For decades, the world’s most brilliant scientific minds have been working feverishly to come up with answers to questions that have little, if any impact at all on the quality of life for humans. The Big Bang, an occurrence estimated to have started and ended in an infinitesimal fraction of a millisecond, presumably filled an infinite void of nothingness with matter – countless galaxies, solar systems and planets of incredible diversity and indescribable beauty. The “Bang” sounds plausible, since we have replicated it on an immeasurably small scale, but the vaporous imprints left behind suggest that these miniature solar systems did in fact exist. For us, their presence was fleeting, but if we listen to Einstein, the passage of time on their scale may have been much different. In any event, it seems that we created something from nothing, which begs the question that has haunted us for centuries; who, or what, created our universe … and us? I do not have a problem with science or technology.
Both have taken us from a time when the only issue of interest on any given day was the schedule for upcoming events that included beheadings, stonings, and a bevy of other inhuman activities carried out to rid communities of undesirables. Witches and scientists were usually at the top of the list for the next scheduled public execution.
Despite all of this, scientific inquiry continued, and over the long haul, it gave us clean water, medicines, aluminum siding and plastic trash bags, to name a few benefits. Unfortunately, men like Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and John Hancock had no way of foreseeing the need for “separation of science and technology from state,” an omission that would cost us dearly, as we have seen and are witnessing now. Had such an article been written into the Constitution, brilliant but shortsighted men like John Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi might have been out of work. The Cold War may have been limited to shoe banging and McCarthy hearings. I say “may” because the string of presidents starting with Harry Truman would have fought vigorously for constitutional amendments enabling them and their military counterparts to begin the process of destroying the planet and its people.
“John, the amendment passed. I would like you to recruit the top physicists in the world, and build a bomb capable of destroying an entire city.”
“President Truman, can you give me some idea of the size of the city?” Oppenheimer asked.
“Well, it’s hard to say, but we would like to try it out somewhere and I’d say the bigger the better. Perhaps a city in Japan, like Tokyo.”
“You are talking about millions of people, sir, and most of them are civilians.”
“Oh … right. Well, how about Hiroshima … or Nagasaki?
“Mr. President, it will be done in a flash.” And it was, literally.
That is the downside of science and technology. We don’t know where it will take us. I cannot find much upside in the Big Bang theory either. It may enable us to become “Gods” if we can truly figure it all out, and maybe that is the reason why the scientific community “appears” to have no interest whatsoever in the question of creation from a human perspective. While they profess not to care about the larger issue and divorce themselves from Creationists, they obsess about things like artificial intelligence. Creation of artificial intelligence is a pursuit that embodies contradictions within contradictions. When scientists talk about it, they confuse the issue by using the word “artificial.” There is no such thing as “artificial” intelligence.
Actually, both words are inappropriate because what they are really talking about is the ability to reason; to process environmental stimuli and make decisions. An organism or a man-made facsimile can either reason, or it cannot. A lake is a lake, regardless of how it came to be.
The Big Bang was an effect, not a cause. I side with the Creationists on this issue. Events do not occur without the intervention or instigation of an entity with the ability to create. When humans manipulate the activity of particles and insert extra electrons or other smaller particles into formations that resemble solar systems, what are they actually doing? We don’t know, but trace particles have been observed in two places simultaneously. What does that suggest? A parallel universe, perhaps?
I tend to stay clear of organized religion because I don’t think anyone can say with any certainty which one of the major “Gods” is best, although billions of people believe they know. Yet I do believe in a “Supreme Being.” I don’t know if this being is a “he,” “she,” or “it.” According to vocalist Joan Osborne’s “One of Us” it may be the slob sitting next to you on the bus. Logic tells me that this “Being” or “Entity” is more likely to look like us than a beetle, let’s say.
As a beetle, odds are that the “Entity” would have created us in its image, and I am not keen on the idea of automobile-driving, cigarette-smoking, AK-47 toting beetles. Our world would look ridiculous. Movie theaters would have no seats, condominium complexes would be built with sand and dirt, and Brooks Brothers suits would have to be drastically modified.
I hate to say it, but until our scientists address the question directly, I am going to assume that they are actively avoiding it because they already know how to “create.” The temptation to be a “God” is irresistible. The fact that they themselves were created by an entity that was imperfect means they will make mistakes. You know, on a computer you can accidentally delete an entire document. We are all subject to accidental deletion. Maybe those head choppers back in the dark ages had the right idea.