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

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^, thOr1^) 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.th1O-sOs) 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
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 -270ø
C/-454ø 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 a
substantial point at any rate. However, if we were to be
more objective about the process of human evolution we
would see that in the life span of the earth we are still a
relatively young race. Dinosaurs, for example, inhabited
this planet for over one-hundred-thirty-five million years.
In relative view of this information, we can see that
humans have only been in existence for approximately 1/60th
of the time that dinosaurs existed. With this in mind, we
can further grasp that the process of evolution is a very
slow process which requires an almost incomprehensible
scale of time to our limited lifespans.
While I realize that many points, and beliefs were not
touched upon in this essay I did attempt to cover as much
ground as possible in as short a space as possible. It is
painfully clear to me that an existence based upon blind
faith is no longer an acceptable tradition. The ideas of
creationism are far outweighed by the Laws and Theories of
evolution. While there are understandably a great many men
who have spent a vast amount of time in scribing the Bible,
we must realize that they were indeed men, not Gods and the
bible is, actually, only a book. To believe the contents of
that book completely, one must have unwavering faith in the
validity of its concepts and the precepts upon which its
religion is based. One of the striking and perhaps most
intriguing points of interest that I have stumbled upon is
the lack of education of creationism in schools. If the
point was so very valid and without skeptical doubt, then
why is it not being taught to our children? I understand
the idea of separation between church and state, and the
fact that the school is very much a part of state. Yet it
seems to me that if the idea is a basic building block in
today's society then why not teach this to the young? Why
is it that we only teach evolution if it is so
unbelievable? The simple fact of the matter is that we have
evidence and supporting cases in science today which makes
the very idea of creationism redundant to teach, as well as
a contradicting view of evolution which could possibly
confuse those of a younger age. There are many religions in
the world upon which the bible are based, and the ones
which espouse creationism are but a few. Being a western
culture we tend to forget this.
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."5
Creationism is based upon belief; evolution is based upon
scientific proof.
1"Creation," Microsoftr Encartar 96 Encyclopedia. c
1993-1995 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. c
Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. All rights reserved.
2"Creation," Microsoftr Encartar 96 Encyclopedia. c
1993-1995 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. c
Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. All rights reserved.
3"Cosmology," Microsoftr Encartar 96 Encyclopedia. c
1993-1995 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. c
Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. All rights reserved.
4"Evolution," Microsoftr Encartar 96 Encyclopedia. c
1993-1995 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. c
Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. All rights reserved.


Quotes: Search by Author