In ancient societies the beauty of nature, its origins and manifestations of any sort, could find its answers reading through religious or sacred scriptures. As time and society evolved, human’s logical thinking and reasonable doubts begun to emerge. Logic became science while religion as influential it is, became the target from objective attacks. Since then, it unraveled to one of the most common issue of two different views: creationism and evolutionism.
Creationism is arguably thought by many to be subjective and evolutionism which can be characterized as objective as it is demonstrated by facts across the scientific community. The creationist point is solely, if not based on belief, faith and the personal relationship a believer has with his Creator. And in the other spectrum, evolutionists are backing their opinions or theories through research and proven facts. As complex and taboo those viewpoints are, analyzing and defining each one to the other would be the focus of my study.
In my own opinion, creationism and evolutionism can be interpreted differently as long as it matters to the concerned audience. The strategy of communication would determine whenever it is purely subjective to one or objective to the other, and vice-versa.
Well most creationists base theirs opinions on what matters to them the most: the religious theme they built on through years. Speaking of the “Intelligent Design” which asserts the fact that all living things are to explain by an intelligent cause rather than natural selection supported by scientists. This in fact, is the modern theological argument of the existence of God. However, encouraged by the founding theories of famous British biologist Charles Darwin (1809-1882), evolutionists criticize the fact that creationists do not research or experiment or even demonstrate as they do. They demonstrate that each known species reflect or evolved from ancestors of preceding ones. They also argue that creationism is just a creative idea to support the traditional institutions they are supposedly struggling to maintain.
Founded in 1936 by Pope Pius XI , the Pontifical Academy of Sciences would be an example of the coexistence much needed to take the debate to a compromising tone. They owe to communicate the fact of each one of them being theories at start. Then the opinions are sort out by the concerned audience whatever theirs beliefs are. That is why, I think they can be able to find a middle ground. Now creationism that I can illustrate here by the Pontifical Academy shows that they can be able to communicate without hearting the two ideologies. But it can be difficult if the Evolutionist discuss with strong opinions all the beliefs of the evolutionists.
All scientists can easily be evolutionists, however all creationists go through the process of reasonable thinking as well before backing up theirs opinions even if some are based on subjective reasoning. To say the least it all depends on the communicative approach and background those ideas come across. For all I have learned through this research human communication is a sharpest tool of all to make a point. Whatever the point is objective or subjective, it is how we perceive it that matters the most and that is when communication hits its target.