“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Wait. Is that truth? Or is it just a religious book that was made to give people a sense of security? The question of how mankind came into being has been a mainstay in the minds of many scientists ever since they have been able to grasp the abstract concepts of human existence and the relevance of time. While the scientific world cannot come to a conclusion, a great deal of evidence supports the idea that an all-powerful, omnipresent God is responsible for creating the universe and everything in it, even time itself.
The “big bang” theory has been the most popular theory countering the creationist worldview. Debates have been heavy and vicious, but they have not been conclusive in finding one dominate theory. It does not really matter how much these two theories are debated, because ultimately they will remain just that—theories. Since humans were not there at the time of earth’s conception, it is impossible to know the absolute truth. However, there are several details that support and negate both of the main theories. According to Jeffrey Tlumak, the professor of philosophy at Vanderbilt University, “Everything that exists has a cause or reason. Natural causes are temporally prior to their effects, so nothing is a natural cause of itself.” This idea contradicts the big bang theory. The big bang theory claims that the universe exploded from an infinitely small point into an infinitely large point, creating life through the large transfusion of energy that occurred at the time of the explosion. However, energy is needed for an explosion. Where did this energy come from? It could not have just appeared. There would have to be a cause for the energy to be in effect, which in turn would point to either a former universe or an almighty God. Also, one must take into account entropy—“The inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society,” (American Heritage Dictionary). When things explode, they deteriorate. Conversely, the big bang theory insists the explosion helped in the formation of life. That contradicts reason.
While an explosion that created the universe seems unlikely, an omnipresent, omnipotent God does not seem to be any more realistic. Human imagination can hardly begin to fathom the idea that God has been around forever. The thought that something is infinite just does not seem to connect with the finite human mind. One of the common views about the origin of Christianity is that the stories of Jesus were just another mythological legend such as Zeus or Heracles. “Early Christians knew that the stories of the miraculous birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus paralleled already existing soteriological (Greek for savior or deliverer) fiction,” (Callahan). This is important in understanding how Christianity may have come into being. It seems logical that people suffering under Roman law would create an elaborate story about a redeeming figure. Before writing Christianity off as a myth, however, it needs to be examined a little deeper. First, none of the other mythological stories are considered to be true. Second, “Christianity is flourishing approximately two millennia since Jesus walked the earth—the implication being that divine agency was the reason Christianity defeated its rivals,” (Callahan). Also, people died for the sake of Jesus: “While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," (Acts 7:59). Generally, people do not choose to die because of a fairy tale or a mythological story. All of this evidence points toward the reality that there is a God.
Another way scientists attempt to disprove Christianity is by relying upon the evidence supporting evolution. Evolution, which is regularly taught in schools, is a theory of how humans came into being. The most common faction of evolution states that human ancestors are apes. Christianity has adopted the creationism theory. “Creation science includes the sudden creation of the world, with the development of all creatures, separate ancestry for apes and humans, and a worldwide flood which was a catastrophe causing many of today’s fossils,” (Scott). Unfortunately, due to its close ties to biblical accounts, this theory is not taught in public schools. When examining the theories, one will find that animals have many similarities that could easily be a result of natural selection as a part of major evolutionary change. That would explain why whales have hip bones and flying fish have wings to glide with. However, to refute major evolutionary change, the creationists draw to attention the lack of proof of the transitional phases of many animals and plants. Questions such as, “Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the fossil record? And why have no major groups of plants and animals have no transitional forms in the fossil record?” can simply not be directly answered by evolutionists (Scott). Evolution is a very complex theory that comes down to one major factor: chance. In the analogous words of the English theologian William Paley: “If you find a watch on the ground, you naturally conclude not that it assembled itself by chance, but that a watchmaker made it. Similarly, the intricacy of nature must be the work of an omniscient designer, the God of the Bible.”
If the universe came down to chance, humans would be in trouble. “Natural selection of random adaptation cannot be a sufficient explanation for the complexity of living things,” (Scott). There is just too many ‘what ifs’ for evolution to be the best theory. Similarly, creationism has its pitfalls. One of the main issues with the creationist theory is the belief that the creation of the world and everything as in it was created suddenly. This would be considered a miracle. “Miracles defy the laws of nature,” (Connally). In order to believe in the creationist theory, one must believe in miracles. Russell Stannard, a nuclear physicist, claims “The miracles of the bible are not intrinsically impossible.” This is imperative to know. The belief in miracles is not irrational. And if the belief in miracles is rational, then creationism is also rational. If one can believe in creationism, then the belief in God is certainly not irrational.
Science cannot prove many things. Science’s lack of proof that “Big Foot” is a legend, or that the “Loch Ness Monster” does not exist hardly sways the majority from forming their opinions. In the same way, “There is no credible, refereed scientific journal that concludes that the existence of God is impossible,” (Fletcher). In fact, Theodore Drange, the professor of philosophy at West Virginia University, set out to refute the twelve main arguments for God—“Within limits, he is successful,” (Bowser). But the limits are there. He could disprove Christianity down to the faith factor. It comes down to whether or not the individual believes in God. His success, however, is similar to the success many Christian scientists have in disproving evolution. Again, the final factor it comes down to is belief. So if it boils down to the same factor, why are scientists so hesitant to acknowledge a living God? It is partly due to the separation of church and state, and also largely due to the fact that most people do not want to give credit to something they cannot fully understand. Stannard makes a logical suggestion when he proposes—“All scientists should approach new evidence for both sides with humility and an open mind.” Whether one believes in the random chance of the big bang and evolution, or has faith in the almighty God, there needs to be openness to new information. The main difference between the belief of God and the belief in evolutionary science, however, is that evolutionary science stops as a science. Millions of people around the world put their belief in God not because of science, but because of the fulfillment that a relationship with God provides for them. People help the sick in the name of God. Thousands are brought food in the name of God. And millions of people are changed as a result of the work of God in their lives. If the reason people don’t believe in God is due to the lack of tangible evidence, look around. It is all in plain sight. After one views the panorama of the amazingly complex and beautiful place called earth, it is unimaginable that a grand designer is not responsible.
