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; (th1e-r , thr1 ) 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 -pth1 -ss) 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
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