Digestible Narratives of our History

A Briefing on the world and it is not as we hope it is...


These are the first steps of our existence in this world—indeed, of the world itself. Each of these steps has a scientifically accepted explanation within the global scientific community. We may still be awaiting the discovery of steps that precede´-or-follow these three, and there s little we can do but wait for such developments—unless we contribute to them ourselves. It is truly unfortunate that we play no active role in any scientific advancement beneficial to humanity--;-- instead, we content ourselves with awaiting what others produce, only to endlessly debate it like fools. We either claim that these discoveries were already mentioned in our sacred books,´-or-dismiss them outright as incorrect, ridiculous,´-or-useless—despite the fact that every scientific achievement requires years of rigorous and serious research before it comes to light.

What is even more regrettable is that some people believe they can dismiss´-or-reject a scientific theory merely through an article here´-or-there, simply because they dislike it,´-or-because it challenges the beliefs they were raised on and indoctrinated with from childhood.

First and foremost, we must understand that scientific theories are not published and internationalized unless they are rigorously examined and tested by specialized scientific committees. This process is nothing like a religious fatwa that a cleric might issue without oversight´-or-accountability. In fact, the scientific field is governed by extremely strict and-limit-ing criteria. If a theory does not pass these criteria, it will never see the light of day. Every scientific theory is subjected to precise and repeated experimentation to confirm its validity before being published in scientific journals´-or-included in educational curricula. Thus, the matter is far more complex than many imagine.

Even successful, validated scientific theories are never exempt from ongoing critique--;-- they are always under scrutiny and re-examination. This is because science does not recognize absolute and immutable truths. That is one of its core strengths and one of the greatest features of the scientific field. Any error´-or-fraud in a scientific theory is first discovered within the scientific community itself. This is rooted in what we might call the "scientific honor code"—a concept rarely found in other fields.

Without delving too deeply into the conditions, complexities, and constraints of scientific research—conditions that provide assurance regarding scientific results—I wish, in this article, to dissect some of the terminology used in the applied and experimental sciences. Many people confuse these terms, assuming they mean the same as their everyday counterparts, when in fact, their scientific meanings differ substantially.


---

First: The "Explosion"

When we use the word explosion in everyday language, it usually conjures a very specific image—derived from the verb to explode—such as bombs, dynamite, destruction, and chaos. This is why many people misunderstand the term Big Bang in physics. They think it refers to a literal, catastrophic explosion that contradicts the idea of a precise, ordered universe. How could such chaos give rise to a harmonious cosmos?

But is that really what the Big Bang means?

The truth is, the Big Bang does not mean an explosion in the conventional sense. It simply means an emergence—a coming into existence. Thus, the common argument against the Big Bang theory (that an explosion can’t result in order) collapses. Besides, there s no absolute order in the universe anyway—but that s a topic for another article.

More importantly, the term explosion as used in scientific discourse refers to emergence, not destruction. Scientists also use the term when referring to the Cambrian Explosion, the period during which life forms appeared on Earth for the first time. This was not a literal explosion, but rather a metaphor for the sudden appearance of complex life forms in a relatively short geological timeframe.


---

Second: The "Sudden"

We’ve established that the Big Bang and Cambrian Explosion refer to sudden emergence, not literal explosions. But what does sudden mean in this context?

In everyday speech, sudden implies an abrupt, unexpected interruption in the logical sequence of events. For instance, saying "Element Z appeared suddenly at point X" suggests that just a second earlier, it didn’t exist there at all—implying it popped into existence out of nowhere.

But scientists do not mean this kind of absolute jump from nonexistence to existence. In science, sudden refers to a phenomenon that occurred over a relatively short time frame compared to larger scales, like the age of the Earth. For example, the Cambrian explosion spanned 10 to 13 million years, which, while long by human standards, is relatively short in geological time.

In the case of the Big Bang, scientists don’t know what preceded it—but that doesn’t mean nothing existed. Most scientists agree that matter is eternal in some form. Some hypothesize infinite parallel universes´-or-countless prior "big bangs." They don t claim a jump from absolute nothingness to structured reality--;-- rather, they acknowledge that part of the causal chain is still unknown.

Thus, sudden in science means: "We don’t yet know the full sequence, but we know it wasn’t magic´-or-randomness."


---

Third: The "Coincidence"

In everyday language, we often confuse suddenness with coincidence, using them interchangeably. When we say, "I ran into Zaid by coincidence," it sounds very much like, "I ran into Zaid suddenly." In both cases, we’re referring to something unplanned.

So, when someone says, “Life originated by coincidence,” does that imply something chaotic and spontaneous?

In science, coincidence does not mean chaos´-or-randomness. It refers to emergence due to natural conditions without external intent. Scientific "coincidence" means that when the right conditions exist, phenomena will naturally occur. It doesn’t mean there’s no order--;-- it just means there s no deliberate planner.

For instance, when Stanley Miller and Harold Urey simulated early Earth conditions, they created 26 amino acids—the building blocks of life—in the lab. They didn’t plan the specific molecules. They just provided the right conditions, and those molecules emerged spontaneously. That is what coincidence means in science: spontaneity governed by natural law.

By this logic, rust appears when iron, water, and oxygen interact—not by divine intervention. Algae emerge when conditions allow. Rain happens when certain physical factors align—not because God wills it. Science now understands that heat + water = vapor, and vapor + cool surface = rain. No metaphysical force required.

So coincidence in science means: events happen naturally when conditions are right—not that they happen by sheer luck´-or-chaos.


---

Fourth: Evolution

I do not intend here to fully explain the theory of evolution—that’s been done in other articles. But I want to clarify what evolution means.

In general, evolution means change over time. And everyone agrees that change is constant. So why exclude living organisms from this law?

In science, evolution describes how this change occurs. According to the theory, all living beings share a common ancestor. Their differences result from rare genetic mutations, with natural selection favoring beneficial traits.

Can this be verified? Yes. One could study biology, genetics,´-or-visit a natural history museum. The theory is backed by extensive, observable evidence.

Now contrast this with the religious view: that God created man from clay, let it dry into a statue, breathed a soul into it, and then created woman from his rib. From there, humanity supposedly proliferated through incestuous sibling marriages.

Can we verify any part of this story? No. We know nothing about God, the soul,´-or-how a clay statue turns into a living being.

So, which explanation should we accept—and why?

This is the real test for those who claim to value science and reject superstition. If you reject evolution because it sounds like a myth—that humans came from monkeys—then ask yourself: why accept a tale of divine sculpture and soul infusion? What scientific evidence supports that?

We evolutionists have mountains of evidence. What do you have? Just faith.

And that, while not shameful, is illogical. We base our belief on the evidence we possess. You base your evidence on the belief you hold.
That s the very different.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1