ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Christianity, the Bible & Jesus

Creation Myths? (Part 1)

Updated on September 26, 2015

And God made Adam in his image

Source

Why?

I've always been fascinated and somewhat perplexed with the way we teach some science in schools, especially when we get to teach or explore the way the Humans, the Earth and the universe came into being. It seems that the only systems taught in our schools are the big bang theory and the theory of evolution and with the way that evolution is taught in schools you'd think that the argument between creation and evolution had been settled and we were all a happy accident billions of years in the making.

"Creation" they say "is just a myth, a figment of the fertile imagination of the men who compiled the Old Testament (particularly the book of Genesis) and while it may contain a nugget of truth it should never be taken literally!

Is that true? Let's take some time to look at creation and evolution in the light of science (or at least what the writer of this hub knows about science) and see which one stands up to scrutiny.

But what if I was to tell you that there are scientists and even Nobel Prizewinners to disagree with evolution and many more reject the Big Bang theory. Nearly one in ten scientists today have either questioned or outright reject them> Here are the names of some of the most famous ones from the twentieth and twenty first centuries who reject them outright

They include some of the greatest thinkers of our time

  1. Albert Einstein (Physics) when asked about Evolution is reported to have snapped back "God does not play dice!"
  2. Max Planck Physics)
  3. Werner Heisenberg (Physics) once said "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you" (I have to admit I copied this from the website http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/nobelistsgod.htm I thought it so good a quote!)

If we were to go back and look at the teachings of some of earlier scientists those who reject evolution would include

  1. Sir Isaac Newton
  2. Blasé Pascal
  3. Louis Pasteur
  4. Micheal Faraday


Many would say that the theory of evolution is work in progress" and as time goes on and we gain more knowledge we'll be able to refine the ideas and understand more and more about how things work together. Is that really true?

Beyond this the Big Bang Theory has come in for even more flack with many more rejecting the theory Here is a link to a famous open letter to the scientific community by 33 of the worlds top Physicists

http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm


This letter actually makes some interesting reading. They are some of the top scientific brains in our world yet they're rejecting the very system that we teach our kids! Why?

Plain and simply because without God it's unscientific and can't work!


Lets take a look at them in the light of science and see if they hold up.

What Stephen Hawkins says

The Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang Theory is interesting to say the least. Actually I'm glad that I found that video by Stephen Hawking explaining it because its always best to go to the experts to find things out rather than what someone said they said.

Step by step he takes us through some of the most important parts of the theory and explains what scientists think would have happened. BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE only what they think happened.

Many who refute the claims of the Big Bang say that it ways 'in the beginning there was nothing, then that nothing became something and exploded!' But Stephen Hawking explains that in the beginning there was energy. That is because of the first law of Thermodynamics which says simply that Energy and Matter can't be either created or destroyed, merely transformed so before the big bang the material that was going to become our universe existed in the form of energy.

The Bible on the other hand simply says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" So in the Big Bang account Energy existed before the universe did and in the Bible account God did!


But there are some problems with the Big bang Theory.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity

Albert Einstein told us that E=MC2 Energy is equal to mass and the speed of light. Putting things mildly the faster you go the more time slows down and the heavier an object becomes until you reach the speed of light when time actually stands still.

Einsteins theory says that nothing can exceed the speed of light. Therefore if there was a big bang that started the universe then you should be able (according to the theory of relativity) be able to trace everything back to one single point when everything began.

The problem

Is simply that the Big bang Theory says that point was 13.7 billion years ago and the universe is about (if it's been expanding evenly as Stephen Hawking says it has) should be about 27.4 billion light years across. It isn't!!

The measured size of the universe so far is 93 billion light years! That means that according to the Big bang Theory there is 40 billion light years they can't account for.

Einsteins Theory has been assailed since he first introduced it in 1904 (he took ten years to refine it and finally published it in 1915) but if nothing except energy existed before the bang then how did the universe get so big?

The answer that the Bible gives is that everything was created 'in place'

A simple explanation of the theory

Chaos?

The Big bang teaches that the Universe is a random event and is not governed by laws because the event took place either before those laws came into being or at the exact time they came into being.

This is just not true! Mathematicians and Physicists have worked out that there are such things as mathematical constants and natural constants. A mathematical constant like the speed of light can actually be changed.

There is evidence worked out over the last thirty years that the speed of light may have actually varied and could in fact be slowing down. The two links below make fascinating reading. Even if light is varying it changes nothing about the properties of light and it still means that we can't travel faster than it because the speed of light is a mathematical constant with a value given to it by man. Mathematical constants can be changed but natural constants can't unless you want to change the laws of the universe!

