Eleanor Pitt 12CC Which theory has more credibility, The Big Bang Theory or Intelligent Design? Whether on the television, in the newspapers or on the radio, the on-going debate about what caused the world we live in to have been created, and how it was created is plastered all over society and in the media. Top Scientists all over the world are still yet to find the definitive confirmation of the Big Bang Theory, and the worlds specialized Theologists are having similar difficulties in attempt to confirm the proof of Intelligent Design. I have researched into not only the information backing up each of the theories, but where this information has come from, and the trustworthiness and reliability of each of these Theories. I have done this in order to help me along my way of answering the extremely debatable question of my EPQ essay title. As I am agnostic myself, I am trying to look for information about either theory in order to help me, and other people that are unsure like myself, and that are confused by the contradicting ideas of how the world began, to be able to come to a definitive decision on which theory has the most credibility. The fact that I am unsure about the two areas makes me want to be able to see them clearer and understand them, because as I start to read into one topic, I begin to convince myself that I have come to a definite decision, but as soon as I look into the details of the other, Im back to square one again! As the title of my EPQ project involves the word credibility, I have carried out some research into what credibility really means and how you would go about defining it. Whilst researching, I discovered that it is a combination of factors, including trustworthiness, reliability and expertise. When considering the different factors for and against The Big Bang Theory and Intelligent Design I will be judging the credibility of each of the two theories on the two factors as previously listed. 4 By the end of this essay, I hope to have come to a conclusion on which theory I believe has the most credible information backing it up. I will take into account the wide range sources that I have collected over the past few weeks, from books to the internet; to quotes from the experts, alongside the results I have collected from my survey that was given out to a broad range of teachers, from subjects including Physics, Maths, Religious Education, Biology, Geography and Chemistry, in order to come to my final decision. I have listed below the general straight-forwards definitions and explanations of both The Big Bang Theory and Intelligent Design, and have also stated the differences between the Creation Theory and Intelligent Design, as the two are often confused. I found these quotations very helpful to refer back to whilst carrying out my research, as they are quite simple, short explanations of two very complex ideas. The Big Bang Theory: What happened at the very beginning of our universe? The Big Bang Theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment1. I believe that the Big Bang Theory is most famously associated with the Physicist Stephen Hawking, though he is not the only Scientist that is dedicated to the Theory. Thousands of Scientists across the globe are looking deep into the Big Bang Theory, and what the

Eleanor Pitt 12CC Cosmologists (astronomers that study space and time) describe as the Big Bang Theory, is the aftermath of the massive explosion, and all that surrounds it. The Big Bang Theory has many questions yet to be answered definitively about the Theory, such as: What caused the Big Bang? Why was there a Big Bang? And what was actually around before the Big Bang happened? The Big Bang is supported by a mix of Religious Believers and Scientists, though generally speaking, there are more Scientists that are confident with The Big Bang Theory than there are Scientists that are confident in Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design: Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process, such as natural selection.2 As it is linked with both Scientists and Religious believers, Intelligent Design isnt entirely one or the other. Intelligent Design challenges Charles Darwins Theory of evolution, by finding holes (unexplained parts) in the Theory. The Theory also states that there must be some sort of intelligence, whether it is a God or extra-terrestrial being that accounts for the making of the world and beyond, and the evolution of it. It is known as a form of Creationism, and could be described as a new way of describing nature with God, or another extra-terrestrial being. It also directly contradicts famous Scientists such as Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins and the famous Charles Darwin. Intelligent Design is also a relatively new theory, in comparison with others, because the earliest found official publication of Intelligent Design was called Darwin On Trial, written by Law Professor Philip Johnson in 1991. The title of this publication backs up how contradicting the theory is to that of Darwins theory of evolution. Differences between Intelligent Design and the Creation Theory: There is clear evidence in nature of intelligent design. The designer in intelligent design could be God, but it could also be an extraterrestrial race or some other supernatural force. Also, intelligent design does not draw its arguments directly from the Christian Bible.3 Intelligent Design is very easily confused with The Creation Theory, and admittedly, I did get them confused in the early stages of naming my EPQ project! Intelligent Design is sometimes referred to as Intelligent Design Creationism, which I think confuses things further! The main difference between the two is that The Creation Theory states that God is the Intelligent Designer, and evidence for this has been taken straight out of the Christian Bible, whereas, in Intelligent

Eleanor Pitt 12CC Design, the being that created everything is unknown, it could well be some sort of God or, on the other hand, it could be a type of extra-terrestrial being. The fact is that no one knows what it may be! The Creation Theory says that all living things were made individually by God, but Intelligent Design believers are sure that we are here today as humans due to some sort of God or higher being influencing the path of evolution of everything that we know of today. When I was choosing which sources I should use to help me explain the definitions of The Big Bang Theory, Intelligent Design and the differences between the Creation Theory and Intelligent Design, I wanted to find easy to understand definitions because I was at the start of my essay, and wasnt completely secure in the different terms that I was yet to go into so much more detail about. I also wanted to make sure the sources I was using were reliable and not biased.

