By: Leonard Lenny Vasbinder
Originally published Dec. 2014
Many scientists and members of society think that the Big Bang Theory contradicts God and Creationism. The Big Bang Theory does not contradict God, the Creator, but rather requires a Creator. Evolution in nature requires, first and foremost, the creation of organisms and species where some can eventually adapt and evolve.
Genesis 1 states that God created the heavens and the earth on the first day. He later created light and darkness and after a day and night and then a sunrise, it was called God’s first day (The Bible – New International Version, Genesis 1.1-5). But each of God’s days, as described in the Bible, are compared, in evolutionary terms, to billions of man’s years. It wasn’t until God’s fourth day that we have a hint of a man’s day when He created the sun and the moon and the stars (The Bible - New International Version, Genesis 1.14-19). God created all of the oceans, land masses, plants, and animals on His 3rd, 4th and 5th days and then created man on His 6th day (The Bible – New International Version, Genesis 1.9-27). Once again, each of God’s days is compared, in evolutionary terms, to billions of man’s years as man did not exist until God’s 6th day.
The Big Bang Theory asserts that this cataclysmic event, that created the universe and earth, took place around 13.77 billion years ago, give or take 0.059 billion years. “The universe began with an unimaginably enormous density and temperature. This immense primordial energy was the cauldron from which all life arose. Elementary particles were created and destroyed by the ultimate particle accelerator in the first moments of the universe (“Universe 101 – The Big Bang Theory”).
Wollack also said:
"There was matter and there was antimatter. When they met, they annihilated each other and created light. Somehow, it seems that there was a tiny fraction more matter than antimatter, so when nature took its course, the universe was left with some matter, no antimatter, and a tremendous amount of light… Carbon and oxygen were not created in the Big Bang, but rather much later in stars. All of the carbon and oxygen in all living things are made in the nuclear fusion reactors that we call stars. The early stars are massive and short-lived. They consume their hydrogen, helium and lithium and produce heavier elements. When these stars die with a bang, they spread the elements of life, carbon and oxygen, throughout the universe (Universe 101 – Our Universe)."
The above quote is from some of the latest scientific writings about The Big Bang Theory and Wollack still says “Somehow, it seems”, which is scientifically ambiguous and “When these stars die with a bang, they spread the elements of life” but still cannot explain how these “elements of life, carbon, and oxygen” end up forming a living species. This is where only a Creator can perform this miracle of science.
Pope Francis recently said, “God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” Francis continued. “The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it. … Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve” (Clark).
The alleged conflicts between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 has created doubt among scientists, who believe in evolution and random selections of mutated DNA over time and that these mutations are connected to those of an increasingly complex ecosystem. Since evolution does not put human beings above any other living beings, at some point, human beings will probably become extinct. The article further contrasts the distinction between science and religion. The article concludes that science is constantly changing and earlier science is proved false quite often. God cannot be scientifically proven to be true or false since He requires our faith, and that we can choose to have faith or not (Bothwell).
This article discusses and compares the Bible and the Holy Quran regarding the creation of the universe in comparison of the scientific theories of the Big Bang and other related events. According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe came into existence from the breaking up of an extremely condensed and solid matter, and before this, no matter existed. This article states that in the Big Bang Theory, the universe came into existence out of nothingness, but that it happened under an organized and ordered process, and that it did not happen at random. The article concludes that Allah (or God) brought the universe out of nothing and brought it to life. It was not an accidental “Big Bang” (Salihuddin).
Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274) in the Middle Ages did extensive research and wrote about his beliefs about creation and the beginning of the world. Comparing Multiverse models, like those proposed by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in The Grand Design, may challenge certain views of a Grand Designer, but not of a Creator. This article discusses the rather new Large Hedron Collider (nuclear particle accelerator). Renowned physicist, Michio Kaku remarked that the new experiments would be “a huge step toward unraveling Genesis 1, Verse 1 – what happened in the beginning. This is a Genesis machine” (Carroll). The article concludes that when it came to Genesis, St. Thomas Aquinas observed that what is essential is the ‘fact of creation’, not the ‘matter or mode’ of the formation of the world (Carroll). Attempts in the natural sciences to explain these facets of nature do not challenge the ‘fact of creation’. The genius of St. Thomas Aquinas was to distinguish between creation, understood philosophically and scientifically, and creation understood theologically (Carroll).
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
"Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists.
Progress in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena. Scientists never can be sure that a given explanation is complete and final. Some of the hypotheses advanced by scientists turn out to be incorrect when tested by further observations or experiments. Yet, many scientific explanations have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed that they are held with great confidence.
Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare."The National Academy of Sciences also says:
Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.
Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.
Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines. (NASA/WMAP Science Team)
The above statement is in answer to this question: “I am religious and I also find science very exciting. Is there a conflict between science and religion?” So many of the scientific writings still do not give a conclusive explanation of how the Big Bang and “nothingness” ends up creating all the miracles of life… not even the first single-celled microbe is explained. A typical explanation almost always includes a type of caveat such as, “Scientists never can be sure that a given explanation is complete and final. Some of the hypotheses advanced by scientists turn out to be incorrect when tested by further observations or experiments.” (NASA/WMAP Science Team)
Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%
"For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. (Wood, T. C.)"The above peer-reviewed article asserts that the previously stated 98% + comparable DNA between chimpanzees and humans is no longer an accurate assertion. More comprehensive DNA analysis shows a similarity of around 66% to 76%. This kind of continually changing science is one of the many reasons that the evolution of primates into man is not believed by so many people.
In conclusion, it can only be from God (the Creator) that all of the above miracles and scientific facts and conclusions could have happened since nothing capable of living would have survived a cataclysmic event such as a “Big Bang” type explosion.
Notes
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution_contradict_genesis.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/
Works Cited
The Bible – New International Version, Genesis 1, BibleGateway.com. Web. October 2014
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/
Wollack, Edward J., NASA/WMAP Science Team. “Universe 101 – Big Bang Theory – How Old is the Universe”. GSFC.NASA.gov. NASA, Web. 21 Dec. 2012 http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html
Wollack, Edward J., NASA/WMAP Science Team. “Universe 101 – Our Universe – How Did The Universe Start and Evolve”. GSFC.NASA.gov. NASA, Web. 24 Jan. 2014 http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_life.html
Clark, Heather. “Pope Contradicts Genesis Account of Creation, Argues ‘God and Evolution’ Are Compatible”. Christiannews.net. Christian News Network. 27 Oct 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014 http://christiannews.net/2014/10/27/pope-refutes-genesis-account-of-creation-argues-god-and-evolution-are-compatible/
Bothwell, Laura E. “Genesis Meets The Big Bang And Evolution, Absent Design”. Crosscurrents, Spring 2007. Web. 23 Oct 2014
Salihuddin, Hafiz. “Creation of the Universe: A Religious and Scientific Study”. The Dialogue, Apr-Jun 2013, Volume VIII Number 2, p208-216. Web. 23 Oct 2014
Carroll, William E. “Aquinas and Contemporary Cosmology: Creations and Beginnings”. Science & Christian Belief, Apr 2002, Volume 24, Issue 1, p5-18. Web. 23 Oct 2014
NASA/WMAP Science Team, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Dr. Edward J. Wollack, Page Updated: Wednesday, 11-28-2012,
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
Annotated Bibliography
Bothwell, Laura E. “Genesis Meets The Big Bang And Evolution, Absent Design.” Crosscurrents, Spring 2007
This article looks at the alleged conflicts between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 which has created doubt among scientists, who believe in evolution and random selections of mutated DNA over time and that these mutations are connected to those of an increasingly complex ecosystem. Since evolution does not put human beings above any other living beings, at some point, human beings will probably become extinct. The article further contrasts the distinction between science and religion. The article concludes that science is constantly changing and earlier science is proved false at times. God cannot be scientifically proven to be true or false since He requires our faith, and that we can choose to have faith or not.
Salihuddin, Hafiz. Creation of the Universe: A Religious and Scientific Study. The Dialogue, Apr-Jun 2013, Volume VIII Number 2, p208-216
This article discusses and compares the Bible and the Holy Quran regarding the creation of the universe in comparison of the scientific theories of the Big Bang and other related events. According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe came into existence around 13.7 million years ago from the breaking up of an extremely condensed and solid matter, and before this, no matter existed. This article states that in the Big Bang Theory, the universe came into existence out of nothingness, but that it happened under an organized and ordered process, and that it did not happen at random. The article concludes that Allah (or God) brought the universe out of nothing and brought it to life. It was not an accidental “Big Bang.”
Carroll, William E. Aquinas and Contemporary Cosmology: Creations and Beginnings. Science & Christian Belief, Apr 2002, Volume 24, Issue 1, p5-18.
This article discusses Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274) in the Middle Ages and his beliefs about creation and the beginning of the world. Comparing Multiverse models, like those proposed by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (The Grand Design, published September 2010), may challenge certain views of a Grand Designer, but not of a Creator. This article discusses the rather new Large Hedron Collider (nuclear particle accelerator). Renowned physicist, Michio Kaku remarked that the new experiments would be ‘a huge step toward unraveling Genesis 1, Verse 1 – what happened in the beginning. This is a Genesis machine…’ The article concludes that when it came to Genesis, St. Thomas Aquinas observed that what is essential is the ‘fact of creation’, not the ‘matter or mode’ of the formation of the world… Attempts in the natural sciences to explain these facets of nature do not challenge the ‘fact of creation’. The genius of St. Thomas Aquinas was to distinguish between creation, understood philosophically and scientifically, and creation understood theologically.
Wood, T. C., Using creation science to demonstrate evolution? Senter’s strategy revisited.
Answers Research Journal 6 (2013):63-69. Journal Of Evolutionary Biology, Volume 24, Issue 4, pages 914–918, April 2011
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/v6/comprehensive-analysis-of-chimpanzee-and-human-chromosomes/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02208.x/full
No comments:
Post a Comment