In my short life on this planet I have come to question things
that many take upon blind faith. We all know that we must some day
die; yet we continuously deny the forces at work inside ourselves,
which want to search out the answers of what may or may not come
after. It is far easier for humanity to accept that they will go to a
safe haven and be rewarded for their lives with pleasures and
fantasies of an unfathomable scale than to question the existence of a
supposed omnipotent being. Yet, there are a few of us humans who tend
to question the why's and wherefore's that society puts forth to us.
We question the existence of God, or the creation of mankind rather
than blindly accepting faith-filled beliefs we may received from our
parents as children. Perhaps it is because we live in a nation filled
with many peoples of different beliefs whose Gods are all so varied
and different that it is difficult to fathom that they are all the
same divine being.
It is also plausible that we just have a desire to
quench the thirst for knowledge that lies deep within ourselves. As
for myself, I cannot believe in a being which created a universe and a
multitude of worlds in a rather short period of time then deigns to
lower itself into becoming a puppet-master and "pulling the strings"
of the Earth and all of the people therein.
Since this paper touches upon many scientific terms, I feel
that in order for the reader to correctly grasp the content I must
first define three words: Theory, Law, and Hypothesis. The definitions
will allow for a greater understanding of this essay and give us an
even ground upon which to begin.
1. a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively
wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions,
accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze,
predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified
set of phenomena. b. Such knowledge or such a system.
2. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a
1. a. A formulation describing a relationship observed to be
invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the
specified conditions are met: the law of gravity. b. A generalization
based on consistent experience or results: the law of supply and
demand; the law of averages.
1. A tentative explanation that accounts for a set of facts and can be
tested by further investigation; a theory.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or
investigation; an assumption.
It is important that you thoroughly read the above definitions
or you will be at a disadvantage if you do not. You will note that
there are several different definitions to each word. I felt it was
important to include the added definitive statement to theory because
it shows the difference between a scientific theory and an "everyday"
theory based upon conjecture. The additional definitions to law and
hypothesis are both added for a further understanding of these words.
The definition of creationism is somewhat more complex. One
must start by saying that the belief in the creation of the universe
given at the beginning of the Bible is literally true. Creationism is
a belief based solely upon faith (which is a belief in and of itself).
There are no scientific facts as a basis for this belief, solely
conjectural theories and speculations. It is ingrained into our minds,
as children that a belief of a force, or supernatural entity, which is
all powerful and all knowing, is watching over us and taking care of
our needs. Yet, to me, saying this very sort of thing is heretical in
its very essence. To be so crude as to think that some being which
created the universe itself and all things in it would take the time
to care for each and every individual is incomprehensible. In
practically all ancient cultures, the biblical included, the universe
was thought of as an original chaos into which order had been
introduced by a creative hand: This was the essence of creation.1 In
this statement alone we can see one of the major flaws of creationism.
While science can prove without doubt the universe up to the first 20
milliseconds of existence, we cannot prove anything before that point
at this time. The statement above, regarding creationism, suggests
that there was no beginning, only chaos. Subsequently this "creative
hand" structured the order of the universe out of chaos and applied
physical laws to that chaos so it would form itself into motion and
order. Yet, creationism as a whole does not touch base upon what came
before the chaos. While science admits that there was a time in which
different laws and order applied; creationism attempts to deny this
existence by saying that there was always something. For if there was
indeed a beginning and there was no God before this time, where did
God come from? We can scientifically prove that there was a beginning.
We cannot yet ascertain what was before this beginning, but we now
know that there was one. To suggest that the universe has always
existed is a mere myth today. Much like the myth that the world was
once flat. Today, we take for granted that the world is indeed round,
for have we not seen pictures from the space shuttle in orbit of the
earth. Not to mention the multitude of orbital shots from satellites.