The Theories and their scale of Credibility: The Big Bang Theory: It is well known that astrologists have spotted that everything in our Universe and beyond that is expanding, so all the Universes etc. are moving away from one another. Therefore, it is a common belief, that if time were to be reversed, everything would contract into one single point. The question burning on the lips of agnostic people such as myself- is where did this single point come from? As of yet, no one knows, but scientists in our day and age, are certainly at an advantage to those around even as early as 100 years ago, so perhaps the answer for us is just around the corner. As technology develops, the Scientists are becoming ever-closer to creating what they believe are the same conditions that there were during the Big Bang. Spanning the borders of Switzerland and France, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) lies around 100m under the ground. This is said to have been one of the most new and exciting pieces of Science technology to date, and is a massive contender in providing all of the information we need to know about particle physics, in order for us to finally complete the Standard Model. (The Standard Model is the fundamental particles and forces believed to be compulsory in order for the Universe to exist). Though its all very well that the technology on Earth is developing much quicker than ever known before, this is one of the main factors that are affecting the credibility of the information that we hear about every day. I see about the LHC discoveries in the newspapers, and hear about them on the radio and television, being exploited when a new particle has potentially been spotted by the Scientists working at the LHC. So, how credible and reliable really is the technology that is creating the information that scientists are basing the theories on, and how reliable are the sources in the media at telling us about what is

Eleanor Pitt 12CC happening at the LHC, and therefore other areas of science? This analysis will be relevant to my EPQ project, because it is one of the most up-to-date pieces of science technology known to date, and could fundamentally change the Big Bang Theory and the information surrounding it, if a strange result (anomaly) happened to be found. Im using the experiments taking place at the LHC, and the Large Hadron Collider itself, as a general example of scientific research, as Science is so broad I would be forever writing about different experiments that have taken place over the years!

The credibility of information from Scientists studying the Big Bang: Trustworthiness: Scientists have a known reputation for admitting when theyre wrong, for example even the worldappreciated and recognised Stephen Hawking was proven wrong on an occasion by Leonard Susskind, a professor of Particle Physics. Hawking once accepted his own disproven theory, and Susskinds objection had only made Hawking even more eager in order to disprove Susskind again and again. My survey results: An anonymous science teachers response to my survey backs this point up further. When I asked whether the people would change their opinion on The Big Bang Theory if it were to be completely disproven, I got a response of the following: If the Big Bang Theory and all the information backing it up were to be completely disproven, and Intelligent Design was proven with significant, solid evidence, I would change my view.

A theory in science is only put forwards when there is information that has been gathered to prove the theory, that has been repeated a number of times. This experiment is then carried out by various different scientists, usually in the same way, and the results recorded are exactly the same every single time. This perception is sometimes distorted by the media, which tend to over-exaggerate potential discoveries of the researching scientists, usually claiming that scientists have discovered something, when the real story is that they think that they might have discovered something. This exaggeration by the media is not only known in the fields of science, but in more or less every article that we read. However, in the defence of the media, they have started to make this a thing of the past. For example, I remember coming home from school to a Breaking News headline on the television, Scientists Narrow Search for God Particle. This as a headline wasnt very misleading, and anyone with an interest would look into it further, and see the report that the Higgs Boson may end up being proven to not exist, not to have definitely been found. The word Narrow shows this, so even from the headline you already know that the finding may not be definite. This would completely rule out any definitive decisions made by the scientists, so nothing in the media will get across to the public as being misleading. In context, this adds to the credibility of information gathered by the Scientists, and therefore adds to the credibility of the information gathered about the Big Bang, as we know that the information we are receiving is going to be trustworthy. So, if we know information getting across to us is trustworthy, how do we know that it is reliable?

