God, Man and the Universe: The Darwinian Cosmos

Louis Egbe Mbua

While Darwin cannot be credited with the Big Bang Theory or was he aware of such a concept, his "Origin of Species" has had a far reaching influence to human thought in all aspects of human observation and wonders. When I was a boy I used to wonder why the stars twinkled in the skies at night; and why this short popular school poem:

Twinkle twinkle little star,

How I wonder where you are.

It is generally accepted in human nature that curiosity is part of our trait; and then we may ask questions to find solutions to mysteries later. As a result of these mysteries, we have had to contend with fellow humans as to who has the correct answers on the origin of the universe and hence man. In the modern era, scientists and other pseudo-groups arrogating themselves the title of intellectuals, now claim that the Cosmos began by a super explosion of an infinitely dense particle, the size of a pin head; and that this explosion happened about 13.7 billion years ago.

Now, the theory goes, the entire "young" universe was full of disorganised dust and matter including "unseen" or "dark" matter; and that it took an incredibly 13.7 billion years of accidental gravitational evolution for the universe to reach its present arrangements. Meanwhile, the theory confounds critics all the more because it predicts that the earth and the moon are both 4 billion years old. On the other hand, if we examine these figures, we must reach the logical conclusion that it took at least 9 billion years, from the Big Bang Explosion, for the earth to evolve from dust and "dark" matter into its present spherical shape in time and space: meaning that the earth didn't exist for 9 billion years.

Which brings us to the question: what exactly was in existence during this 9 billion year lapse? More worryingly, it is known that the universe is arranged in Mathematical laws. Mathematics has to be done by a person for results to be manifest: as it is impossible to know the speed of light or the speed of the rotation of the earth on its axis without mathematical calculations based on universal laws. Additionally, we know that man never created Mathematics or any of the laws of nature. So who, exactly, created these physical and mathematical laws? These questions have never been answered by man.

If we examine the same theory propounded on the Sun, the lone star in our solar system, that it first appeared around 9 billion years ago; about 5 billion years after the Big Bang. Now, suppose we agree, as estimated by this theory, that there are at least 100 billion galaxies, each containing at least a 100 billion stars. This would mean that it would take up to 100 billion x 100 billion x 5 billion years for the universe to evolve by means of Darwinian natural selection and mutatative energy pulses from the Big Bang. The only logical explanation for this incredulity, is for us to conclude that all stars were created, approximately, at the same time for the Big bang theory to hold. Since the theory assumes that the universe came to being by accident, and that there is no Creator, then we must dismiss the idea that the Big Bang theory supports the synchronisation of the appearance of the stars and galaxies in the universe appearing at once.

It follows that, the universe is not 13.7 billion years old nor is it 100 billion x 100 billion x 5 billion years old. Consequently, no Big Bang occurred at all as chaos cannot result into order. The most likely and acceptable explanation is that given in the Bible: In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days; using water as an agent. Water is chemically composed of Oxygen, the element of life and breathing; and Hydrogen, the most abundant and fundamental element in the universe. The Energy of the Sun is produced by converting Hydrogen to Helium in a nuclear process at its core. The energy released was the original light used to energise the earth and not a Big Bang super explosion. Furthermore, no scientist or man of this day and age or of ancient of times was present, as an observer as wont of science, at this theoretical Big Bang explosion; and so the superexplosion theory must be rejected as scientifically unsound: and that it can never be proved -- time travel or not.

God, Man and Animals: An Examination of Darwinism

Louis Egbe Mbua

The survival of the fittest ideology or theology or both, invented by Charles Darwin 150 years ago, continues to cause consternation and disbelief within the ranks of commonsensical wisdom lovers. While a vast number of scientific thinkers have drifted into this mode of thought, in this day and age, a new wave of debate is raging: challenging the validity of Darwin's theories. The most contentious issue is that Darwin himself did not actually propound or did not know or both: that an animal cannot transform itself into a human being without the prompting of another living being but that there were natural varieties amongst the same specie. Thus, over the last two centuries, the new faith of evolution appeared to have won the battle against those who believed that man and animal were created by God; and that they were created separately according to their kinds on the same 24-hour day. When Darwin published his highly controversial book " The Origin of Species" in 1859, he was immediately challenged by his tutors at Cambridge and other eminent scientists of the day. His Geology tutor, Adam Segwick, at Cambridge wrote to him:

"I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous -- You have deserted -- after a start in that tram road of all solid physical truth -- the true method of induction -- & started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkins Locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based on assumptions which can neither be proved or disproved"

Objectively, it appears that Adam Segwick was overwhelmingly right in his fierce scepticism and outright denunciation of Darwin's unorthodox scientific methods. On closer examination, we realise that Segwick went further to deride Bishop Wilkins "Locomotive to the moon". Since we know that Niel Armstrong has actually sailed to the moon with a rocket in 1969, 110 years after Segwick's fearsome attack, we may argue today that Bishop Wilkins was a visionary; and was correct to suggest such an idea.

However, the difference here is that Segwick was criticising Darwin's method of induction and not the idea of "origin of species" or "sailing to the moon". Furthermore, he was more interested in practical proofs than theory. It follows that the fundamental difference in views, I believe, between Bishop Wilkins and Darwin is that, at least we can actually see the presence of the physical moon; but nobody had or has ever seen an animal evolving into a human. This is because the art of procreation for humans and animals is clear: the mating of male and female; and then the combined fertilisation of the same specie to produce the progeny.

Since this process continues to exist today, we have no alternative but to believe that this is the origin of species; and not a product of accidental evolution. A lion can only find another lion of the opposite sex attractive to procreate. As a result, the entire evolutionary theory of man evolving from animals is fraudulent because this implies that animals and humans have wilfully and naturally mated together at one point in time. This is not happening today; so we must agree that it has never happened in nature. Now, suppose we assume that this most unlikely of events happened. The question is this: why has this act stopped and at what precise time did this most unlikely act stop? As long as these questions cannot be or have not been answered by evolution faithfuls, then the theory appears to fit the egos of the thoroughly irreligious or the religiously misplaced depending on one's philosophical point of argument.