# Both Science and Religion agree that the Universe was created.

This is my view of it. Science says it was via the Big Bang. Religion says it was via a non-physical-to-us Being, so lets term that being ‘Prime’ to avoid all other connotations. Science does not know what caused the Big Bang, nor seemingly will they, whilst Religion says it was Prime, though, obviously enough, they do not give it the name ‘Big Bang.’

There are only three posibilities. Either both are right, one is wrong, or both are wrong. Being as there is seemingly no third option, then we can ignore the last one. Obviously Religion cannot prove their case or they would have already done so. Equally Science cannot disporove it, ditto. It is supposed to be able to prove its own case and claims to have done so for the most part.

So the question is ‘is their account of how we became, starting with the Big Bang even probable and if so, how probable? Note the precision ‘we’, not meaning any other form of life, but specifically humans and on Earth. A little simple maths helps us get some idea. If the ‘Chain of Life’ from the start to us had only 10 links, then the probability is given by factorial 10, written 10! This means 10 * 9 *8 *7 etc and that equals 1 chance in 3,628,600, hmmmmm, thats not a lot.

Obviously there are very many links in the chain from the Big Bang to us. Going from a massive flow of subatomic paticles to the formation of hydrogen atoms and then stars and then the fact that as they age and blow up, all the heavy elementtds that were produced in their life span get scattered though the cosmos, plus all the natural laws we know of had to evolve and we don’t know them all yet, right through all the steps of evolution down here including multiple chance mutations and cosmuic events.

Lets be conservative. Lets say there are only 1,000 links in that chain. Now 1,000!, being 1,000 * 999 *998, etc, gives approximately a figure of 2,500 digits, which a mathematician was kind enough to supply for me. That means we have a 1 in a figure of that size chance of being here. In practice that means nought point 2,500 zeros after the decimal point before we get a significant figure. So its virtually ZERO!

If that way of looking at is correct, then the scientific account is clearly wrong. Now would the Sherlock Holmes method of eliminating the impossible then mean that what remains, no matter how improbable, is the answer? Seems very likely. However, there still remains an eek. Unless everything is an illusion, which the buddhists believe, then a lot of what Science proposes is provable, so how can that be?

The answer appears to be that, in fact, both are laregly right, but they are not talking at the same level. Religion does not give that much detail on Creation (the biblical one gives it in 32 short verses, less if you stop when we appear), just the main outlines. The same account goes from nothing to the dry land appearing on Earth in only a few verses. What Science has done is divide what happened for that part into an almost indescribable complexity.

It is that very complexity that renders their account so improbable, especially when you start chaining them together to form the right sequence. Its like trying to explain the beauty of the Taj Mahal by digging deep into the ground to see how its foundations are supported. In exactly the same way they miss the beauty and magnificence of the handiwork of Prime, its simply not visible to them. In short, Science and Religion are opposite sides of the same coin and we figure on both sides! Does that make us the interface??

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.