Eleanor Pitt 12CC The reliability of the information: How do we know that the people that are apparently thinking up the theories, such as the Big Bang, reliable? By this I mean, whats not to say that any old person could have come up with the Big Bang Theory, and weve just shaped our knowledge of the solar system and beyond, around the facts surrounding the Big Bang Theory? Also, how do we know that the scientists today making breakthroughs at the LHC for example, are legitimate scientists, and have not been placed at the LHC willy-nilly? In the past, there certainly have been fraudsters that have faked undertaking research and experiments, usually in order to claim money and/or fame. For example, Ranjit Chandra OC, a professional in nutrition and immunology, had over $2 million worth of his supposed doctors or professors salary that were opened in various different bank accounts, under the names of various different family members. Eventually the $2 million, in his own families free-spending banks, turned out to have come from the funds provided to Chandra in order for him to undertake the experiments and research that he had allegedly failed to do. Fairly, Chandra had the $2 million taken off of him, but despite this awful act of forgery, it is rumoured that Ranjit Chandra stills holds his OC. (OC stands for Officer of the Order of Canada. Chandra was appointed an Officer of the Order of Canada. This is allocated to someone that is believed to have demonstrated an outstanding level of talent and service to Canadians). Wikipedia search OC for source. This is an example of one of few instances of fraud in the scientific side of things, and the case of Ranjit Chandra is one of the most shocking cases that I have come across in my research, due to the fact that Chandra still to this day has his Order of Canada, despite his massive act of forgery. Knowing this, how can we possibly be able to trust in the scientists, and how do we know that they arent just coming up with experiments, out of the blue, that theyve supposedly done for the good of science and understanding when it could just be all made up results in order for the money or social (fame) reward? I looked into this further and came across a brilliant website. PLoS ONE: This website (www.plosone.org) is an interactive journal of all scientific and medical peer-reviewed research. I came across a research article titled: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? This is said to have been the first meta-analysis (meta-analysis means the results gained are a combination of questions and answers from other surveys that are related to the hypothesis, in order to come to some sort of conclusion.) The use of the meta-analysis method is good in this case, because no Scientist is likely to willingly admit, upon direct questioning, that they ever have fabricated their research and/or results. The meta-analysis gave the results that 1.97% of the Scientists had admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified their data, at least once. Up to 33.7% of Scientists had admitted other questionable research practises. Also, they found out that misconduct was reportedly more by medical/pharmaceutical researches than any other areas of researchers. Out of all the scientists in the world, around 2% isnt bad as a percentage, but there still is a margin of uncertainty.

Eleanor Pitt 12CC My survey results: I asked 20 people what evidence do they find the most reliable when making a decision on something such as a Theory? 16 people were not religious and 4 people were. The entire 16 nonreligious people voted that they believed Scientific Breakthroughs were the most reliable in their opinon. The 4 religious believers were split down the middle, 2 voting that Religious Scriptures are more reliable and the other two voting that a combination of Religious Scriptures and Scientific Breakthroughs made something the most reliable. However, in the additional comments section of my survey, I received feedback that theres a range of Religious inferences such as geographical features in the environment, so this could slightly alter the results from this question. Despite the possible margin of change in my results, they still show a clear relationship that people that believe in the Scientific explanation of the creation of everything we know are confident that Scientific Breakthroughs are a very reliable source of information.18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Which evidence is the most reliable?

Combination of Religion and Science Religious Scriptures Scientific Breakthroughs

Summary of the credibility of The Big Bang Theory: So, to summarise, the information that is gathered from the Scientists of today, and how this information is put across by the media definitely has a lot of credibility. I believe that it is fair to say that this credibility has been earned over a number of years. Though the information put across by the media has been known to have been quite misleading in the past, it is becoming ever more reliable, more so in scientific fields than in any other. This reliability goes hand in hand with the rapidly improving technology, which brings accuracy to the table when considering the actual facts backing up theories, such as The Big Bang Theory. From the meta-analysis, 1.97% of Scientists have allegedly falsified their results/experiments. This is certainly a downfall for the level of credibility of scientific information, but I believe that the increasing technology and media reliability slightly overshadows the small percentage of potential scientific fraudsters.

