The Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution VS Creationism

Nowadays, Creationism is considered to be the main enemy of science. In spite of the fact that significant amount of scientists try to demonstrate their belief in God and how the two can co-exist, creationism is still amounted to the biggest threat, in the cultural war, to the people in white coats and their followers. My opinion is that because of this cultural war, people think of Creationism as a negative thing - an illusion, created by our ancestors, who were limited by their time and thus primitive philosophers, who have not had access to all the knowledge that we now do, by sitting on our beds using a revolutionary thing called the Internet. Therefore, in this debate (not this round only, but the rest of rounds as well) I would try to shed some reason on this "wrong by definition" labelled subject and demonstrate, how it is actually worth thinking and considering Creationism as an answer not only to questions like "How?", "When?", "What?" and "Who?", but also the most important question in the history of human beings - "Why? ". I would like to start with as simply as possibly putted definition of Creationism. Of course, I would be obliged to mention here definition provided by PRO: "the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation rather than by natural processes." I am well aware of the emphasis that has been put by PRO on the second part of this definition - and I do promise to come to it later, however as foundations and basic understanding of Creationism, it is important to elaborate on the primary part first. Also, since the subject of Creationism has extremely little or no evidence whatsoever, I would like to heavily rely on rationality and logic. It is important to understand that my logic can be different to yours, therefore I will try to be as objective as possible. Another remark I would like to add, is that PRO did not mention GOD or BIBLE in his definitions. I would definitely be in favour of putting those 2 matters aside of this debate. I would most definitely refer to both concepts, but in no way will I rely on them as foundations or pillars that are necessary for the existence and support of creationism respectively. Therefore, I believe I can begin my argument here. "the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation". There are multiple definitions, explanations, theories that complete Creationism as a whole. There are multiple subjective views on the methods of creation, purpose and everything that comes after it. (A Spectrum of Creation Views held by Evangelicals". Ipswich, MA:American Scientific Affiliation.) Therefore I want to deliver the ultimately practical (as much as it can be practical for something that has no evidence) way in which Creationism can be true. As I myself understand, word "Creationism" is derived from a verb - "to create" (quite obvious. Or not.). It implies, that the Universe and living organisms were basically created. Now, before I will connect this semantic explanation to my argument, I would want to elaborate on the idea of priory and posteriori knowledge, which was promoted and brought to light by German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who contributed endlessly much to the philosophy and ethics as we know them today. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience. Therefore, when we try to solve what is 2+2, we do not need to find physical objects in order to find a solution (hopefully.) - we can simply turn to the knowledge we already have. Hence, we can almost instantly work out that the answer is 4 (hopefully.). A posteriori knowledge is dependent on experiences or empirical evidence. The best example here would be the theory of Evolution, which is based on evidence found. Kant argued that these are the only 2 ways of knowing things that we use in our lives. Let me demonstrate another, more practical example of a priori knowledge. When I walk along the street and I see some building for the first time in my life, I would not need a physical proof, records or blueprints of this building in order to believe that it was built (created) by a human being. I will know this without any evidence. The conclusion that I could come up here with is that I do not need to see the actual process of creation of something, or any evidence of that creation taking place - I would rationally know that it must have been built by a human being. Created, in a divine action. However, many people would counter this notion by saying that at some point early as a kid, I must have seen or witnessed a house being built, which is how I know that consequently every house I will see after, I will know was built by a human. In other words, there is no prior knowledge, without posteriori knowledge. To that I could answer that I have never ever seen a laptop being assembled. I have never seen a plane being constructed, nor have I ever understood and seen how medicine or drugs are produced. However, I have been told that, and I know, thanks to my priori knowledge, that all of those things were created by a human being. I hope that the reader is with me (as if you understand what I am saying. Not that I try to win you support by being that blunt) at this point and he sees where I am going with this (again, figurative speech. Thanks). Let me explain where this argument is drawing inspiration from. "Watchmaker analogy" This analogy dictates that any single design requires a designer. William Paley, one of the many brilliant minds of philosophy, argued in favour of creationism, by saying that if a pocket watch is found on a seashore, it is most reasonable to assume that someone dropped it and that it was made by one or more watchmakers, and not by natural forces. This whole argument can be bound into one bundle of Design argument, a.k.a. Teleological argument, which brings the idea that whenever we see a complex mechanism, we would assume that there must be a maker and creator of that mechanism. Again, a counter argument here would be that this implies that a mechanism is a non-organic or non-living thing. A biological mechanism is simply a completely different story. However, if the theory of abiogenesis is right, then everything organic originated from non-organic. Hence, in a vague way, we can argue that if the analogy applies to a non-organic mechanism, it could apply to its descendant - living object as well. Besides, at this point Science has been able to clone DNA, which means creating a living thing, a living mechanism. Therefore, using Priori knowledge and a watchmaker analogy, we can say that it is very and more than very likely, that a complex mechanism was created by something or someone. Who is the creator is a completely different question, which is not essential at this stage of the debate. Before I conclude Round 1, I would like to mention another, one of the 5, arguments for the existence of God(I am aware that I am not arguing for the existence of God, but merely idea of creation. Therefore I am trying to shape those theories to fit my ideas.), which is a key to understand why creationism could not only be a theory, but a necessity(yes, I said it.). Cosmological argument It is better known as the argument of a primary cause. A fellow student of Plato, Aristotle took up this theory and modified and expanded it, delivering a much clearer understanding of its premise. The idea is that every object we see was created by another object or subject. The latter object or subject would in its turn be created by another subject or object and so on. However, the most important word here is not a "subject" nor "created", but "cause". Everything has caused everything. Everything could cause nothing and nothing could cause everything (It will all make sense, I promise). This sounds confusing. Lets consider the idea of Big Bang. Scientist claim that before Big Bang there was nothing or almost nothing, and then everything appeared out of nothing. That is how nothing can create everything. However, this scientific statement contradicts itself in that energy, for example, cannot be created or destroyed - only converted. Therefore, how can nothing create everything is a question that science fails to answer coherently. However, if we turn to the idea that there as a primary maker, as some people would like to call it GOD, could explain quite a lot. A primary maker, for example, could have caused the Big Bang itself. Therefore, in a way, it was created by that supreme being, which would therefore tie in to the idea of Creationism. To those, who question who created the primary being or why he does not require a primary cause, if everything else does, I can only quote a brilliant and hilarious scientist Bill Nye: "Simply because you do not understand it, does not mean it is not true." I do not understand how my laptop is assembled, but that fact does not prevent me from knowing that it was assembled by a human. At this stage of round one I would like to recap and conclude my first argument. There are 2 main ideas to follow to understand how Creationism could be more likely true, than other scientific theories - Design Argument and Cosmological argument. I do agree, that there are not a lot of evidence to support Creationism, which is why I relied so much on rationality and logic, and I will make sure to criticise evidence given by sciences to support their theories. Human beings mainly operate from priori and posteriori knowledge, giving a heavy preference to the former rather than later. Which in turn means, that we could use that priori knowledge to understand the concept of Creationism and how real it can be. I do sincerely apologies for complicating this argument or for any grammar or source mistake. This is the end of my Round 1.