The Creation Of The Universe Essay, Research Paper
The Creation of the Universe
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.
Theory; (th?1e-r?, th?r1?) noun
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 conjecture.
Law; (l?) noun
12. 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.
Hypothesis; (h?-p?th1?-s?s) noun
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
<
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 cosmic origins.2
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 -270? C/-454? 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 another specie.
Yet, you ask that if this is the case, and humanity has evolved from
primates in such a short period of time, why can we not see the evolutionary
process taking place today? The answer is a simple one. I know of no human
which has lived for two-million years. Which in and of itself is not a very
valid argument for this case, but nevertheless