A natural constant on the other hand would be the value of π which is constant at 3.141 and can't be changed without effecting the fabric of the universe. Scientists and mathematicians have long known this but have refused to take it to it's logical conclusion that the universe is actually built using natural constants and cannot be purely 'by chance'

The evidence is pretty overwhelming when looked at in the light of science that the Big bang theory just doesn't stand up to the latest research.

What about Creation?


The 'Myth' of creation actually does stand up to the latest research with even the likes of Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertzog writing "A bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the Universe that is carefully fine-tuned — as if prescribed by an outside agency — or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see." — Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog2 (quoted from the website http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning).

When reading the Bible's account it's important to remember that we're not reading a scientific paper but a record written at least three and a half thousand years ago using language that would be understood by the people of that time. For Moses the important part wasn't necessarily scientific fact so much as the fact that God made it for a purpose and that purpose is still unfolding. It doesn't always give us the reason for something but simply tells us that that's what he did. Sometimes he gives us a glimpse into how he did it.

A little about the book above

If you're expecting arguments for the big bang or creation you'll be disappointed! Dr Plichta is a German Physicist, Chemist and Biologist (PhD's in all three) and worked with numerous Nobel prize winning scientists.

In the book he explains why the universe is so mathematically precise that chance can't explain any of it. I don't want to spoil what you'll find but I promise you it'll change the way you see things!

Is Man descended from apes?

The argument goes that the Earth 4.5 billion years old and all life forms on it descended from one common single cell life form that in turn came from an inanimate set of amino acids that were the building blocks for life.

This is in direct contradiction to the second law of Thermodynamics. The fundamental science on which all known laws of physics are built.

There are only four laws of Thermodynamics they are as follows

  1. Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, merely transformed. This says t even when something seems to be destroyed by burning (like the sun using it's fuel) what happens is that the matter is transformed into energy in the form of heat and is dissipated throughout the universe. It never gets destroyed but keeps going (hence we c see distant stars)
  2. Where two substances exist side by side by side (In a closed system) they will not 'evolve' but will turn back to their natural state_THE BASE ELEMENTS
  3. The law of Entropy. Simply stated the temperature of absolute zero can never be reached
  4. The Zeroth law as it is called states "A system is said to be in thermal equilibrium when it experiences no net change of its observable state over time. The most precise statement of the zeroth law is that thermal equilibrium constitutes an equivalence relation on pairs of thermodynamic systems. In other words, the set of all equilibrated thermodynamic systems may be divided into subsets in which every system belongs to one and only one subset, and is in thermal equilibrium with every other member of that subset, and is not in thermal equilibrium with a member of any other subset. This means that a unique "tag" can be assigned to every system, and if the "tags" of two systems are the same, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other, and if they are not, they are not. Ultimately, this property is used to justify the use of thermodynamic temperature as a tagging system. Thermodynamic temperature provides further properties of thermally equilibrated systems, such as order and continuity with regard to "hotness" or "coldness", but these properties are not implied by the standard statement of the zeroth law." (Quoted from Wikipedia)

Thermodynamics is one of the fundamental building blocks of physics and literally touches every area of physics as well as being a foundation for many of the other sciences. Evolution runs in direct contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics as well as the Zeroth law.

Evolutionists argue that the second law doesn't apply because the earth is an open system, but (1) The universe is a closed system (earth is but a mere speck of dust in it!) and (2) General Physics says that in an open system entropy is actually greater! e.g. The sun's heat does warm the earth bringing life but ultra violet radiation from the sun also causes skin cancer (entropy as damage is caused to cells in the body causing the cancer!). If the earth's system wasn't at least partially closed (by it's magnetic field) then no life could exist on earth!


Genetic Adam

Genetic Adam



Above is a video from the National geographic society seeking to trace the DNA of all males on the planet to see if it can lead them back to the Genetic Adam. Genetic Adam isn't just a figment of the fertile imagination of a few writers in the Biblical world but is actually a scientific fact. the reality is scientists don't argue about whether there might be an Adam but more of when he lived!

Fifty years ago scientists laughed at the notion that there was a real person who was the real ancestor of all men on the planet. That is despite the three main religions on the planet telling us of a common ancestor. Today there is no question that men all came from one common man ADAM! The question is more today of when did he live and where?

That is the real question. Where did he come from and when did he live?

The Creation view of Adam

Michelangelo's Adam
Michelangelo's Adam | Source

Just a few things to think on

This hub started out as being just a few things for people to think about regardless of what view of our origins they have. I have to be totally honest that I believe in creation and much as I've read about evolution and the Big bang theory I've not found evidence to change my mind.

All I ask is that we get the chance to really look at the evidence for ourselves and that we not accept what one group tells us without checking the information out first. You'll be surprised a what you'll find.

If you've enjoyed this hub then please leave a note to let me know. Also if you've got a point you want to make then do the same as its great to get feedback (even if you don't agree with me)

As Einstein said at the beginning "God does not play dice!"


