The Creation Of The Universe Essay Research

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

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

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 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