective on the opposite side of the debate; I feel as if I better understand creationist motivations, arguments, and such.

Regardless, I’ll examine my line of thinking in creating this blog; my first order of business was presenting a clear definition of what science should be considered; I understand that this was not a post immediately entrenched in the educational aspect of the controversy, but it was nonetheless of tantamount importance; without an understanding of science and the concepts of falsifiability and experimentation, I would not have much of a solid foundation of which to build my arguments against creationism in the classroom. The next two posts were spent utilizing this criteria; I began discussing exactly how creationism fails to meet the standards of actual science, and how its religious nature makes it unsuitable for the classroom. It is here that I managed to narrow down the thematic focus of the blog; instead of discussing solely the science behind evolution and the lack of evidence for creationism, I focused my efforts on why creationism shouldn’t have a place in education and what it means to leave it out.

I subsequently discussed the Scopes Trial, an infamous event that changed public perceptions of the debate. By discussing such a historical event in the debate, I feel as if I gave more insight on the argument; after all, it was the Scopes trial that initially highlighted the divisiveness of this issue that still persists today, as well as the way that the general public tends to view this controversy. I also examined the attitudes that tend to inform creationist notions and arguments, such as a persecution complex; in exploring motivations I feel as if I gained more perspective on the opposing side of the debate.

Afterward I provided a brief exposition as to the role of creationism in another continent, namely Europe. I think it helps to put our country’s situation in context when you compare it to the way other countries deal with creationism and evolution, which is why I wanted to discuss how Europe tends to view the debate and why they view it in that certain way. And finally, I discussed my own experiences in having been taught creationism—such a reflection served as an affirmation for my own thoughts on the subject, namely the way that creationism would be toxic in the public classroom.

Like I mentioned, I feel that my main area of growth has been in understanding the creationist position in a more nuanced way than I had previously; I examined their motivations and ideals in a way that I had not previously done before, and I think I’ve come out of the experience better-equipped to discuss the issue on a political level—knowing what informs them and motivates them to make their attacks and claims is very important to me.

As far as creating an argument goes, my understanding of the way creationists tend to structure their arguments lends me the clarity to know what not to do. I’ve attempted to keep my arguments as rational and evidence-based as possible, without relying on the straw-men or misconceptions that tend to populate the other position's arguments. I’ve always valued lucidity in arguments over deception, and I think this blog has definitely demonstrated to me the importance of refuting a claim as opposed to simply attacking it. And on that note I’d like to end this blog with an Arthur Conan Doyle quote: “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”