The creation of the World between God and science

By Alexandros P. Kostis, Professor Emeritus, University of Thrace Law School

The Christian religion in the Bible, and especially in the Book of Genesis, teaches us that the world was created by God from scratch, while man was made with clay by the creator in the image and in his likeness the seventh and last day of creation.
The opposite interpretation of these two basic existential issues is given to us by science. For the creation of the world it tells us that it is the result of the “big bang”, while for man it is operative cause of this the evolution of the monkey, from whom it originates.
Someone called to take a stand on these two diametrically opposed versions on the same facts seems to be facing the dilemma which of the two to reject or accept. The dilemma, however, is not true. It’s a pseudo dilemma. Because, in essence, science in both cases does not prove, as it owes, its assumptions, but makes assumptions and assessments that are quite empty and leave many questions unanswered. Therefore, its positions are not convincing, which is why they cannot be accepted. And, in order to avoid misunderstanding, it should be clarified here that the above positions of science in the relevant matters do not constitute scientific axioms or theorems, such as, for example, the law of gravity or other natural laws, so as not to be amenable questioning, but they are scientific opinions which as such are subject to criticism and questioning, and hence to rejection, when they are not convincing. However, the same cannot be said of the above-mentioned views of religion, which, as dogmatic positions, either accepts them, just as it is formulated, if of course they are faithful, or rejects them, whether they are atheist or irreligious. And in dogmatic positions, there can certainly be no dialogue between a believer and a atheist, because it will be a dialogue between the deaf, in which one does not understand what the other is saying.
But let us come closer to the aforementioned views of science in the creation of the world and of man, to see what we are told.
The theory of “Big Bang” argues that millions of years ago, because of the conditions prevailing at that time, the existing matter exploded in space and, thus, what we call the universe today was created. The Earth, the sun and the planets that surround us. The basis of this theory is therefore the explosion of an existing matter, because nothing can, of course, explode. It does, however, accept this theory that the relevant material existed on its own, without anyone having made it.
It is obvious that this assumption is a scientific proposal that needs proof, since, as we have said, nothing is accepted in science, if it is not proved. The proof, however, cannot be offered by the theory of “Big Bang”. It cannot, i.e., explain scientifically how it is possible that the exploded matter could have existed on its own. Because, therefore, the pre-existing matter is definitely needed by the theory of “Big Bang”, because it could not be scientifically established without it, it is resorting to a scientific levitation: it takes for granted exactly what is required.
Thus, we see clearly how fluid the scientific basis of the theory of “Big Bang” is. If, in fact, next to the aforementioned impossibility is added the other weakness of the above theory, its inability, i.e., to explain scientifically how it is possible a random occurrence, such as an instantaneous explosion, to create lawsperfectly as the one that It governs the functioning of the universe, then we have, I think, the elements needed to challenge the scientific adequacy of the theory of “big Bang” as the creator of the cause of the universe. And certainly, however, we can see clearly here how logically misguided is the effort of those who, relying on the unproven assumptions of the theory of “big Bang”, want to challenge the existence of God, using with It is also an anti-scientific way as a tool that cannot be scientifically demonstrated by the very theory of the ‘ Big Bang ‘.
The verification of the theory of the “Big Bang” sought and the well-known experiment of the Cern of Switzerland, whereby the scientists who participated in it tried through the machine they manufactured to explore the universe, to explain how This was created. The researchers ‘ conclusion was expected at the basis of the relevant experiment: no “God particle” was found anywhere! As if God is a material being to leave his taps or footprints so that those who seek him can find him.
Similar weaknesses are presented by the theory of development formed by the English naturalist Darwin, who argues with similarly little convincing scientific arguments that man was not created by God, but is a creation of the evolution of monkeys.
First of all, Darwin doesn’t explain where the ape came from, which, in his turn, evolved into a human being. It does not tell us, yet, how is it possible to change not only the external elements of a monkey (fur, teeth, etc.), but also its internal elements, and to such an extent that it converts it from a horse to a rational being? And, if this happened once, what is it that is preventing the repetition of the phenomenon today, much more so when we have the helper of science, which does wonders now? Why can’t science do this miracle, put, like, a human semen into a monkey or interfere with its related chromosome to turn it from ape to human? Is the coincidence more powerful than science? Darwin didn’t have time to see organ transplants, which completely upset his theory. Let them at least respond to those who follow this theory in the following simple question: If, indeed, the ape and man are congenital species originating from each other, as Darwin said, then why rejected immediately as incompatible the instruments of monkeys, originally Were they transplanted experimentally into humans?
With this data, the aforementioned theories on the creation of the world and the origins of man not only do not prove the nothingness of God, as misleading supporters of the “scientific atheism”, for which we spoke in Previous article, but instead underline more emphatically the wisdom of God, which made this wonderful and wondrous world. A look in the starry sky and a glimpse into the structure and function of the genetic code is enough to show us where God is.