Eleanor Pitt 12CC Intelligent Design: Wiki search Thomas Aquinas and intelligent design. In the 13th Century, Thomas Aquinas an Italian Priest of the Catholic Church, came up with the argument that every kind of natural living thing on the Earth acts to achieve the best result and debated that these living things cannot proceed to do this without some kind of intelligent creator that had/is giving some sort of directions. At this early stage of the development of the theory, the intelligent creator was believed to have been God, but nowadays most people that believe in the Theory are unsure of whether the intelligent life is a God or a type of extra-terrestrial being. The Theory came to light from the overview of humans believing that life on earth is too perfect to have been made just by chance. This Theory has elements of both religious and scientific information, and has been described as the Bridge between Science and Theology. (Theology is the study of religion.) From my research, I have found that peoples opinions on whether Intelligent Design is a scientific theory or a religious one differ. For example, the website www.ideacenter.org explains about how Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, because it is based on observations of the types of complexity of the world around us. The website also says that there are no statements about what the intelligent designer is, but just that there was once an intelligent designer involved with the production of the universe and everything we know. 11 NEED TO GET SOURCE INFO ON However, on the other side of the argument; I found a website, www.atheism.about.com, with an article that was titled Intelligent Design is Re-Labelled Religious Theology. The article that I found states has a quote from a retired professor of theology, John F Haught. Haught says in this article that he believes Intelligent Design is exactly the same as any other traditional theological argument for the existence of God. He talks about Thomas Aquinas, who I previously mentioned, and how everyone used to believe that the intelligent designer was definitely God, and doesnt believe that something as drastic as the intelligent designer in the theory be changed so easily. 12 NEED TO GET SOURCE INFO ON I decided to close in on this side of Intelligent Design (whether its scientific or religious) because when Im judging the credibility of the information backing it up, I need to be able to distinctly know where the information for the Theory is coming from. (For example with The Big Bang Theory, I knew all the information surrounding it was scientific). To conclude this counter-argument within my project, I will discuss both scientific and religious evidence when making a decision on how credible Intelligent Design is. First I will approach the division of people, such as John F Haught, that believe Intelligent Design is in-fact the work of God, hand in hand with science. The Historical/Religious evidence backing up Intelligent Design and its credibility: Over the past few years, there have been a few potential breakthroughs by the Theologists, but unlike The Big Bang Theory, most of the information for this has already been accounted for, for example in The Holy Bible and various other artefacts. This is one of the main differences between the information backing up the two theories, that The Big Bang Theory is backed up mainly by recent scientific information, and that Intelligent Design is backed up by a combination of different factors, such as religion and more recent scientific breakthroughs.

Eleanor Pitt 12CC

Religious Evidence: The Bible: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. THE HOLY BIBLE. This quote from the Holy Bible has been taken by both Christian literalists that strongly believe in the Creation Theory and also the Religious people that believe Intelligent Design. (Literalist is the term used for a Religious worshiper that believes in the Holy Scriptures and stories word for word.) The Holy Bible is made up of sixty-six books and was written by thirty-four men over a course of what is thought to have been around 1,500 years. All of the books are still to this day believed to demonstrate Gods message very well. BIBLE PROBE There are some potential flaws in reliability of the Bible, as it has been translated many times from its original language, Hebrew, to over 2,300 different languages. From this vast array of languages, it is believed that the King James Version alone has over 20,000 mistakes alone! Also, for all the different people that translate The Holy Bible, they also add in parts that they believe are suitable. For example, the bible probe website, as referenced in my source analysis, has written this about the differences in translation of Genesis 2:4:

(New International Version) The NIV in this verse says, "This is the account of" (King James Version) The KJV says, "This is the generations of" The Septuagint Version says, "This is the genealogy of".I believe that the factor of the translation errors reduces the credibility of the Bible, in my point of view, quite dramatically, which in the bigger picture doesnt do justice for the Religious Evidence backing up Intelligent Design. How can you agree and trust something that you dont know is very accurate? Religious Geographical Features around us: After taking in the results from my survey, I got the feedback that Religious Scriptures, such as the Bible, arent the only source of knowledge when basing Religious opinion and ideas on something. In the additional comments part, an anonymous Religious believer wrote that in their opinion, that Religious Scriptures arent the most reliable of sources, though one of the most obvious. Geographical features are also available!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NEED TO COMPLETE

I think the most important and helpful thing that I have learnt from my survey is that people

believe in religion, whether it can be proven or disproven, their opinion may not be affected. Underneath is a quote that I have taken from my survey of an anonymous religious believer, about whether they would alter their view on Intelligent Design if the Theory were to be totally disproven. It shows that no matter what new theories people start to find things out about, they will always

Eleanor Pitt 12CC

have a core of Religion (Christianity for example) within them, that is based around

faith,

recognise dictionary source, and nothing else. I looked up faith in the OxfordDictionary and this is its definition: Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. I wouldnt change my view if Intelligent Design was disproven because I dont base my trust in the evidence supporting the Theory. I have belief in the Theory, which will not be altered by anything trying to disprove the presence of God or another creator beyond human understanding. It is a personal belief of mine, influenced and based on my familys beliefs, and mutual agreement that I have of the rights and wrongs associated within Christianity.

Scientific Evidence: Though Intelligent Design is said to have been a mix between