If you enjoyed the hub then take a look at some of my other hubs by going to my profile page (top right and click on my name). Also you can share it with friends on social media

Revisiting the hub

Just reading through this hub from nearly a year ago I realized that my views and understanding have changed slightly, I still accept what I said in the hub and want to keep on looking but more recently I've been looking at the idea of 'Intelligent design' and the idea that God would have used the laws of science to build the universe.

Here are a few surprising things

  1. If you put God at the beginning the Big Bang theory works well. Without him even Stephen Hawking (an atheist) can't get the equations to work!
  2. Many Atheists have to reject the Big Bang Theory! That was a BIG eye opener for me, but they have to reject it so that there is no need for a creator or 'Prime mover' as the laws of science say there has to be.

I still don't necessarily accept the time-frame of the Big Bang theory but it does make a lot more sense with God at the center!


Enjoyed the Hub?

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 22 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Tammy

      Thank you for the visit, and you're right! The more we discover about the world we live in the more we see the 'fingerprints' of God!

      I read recently that Stephen Meyer from the discovery institute said that in the last forty years everything science has shown us has pointed to a 'designer'

      Glad you liked the article.

      Lawrence

    • Tamarajo profile image

      Tamarajo 22 months ago

      Hi Lawerence,

      Great information and reasoning in your presentation.

      I appreciate that God did not feel the need to explain Himself in His Word. He simply told us that He did it and it was, expecting us to discern the obvious.

      Everything natural thing we observe is fingerprinted with God's wisdom and design all confirmed with patterns and numbers - anything but random as your article clearly reasons.

      Lately its seems that the newest discoveries are actually more supportive of creation rather than evolution but get carefully worded as not to imply that there could be a God behind it.

      A thought provoking article.

      Tammy

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Einstein was accused of 'not knowing what he was talking about' by the quantum theorists but it was his theory of relativity that laid the groundwork for quantum mechanics and physics. He spent fifty years trying to come up with a working theory that would take it into account but couldn't

      One thing is clear though. He did know what he was talking about

      Lawrence

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      A pleasure

    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 2 years ago

      Thank you.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Robert

      I've gone back and checked where the quote from Einstein came from and it actually related to his opposition to the idea of Quantum Mechanics and the idea that the universe was 'random'

      Einstein didn't accept that the universe was "random" he believed that the universe was too mathematically precise to be for that. He believed that the structure of the universe pointed to the existence of a creator but beyond that he didn't accept anything else. He was what is known as a Theist

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Robert

      You may be right. But he also used the phrase when asked about evolution. He wasn't a believer in creation as recorded in the bible but when asked if he believed in God he's recorded to have replied "if you mean the God of the Bible then as a scientist I say no. But if you mean as the prime source of the universe then as a scientist I have to say yes"

      As a result of that statement his writings were banned in the communist Soviet union.

    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 2 years ago

      Didn't Einstein's statement "God does not play dice with the Universe" come from the theory of the atom's electron cloud? Einstein didn't want to accept the theory an electron wasn't at a specific place at a point in time.

    • Dip Mtra profile image

      Dip Mtra 2 years ago from World Citizen

      Interesting contradictions.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Thanks guys. Glad you enjoyed the hub

    • Shades-of-truth profile image

      Emily Tack 2 years ago from USA

      Love it!

    • Jodah profile image

      John Hansen 2 years ago from Queensland Australia

      Hi Lawrence, this hub is so in line with my views that I was hooked. You present a wonderful argument for creation over evolution that is difficult to argue against (though I'm sure many will try). The thing is science and religion can coexist as evidence by the famous scientists you quote e.g. Einstein and there are Christian scientists. You got me hooked with this and I now need to read Parts 2 and 3. Voted up, shared and Tweeted. You also have a new follower.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      So easy to do. Yet the beauty and love of our Father is still there around us. Take time to just enjoy it. That's part of what the Hub is about.

    • ShirleyJCJohnson profile image

      Shirley Johnson 2 years ago from Sallisaw, OK

      I struggled for many year with major depression. All I saw around me was my pain. When I came out of that pit, there was nothing but beauty. It's all around us. How did I let myself miss it for so long?

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Glad you liked it. I also have a Theological background and similar thinking as a child. I wrote the hubs because I've become fascinated by the order and beauty in everything we see around us.

    • ShirleyJCJohnson profile image

      Shirley Johnson 2 years ago from Sallisaw, OK

      I am a licensed minister; but, even when I was a kid, I tended to be of a "God created the universe and everything in it" mind. God is God and only God could have created our world as we know it with all its complications. In what human thinking should we ever think about the human body as an evolution subject. Why do our bodies work the way they work within its entirety. Only God could have made something so complex as the human machine. It is man, and his free choice, given by God, that corrupts the minds of the masses. I love this article. In fact, I'm fixing to jump over to the second part.