Home > Essays/ Reports / Papers > So Where Do We Then Come From?

So Where Do We Then Come From?

So where do we then come from?

            Since the beginning of time, man has wondered where he came from.  A sense to know his origin has kept him curious.  With the advanced science technology we have today, man has been able to theorize his origin in light of the knowledge he now has on the universe.  Was it a star that gave birth to all of us, or was it by the hand of some higher being?  The debate has left man debating over whose view is right, and whose view is wrong.

            Pretty much everyone has heard of Charles Darwin by now, if not they have heard of his “Theory of Evolution” that he created about one-hundred and fifty years ago.  Evolution suggests that we are all of what is called common decent – the proposal that all organisms on Earth descended from a common ancestral gene pool. (Wikipedia).  This led to the Big Bang theory which suggested that we are all essentially made of star dust.  In other words, the Big Bang theory states that there was a huge explosion in space and then there were particles that fused together to make planets and atoms.  From this life was born, at first in the simplest micro-organisms, and from them, we eventually derived. 

            Then there is the idea of creation, held mostly by religious groups.  The concept is that mankind was born by the hand of a greater being, this hand being God.  Creation, according to the first chapter of Genesis (the first book of the Holy Bible), in short states that first there was God, and then God created Earth and everything on it, and that he created man (Adam) in His own image.  He then created women (Eve) to keep Adam company.  From these two people, it is believed that we originated from. 

There are many points that can be made from Creationists as to disprove Evolution.   Main reasons include spontaneous mutations, missing links between species, and disorder in the universe.  With these points, Creationists are not trying to alone disprove evolution, but explain their point of view, and give reasons as to why they believe Evolution is just not the answer to our birth.

First we take spontaneous mutations into consideration.  Mutations are “permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material of a cell”. (Wikipedia).  We never see one basic type of something turning into something else.  What we are actually seeing is variety and adaptation.  Take a jar of peanut butter for example.  You leave it sealed up and it remains uncontaminated.  When you open it up, the air and whatever particles are in it, affect the peanut butter, and mold starts to form.  Or, an ant comes trotting along on it and nibbles at it, then the peanut butter becomes contaminated with germs, and mold and bacteria appear, causing the peanut butter to mutate.  The point is that it takes something to come along and mutate something else; it is not “evolving”. 

            Evolution throws us in the same ancestory as apes.  There is the popular idea that we evolved from apes, and that the apes today are our cousins.  The reasoning is that apes are intelligent creatures, and that they have physical features (such as hands and bone structures) similar to ours.  Despite the theory, all the fossils found so far have been classified as either ape or human, or are reclassified as either one.  There are not any fossils that show a distinct transition between the process of ape to man. (Mercer handout).

            Darwin uses the term “natural selection” to represent how species survived and were able to eveolve in order to survive.  It also goes along with the idea that the stronger will survive, also a need for evolving.  Imagine a harsh environment, and a reptile species is having a hard time surviving.  The reptile walks along the ground and its predator moves swiftly across the floor to catch it.  The predator has one weakness though, and that is that it cannot jump.  So, the reptile evolves in a way that would make it leap or fly in order to escape being prey.  Eventually the reptile develops wings to flee from the predator, and then eventually turns into a bird altogether.  But, who would the first bird mate with?  “All intermediate forms would be fatal.” (Mercer handout).  What good would half a wing or half a beak be?  Again, there is no distinct transition between the two species. 

Now we back up to the beginning of earth and the universe.   The Big Bang theory, a part of evolution and the biggest theory in science, says that first there was nothing, and then there was something (an explosion).  From this, stars, planets, etc., were born, and that eventually order was brought to the universe.  How can an explosion cause order?  That is the counterargument that creationists give.  Explosions cause disorder, so it is right to say that order was caused by disorder?

            The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also called entropy, is a measure of the disorder and randomness present in a system and is always increasing, according to Wikipedia online encyclopedia.  “If the entropy of the universe keeps on increasing then this violates some of our physical laws because at the time of the big crunch the matter ends comes together and they come in a highly orderly form so the entropy decreases so the second law contradicts the law of gravitation.”  What the Wikipedia is saying, is that the universe came together, and is decreasing, but entropy is the increasing of the universe, so that right there is contradicting.  The universe today is going from order to disorder.  Take for example a star.  When it is eventually going to die, it at first expands, but then it deteriorates into nothing; it implodes on itself.  Creationists say this act is the universe winding down, and if it’s winding down, then it was once wound up, like a clock.  The question then is, “Who wound it up?”  That’s where they get into the whole idea of a Creator.  Sir Fred Hoyle, in order to try and explain this whole order-disorder concept, used a simpler analogy, “The Junkyard Mentality.”  “The Junkyard Mentality” asks, “What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take off?”  The Anthropic Principle believes “it’s as if everything we know is skillfully designed and balance for man.” (Mercer handout).

            Although Creationists and Evolutionists both agree now that the universe is fiinite, and that space, time, and matter had a beginning, questions are still brought up.  If the solar system evolved, all planets should then spin in the same direction.  “If they evolved from the same material they should have many similarities, yet each planet is unique.” (Mercer handout).  Pluto and Venus rotate backwards, and Uranus is tipped.  Some planets, such as Jupitaer and Saturn, have moons that orbit in both directions.  In a perfect, evovled universe, all the planets, moons, everything, would be roatating and orbiting the same way.

            Evolution seems to be in all its complexity and simplicity, a reasonable explanation for life, the universe, Earth, and our being.  But, the fact is that evolution is just not that: fact.  It still is a theory, and will hold to be one until concrete evidence is found.  One supposedly could argue that Creationism is just a theory in itself. Some pretty hard arguments have been brought to the table to either disprove evolution, or to explain how Creation is how everything began, but evolution is still a part of the process of life, in order to sustain it.  In a lot of cases, creationists will still give credit to the idea of evolution, to an extent.  Overall, creationists will still debate with evolutionists about the origin of the universe and life.  In light of any new discovery, Creationists will find some counterargument to disprove any new theory or idea.  “Many creationists argue that, since scientists cannot fully explain the origin of life, evolution as a whole is flawed.” (Wikipedia).   In fact, the evolution theory fails to cover abiogenesis, the formation of life out of non-living matter.  How did we then come from “star dust”?  It is not explained, and is an important concept in trying to prove our origin based on the Big Bang theory. 

            Whether one believes in God or not, the arguments creationists gives against evolution seems enough to at least believe evolution is not the answer to our origin.  Neo-Creationism is trying to “restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community.” (Wikipedia).  This new-age view of creation, is trying to make creation as popular and clear as evolution, without having to always revert to scriptures for evidence.  So as mankind continues to invent new technology, and discover new things, a new age of creation will be right behind it, if not ahead of it, discovering new ways to explain the origin of life for everyone to understand.  Do you believe that man is essentially star dust and by chance we are where we are today, or do you believe we were molded specifically just the way we are?  It is something man will wonder about for years and years to come.






Works Cited List


Mercer, Jeremy.  “Session 1; Week 8 – Creation vs. Evolution.”  Handout.  24/7 Discipleship

Program.  New Hope FWC, Corona, CA.  April 2003.

Wikipedia.  (2006). Creation-evolution controversy.  Retrieved March 13, 2006, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy# Conflicts_inherent_to_the_controversy.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: