By: Emmanuel Sarpong Owusu-Ansah

Demystifying the Mysteries of Life: Reconciling Big Bang and Creationism

The Big Bang theory attempts to demonstrate that the universe exploded into existence from an extremely hot and dense ball that was concentrated at one place, as it was discussed in my previous article. Could this theory, in a way, be related to the proposition of the Ionian philosopher and perhaps creationist, Heraclitus?

Remember, that the term universe or cosmos is used in this discussion to refer not only to this planet (the earth), but all the other planets, the sun, moon, stars, and any other observable entity that exists within or outside of this earth, including those that have not yet be discovered by humankind.

The Ionian Philosophers, it must be explained, mainly sought to establish the stuff or matter that the universe/cosmos is made of. Thales, often referred to as the father of philosophy believed that the basic stuff of the cosmos is water; his compatriots, Anaximander thought it is boundless or indeterminate, and Anaximenes identified air as the stuff the universe is made of.

But Heraclitus of Ephesus contended that the basic stuff of the universe is neither water, boundless, nor air; it is, in his opinion, fire, an entity he maintained is in constant transformation or change just like the flow of a river. In fact, his famous statement that “one does not step in the same river (flow of water) twice” was influenced by the belief that all is in constant change.

Heraclitus explained that the universe changes according to a principle or plan which he identified with fire (something he considered as eternal) and therefore a deity – God. In Heraclitus’ opinion, fire (heat) is the source and fundamental order of the cosmos.

So if the hot gravitational singularity that the Big Bang exponents propose is viewed as the First Cause, or an entity that has always existed, then the Big Bang theory is perhaps in harmony with the assertion of the ancient philosopher and creationist, Heraclitus, that the basic stuff of the universe is fire; something that he referred to as a deity or even God.

As a matter of fact, the real nature or substance of the First Cause that creationists call God, is not known; it could be anything – water, air, fire, clouds, male, female, etc. According to the Bible, the First Cause (God) created humankind in His own image and likeness. If this statement is given some credibility and is interpreted literally, then it could be speculated that the First Cause has human features such as being rational, capable of relationships with others, and making responsible decisions.

The only difference is that while humans are believed to have both physical and spiritual elements, God, in the view of creationists or religious people, is entirely spiritual – existing in a sphere outside the normal physical universe.

But again, as an eternal and a divine authority/power, this entity could very likely transform itself into anything – water, air, fire or a hot ball, a rock, metal, wood, soil, spirit, a human being, etc. at any given moment. This notion, to some extent, is consistent with the biblical account that even though the Supreme Entity is believd to be a spirit, He, at some point in history, became (transformed Himself into) a human person (Jesus Christ) and lived among men. It is therefore possible that the supposed hot ball that proponents of the Big Bang theory identify, is linked to the Eternal Entity creationists talk about that can in fact turn Itself into anything including a hot and dense ball.

However, the big question is: Are the two biblical accounts of creation an authentic reflection of how the Supreme Entity (the Creator God) actually created the universe? If they are, then how do we reconcile the two accounts which are massively dissimilar (Genesis 1: 1 – 2: 3 and Genesis 2: 4 – 25 or 27)? Is the contradiction not a justification that the creation stories in the bible are nothing but myths? If the two versions came from two different sources and cannot be reconciled, then which one is more authentic? Won’t the creationist theory be more credible if it is detached from the two contradictory creation stories in the Bible?

Majority of the Big Bang theorists admits that the hot ball came into existence at some point in time, and thus not eternal. If this is the case, then the Big Bang seems to establish how the Supreme Entity creationists call God, created the universe; He probably created it from a hot and dense ball, not aimlessly but with a purpose, a plan. This was apparently the position held by Fr Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest (Jesuit) cum Astronomer and Physicist (Astrophysicist) who was, in fact, the original brain behind the Big Bang theory as well as what are now known as Hubble’s Law and Hubble Constant.

This would also mean that the source of the cosmos, the Supreme Being, is not a violent entity, but used seemingly aggressive and violent means to bring the universe into existence. It is about time creationists thought twice about their over-reliance on the biblical accounts of creation.

We have, in the last two articles, discussed the two major theories that seek to solve the puzzle regarding the origin of the universe or existence. But isn’t it possible that existence, including the universe, humankind, and all physical and mental activities is only an amazing illusion? Couldn’t Descartes’ pronouncement: “cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am) be deceptive?

What convinces us that we truly exist? Is it our supposed ability to think (as Descartes asserts), talk, learn, marry and make babies, become pastors, embark on inventive activities, be emotional, and/or establish relationships/friendships?

Almost every adult person has had the experience where they ‘convincingly’ partook in exciting events such as intellectual activities; became mighty royals, great sports personalities, renowned academics/educators, reputable political or religious leaders and celebrities; married to or slept with gorgeous persons; enjoyed romantic relationships with admired and fancied individuals; etc. only to realize later that it was all a ridiculous and disappointing dream, an illusion.

Can’t our supposed existence be likened to those kinds of illusive experiences we often seem to have in our dreams? Could our belief that we exist be what I prefer to call, an Eternal Illusion – an illusion that can never be conquered and never be clearly realized? Remember, all the questions posed are only food for thought.

Since there isn’t enough evidence to support the idea that existence is an eternal illusion, I would, for now, hang on to the position that existence is a reality that traces its origin to a Supreme Entity of Supreme Mind. I would prefer, in subsequent discussions, to call this supernatural entity, whatever it is, ‘Totrobonsu’ (creator of the waters, in Akan) or Tetebotan (meaning, rock of ages, also in Akan).

My next two articles will seek to highlight the arguments posited by creationists to prove the existence of Totrobonsu and to attempt to unravel the fact of human life and the enigma of death.

Emmanuel Sarpong Owusu-Ansah (Black Power) is an Investigative Journalist, a researcher, an educator and the author of Fourth Phase of Enslavement (2011) and In My End is My Beginning (2012). He may be contacted via email (andypower2002@yahoo.it)