EmmaSalino March14,2013 Period3 WeCanLiveInSuchHarmony

Dr. Mengele hypothesized that one twin cannot live without the other, that what one feels the other feels; a kind of twin sympathy, per say. Creationism and evolution are twins, both abstract, both the core of a way to see life. But, they are also completely different, as twins are wont to be, yet they complement each other with a balance. Dr. Mengele did not realize this difference, nor did he realize that instead of a connection, there is a deep relationship. Without properly recognizing this, Mengele wouldnt have had to kill numerous twins for his experiment; his name wouldnt have been in infamy. Schools debating over teaching creationism and evolution is to Dr. Mengele as creationism and evolution is to the many twins he murdered; the more schools seriously debate on this controversy, the more schools forget the relationship, the need for a balance of both in the school curricula. In Asian culture, the yin yang is an important pillar in their foundation of life. They recognize that there is a balance; cold/hot, feminine/masculine, and in New Mexicos case, faith versus logic. Daoism accepts that there is one within the other, thus the contrasting circles inside the turning teardrops. In the relationship between creationism and evolution, there is an aspect within the other. By teaching only creationism, students will see gaps within it. They will notice that a crocodile has stayed the same for thousands of years, yet many of the same species of birds have different beaks. By teaching only evolution, students will wonder who (or what) initiated evolution; animals (and humans) surely cannot just simply adapt themselves as quickly as changing into a disguise from an obvious uniform. By teaching both, creationism fills in the gap of evolution, and vice versa. It is imperative to point out that both creationism and evolution are, in a sense, theories. Granted, there is plenty of evidence to promote both of their validity, but even the most strongest

EmmaSalino March14,2013 Period3 WeCanLiveInSuchHarmony

of arguments still hold a margin of error, error to be proven wrong. Take the improved theories of the anatomy of the atom. At first, it was thought to be just a solid, itsy bitsy ball, then it was thought to be a ball with a nucleus inside, until a scientist proved the theory wrong yet again. Take into account Galileos theory that the world was round, and the Earth revolved around the sun. how many years before that had people believed the world was flat and the Earth was the center of the universe? Although literature is highly regarded, it sure is not used as a mediator for this debate. Frankenstein by Mary Shelley provides a scenario of science and logic consuming all that is of Victor; The Awakening by Kate Chopin provides a situation where instinct and faith is the epitome of all that goes on in the novel. Both works of literature are taught in class, albeit more than the others (as well as other factors). Indeed, theyre both fictional works. But whats to say that it may or may not become (or may have been) real? Ideas come from somewhere.