Evolution, Human Evolution, Theory Of Evolution


In an apparent attempt to avoid Creation-by-God at all costs, some have come up with a "creation" of another kind. Although not taken seriously by most scientists, this "theory" says that the origin of the universe may have been "spontaneous creation" -- the universe appeared in some primitive form out of literally nothing. This notion is supported by the claim that sub-atomic particles have been observed appearing from "nowhere."


There are two things wrong with this "theory." First, there isn't an experiment in the world that can prove that something came from "nothing." Whatever apparatus or experiment you set up to detect such an occurrence, you will always be left with the question of whether your apparatus or experiment was faulty. That is, you can never prove whether something came from nothing, or whether your apparatus or experiment was just not sophisticated enough to detect some form of existence where you believed there was nothing.

In other words, before you can prove that something came from nothing, you'd first have to prove that there really was nothing there to begin with. And that's impossible.

But wait, there is a way to prove something. If, as time goes by, your experiment becomes more sophisticated and eventually registers "something" where it previously registered "nothing," you will have proven that your previous experiment was in fact faulty. And that's precisely what has happened in the past to scientific experiments in quantum physics. Some sub- atomic particles originally observed going to or coming from "nowhere," were in time proven to have other forms of existence, as smaller, more subtle particles. So, "something" has been found in what was previously thought to be "nothing." But the existence of nothing has never been proven.

Remember, we're talking about elusive particles which are smaller than atoms. Some sub-atomic particles only "live" for a fraction of a second. Some can only be detected by the effects they exert on other particles or objects. The sophistication needed to track down some particles which are known to exist is nothing short of phenomenal. Making claims of detecting "nothing" is a tall story.


Second, the idea that "nothing" cannot produce "something" holds up logically. The concept of "nothing" implies complete and total nonexistence -- no energy, no matter, no gravity waves, no magnetic fields, absolutely devoid of any substance whatsoever. Such a state would have no force, drive, "motivation," or power to produce anything. In other words, the inability to produce something is an inherent part of the state of nothingness. Therefore, an experiment showing something coming form "nothing" is, ironically, concrete evidence that something must beyond a shadow of a doubt exist where the experimenter thinks there is nothing.


This being the case -- that something coming from nothing is illogical, cannot be proven to have ever occurred, and cannot be duplicated in a laboratory for scientific study -- spontaneous creation cannot be labelled science. Which means that some scientific minds are actually looking for answers from "supernatural" sources while claiming -- or perhaps even believing -- to still be within the domain of science.

Of course, it goes without saying, the mere fact that some can even contemplate such a scientifically and logically irrational notion, shows the great loss at which scientists are to put forth with traditional science a truly plausible scenario for the origin of our universe.


Ironically, spontaneous creation may very well become a new beginning, leading back to the road to rationality. If this theory should ever become widely accepted by scientists, they will unwittingly be at the threshold of accepting God into science. Although spontaneous creation makes no mention of God, and it is not quite the traditional account of Creation, it points to the only real possibility -- our universe must have been created out of nothing. The difference of course being that spontaneous creation in a purely physical world is illogical, impossible, and raises more questions than it answers, while Creation by God is both fully supported by logic and also the only piece in the puzzle that really fits. After that, a little logic and a touch of desperation should eventually lead any "spontaneous creationist" to Creation-by-God.