Consequently we would consider it preposterous if someone attempted to
tell us that the world is a flat surface. Yet, upon blind faith, some
are content to believe that a "creative hand" structured this
existence. Although the figures (Gods) differ from mythos to mythos,
all the ancient stories intend simply to give a poetic accounting for
In the scientific community there is a well known and accepted
theory known as the "Big Bang Theory". Most people know of this theory
because they were taught it in school. Yet it usually contradicted
what their parents and pastors taught them in church. As a result, the
Big Bang Theory was generally discarded as something that intellectual
minds which cannot exist upon the true faith alone, must accept as
truth. The Big Bang Theory is stated in condensed form as follows. As
the universe expanded, the residual radiation from the big bang would
continue to cool, until now it should be a temperature of about 3 K
(about -270ÃÂ¸ C/-454ÃÂ¸ F). This relic radiation was detected by radio
astronomy in 1965, thereby providing what most astronomers consider to
be confirmation of the big bang theory.3 In this statement we have our
first of arguments over creationism by evolution. We have the
beginnings of a proof that there was a time or rather, I should say, a
point in time where there was indeed nothing.
Many creationists will argue that the universe is too ordered;
the path of the planets (which meant wanderers, or great wanderers in
early Grecian society) is too ordered, too perfect. I will start by
asking you to attempt to define perfect (as it existed at that time).
In the creationalistic point of view, a person might write it off as
the act of God. It was his divine will that moved the planets together
in such a way as to be able to support life. Or you could ask the more
worldly scientist who would explain to you about the Law of
Probability, the Theory of Relativity, and show you lengthy
mathematical equations dealing with Quantum and Theoretical Physics.
In the end, you would likely have a headache of immense size, but come
away with perhaps a better understanding of how the order of events,
and the laws which created, ordered and structured the planets to
exist as they do. Many creationism fanatics will also attempt to
dissuade the argument of evolution by saying that the Big Bang is
merely a theory. The only reply that the scientific world can refute
this with is the fact that relativity and gravity, are also theories.
This argument by creationists is obviously not in their favor.
The creation of the universe by scientific means is a
world-wide theory that many creationists refute simply because it goes
against their beliefs. Yet to understand evolution to its fullest, we
must further investigate life, or rather human life. We ask questions
like: How did we evolve from amoebae? Are you trying to tell me that I
evolved from an ape? If we are evolving in such a manner as described,
why can we not see it daily? Since these are all very good questions,
I will touch base upon them all.
Approximately seven-hundred or eight-hundred million years ago
life was first known on this planet in the form of single-celled
organisms called procaryotes, not amoebae. Over time these unicellular
organisms diversified into an array of adaptive types. Scientists
hypothesize that many advanced cells (eucaryotes) may have evolved
through amalgamation of a number of distinct simple cell types.
Single-celled eucaryotes then developed complex modes of living and
advanced types of reproduction that led to the appearance of
multicellular plants and animals. The latter are first known from
about seven-hundred million years ago, and their appearance implies
that at least moderate levels of free atmospheric oxygen and a
relatively predictable supply of food plants had been achieved.4
Through a long and drawn out process life eventually formed into that
of mammals and dinosaurs. However, approximately sixty-five million
years ago the dinosaur specie was completely eradicated (perhaps by
way of natural selection), which left only mammals.
Approximately two million years ago humanity began to show its
evolution in the order of the universe. Humans originally belonged to
an order of mammals, the primates, which existed before the dinosaurs
became extinct. This development of descending from tree habitats to
forest floors and eventually to more open country was associated with
the development of many unique features of the human primate, such as
erect posture and reduced canine teeth, which suggests new habits of
feeding. However, while humanity did evolve from a primate ancestor,
it did not evolve directly from an ape-like specie. Humans as well as
apes both evolved from the same primate specie, but each branched in
different directions to become apes in one specie and humans in
In summary I believe that evolution is the only plausible of
these two theories which is acceptable to the current state of
humanity. In closing I leave you with a simple, yet disturbing
statement that a great man once told me: "it is not what you believe;
it's what you can prove." Creationism is based upon belief; evolution
is based upon scientific proof.