In the beginning...

For my first post I am going to start at the beginning, the beginning of everything.

Evolutionist believe the universe came from a singularity. They can not answer the question of where the singularity came from or what exactly it was but evolutionist do have many evidences that support this theory. The theory is that this singularity contained everything that life requires. As time went on it expanded (The Big Bang Theory) and the universe came into existence. It is of course more complicated then I just stated, but that is the basic idea. Evolutionist have many evidences for this theory and a couple of them are as follows:

1. Galaxies seem to be moving away from us. This law was discovered by Edwin Hubble (Hubble's Law) and it shows that the universe was once compacted and it also gives probable cause that the singularity did expand like the theory states and is still expanding. (http://www.big-bang-theory.com/).
2. In 1953, Stanely Miller created an apparatus that stimulated "Earth's primitive, reducing atmosphere" under the supervision of Harold Urey. The apparatus contained ammonia, water vapor, methane, and hydrogen. It was then electrolyzed to represent ultraviolet radiation from the sun. All these elements are what is believed was there before the universe "appeared." After this apparatus had been operating for a week Miller found different types of amino acids and organic chemicals. Miller's experiment shows that organic compounds can form from inorganic substances, which supports the evolution theory. (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/MillerUreyexp.html)

All these evidences fit the theory of evolution but just because they support the theory does not mean that the theory is true. There could be many other theories that these same evidences support. Now I am going to present creations side of this argument.

Creationist believe that the universe was skillfully planned and created by a Deity. To creationist the universe did not just appear when something (singularity) decided for some reason to expand but the universe was created for a reason. There are many logical evidence for creation as well but I am not going to list them all here. Instead, I am going to talk about three philosophical points that show creation is more logical.

I would like to tell you of points that W.D. Jeffcoat , M.A. made in his paper titled "The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God." I am just going to point out the highlights but if you want to know more go to http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Cosmological-Argument-for-Exist.pdf to read his paper.

He breaks down creation into logical steps. First, "since casualty exists, there must be a First Cause." Evolutionist admit that they do not know where the "singularity" came from. However, the Creation theory has a more logical approach. Since everything has a cause nothing can just appear (like in the evolution theory) without a cause. So there is a long line of things causing other things. But what caused the first cause? This might be hard to understand but since all things have a cause there must be one thing or being that as always existed and always will exist. A being that needs no cause because it has always been. The cause of everything else leads back to the First Cause. In creation this First Cause is God. God then caused or created the universe. This makes much more sense if you think about than something just appeared out of thin air and from that random appearance evolved our extremely involved and complicated universe (as Evolution states).

Another crucial point he makes is that, "The world obviously exists, and yet cannot explain its own existence; therefore something else must account for it. But, if we are not to develop still another unexplained existence of some kind, this 'something else' must contain within itself the cause of its own existence." We may not be able to explain the eternity of the First Cause's existence, but the first cause can. Since all of us have a cause we should not necessarily understand some being that does not have or need a cause.

The third point I am going to talk about is "the argument from contingency." It is known that many things have an beginning and an ending. Now, this might get confusing but stay with me. Since many things are known to have an beginning or an end, they are capable of existing at one point and not another, they are contingent. They are not necessary because if they were necessary they would not have an beginning or an ending. But there has to be at least one necessary thing or being to cause "contingent beings" because if no necessary being did existed, nothing could exist.

I have laid out points of both sides and hopefully showed to you which one is more logical. Evolution is more fact based and straight forward. Creation is more philosophical since it is dealing with more than the natural world, so the points are more involved. I hope they make since sense and there is a lot more points for both sides that I will discuss in further blogs, so keep reading. Comment my blog if you have any questions or comments.