It all began with a liquid chaos composed of the sweet waters, "Apsu"; the salt waters, "Ti'amat"; and "Mummu"- the clouds and the mists. From all three grew a seeping silt, Lahmu and Lahamu, which gave birth to Anshu and Kishar- the horizon. Their descendants were Anu- heaven- and Nudimmut- the Earth. Marduk, a descendant god, instigated a fight with Ti'amat and upon cutting her in half, separated heaven and earth.(i) So reads "Enuma Elish", the 4,000 year-old Babylonian tale of creation. Enuma Elish is a reflection of the lifestyle of those who created this cosmology. The geography of Mesopotamia is the result of silt formations that have built up in the valley between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. This silt buildup played a significant role in creating one of the world's richest agricultural regions. Therefore, it is not surprising that Babylonian creation revolves around this theme. What is notable about this story is that, as a creation "myth", it provides no explanation of how this liquid chaos came to exist nor what set the waters in motion, churning up the silt from which would descend the world we know. However, upon closer examination of various other tales of creation, both religious and scientific, it becomes evident that this is not such a notable distinction. In fact, it seems that science can provide no empirical "truth", nor can religion, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, provide an answer beyond, "God put it there." However tenable (or untenable) and universally accepted this answer may be, it provides no account of God's own origin. In this manner, creation, whatever its nature, inevitably succumbs to the "chicken versus egg" sequence. In order to avoid frustration, therefore, it is sensible to pursue models of creation which originate with time- at the moment where something remarkable occurred. We shall (temporarily) set aside the question of how the maker and/or materials came to be. Hopefully, then, through examination, interpretation, and comparison of different theories and theologies, it may be possible to reach a vague conclusion or synthesis of different viewpoints. Reality tells us that we will most likely never know exactly what happened ten to fifteen billion years ago, as I have grudgingly learned through time spent poring through books, expecting to find an answer at every turn of the page. However, what I have learned is that a great measure of understanding on this subject derives from the ability to appreciate its mystery. Through completion of this composition, I desire not an empirical account of creation (for that does not exist), but rather the ability to accept different viewpoints and formulate my personal interpretation of this amazing subject. In order to begin this "search for truth", as it was so eloquently phrased in the film Contact, one must find and examine theories and systematically choose to either reject or accept each individual one. To begin, I will examine the scientific theories- those that attempt to verify an idea by using the scientific method- observation, interpretation, and verification. These will be followed by religious perspectives- those which explain creation by invoking the role of a "prime mover", or God. The ultimate goal of this paper is not to select one theory and avow it as the "correct" one, but rather to understand the rationale behind each. I will therefore proceed from the scientific to the religious, finally relying on something akin to faith to come to my personal conclusion about this supreme enigma. Historically, scientific explanations of the universe's "genesis" have been consistently proven incorrect, finally giving way to the Big Bang theory which as yet is the most compelling theory to date. Aristotle, one of the first "cosmologists", during the 4th century B.C. declared a universe of the five elements: earth, air, fire, water, and ether. His universe was without specific origin, with neither beginning nor end, and governed simply by an "unmoved mover" who operated within the celestial sphere of his finite universe. The celestial sphere, containing the visible night sky, was the outermost of his concentric spheres, at the center of which was located the Earth.(ii) Ptolemy in the 2nd century A.D. reflected many of Aristotle's ideas in his own work, which would become the authoritative cosmology through the end of the middle ages. Ptolemy accepted the 5 elements, but formulated a more tenable planetary theory than that of Aristotle, accounting for the "wanderers" (planets) of the celestial sphere by giving each its own sphere. Each sphere also possessed its own set of mechanical laws, determined by the gods, "God", or Aristotle's unmoved mover(iii) Similarly, Ptolemy also believed that his finite spherical universe had existed for all time and never received the "spark" of creation. Years later, during the late 15th to early 16th centuries, Copernicus' ideas reflected those of Ptolemy with the slight exception that the sun replaced the Earth as the center of the Universe. And like Ptolemy, Copernicus identified with the role of an unmoved mover setting in motion the nested spheres of his spherical, and therefore finite, universe. Interestingly, all three of these science-based cosmologies invoke the role of God as governor of an eternal cosmos. Hence, it is here possible to synthesize religion and science. However, the roles of science and God are complementary: science and God do not vie for credit for creation because the idea of creation itself is absent from these theories. Still, an example of such is present in the cosmology of Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Newton affirmed that God created our universe and placed it in the infinite space it now occupies. He supported his theory of a divinely created universe with the contention that the elliptical orbits of the planets are made possible only by a force which varies inversely as the square of distance. Such a force is the only rationally possible force, claimed Newton, and therefore it must have been dictated by a divine hand.(iv) This theory successfully satisfies both the religious and the scientific perspectives. Even though Newton proposed an infinite universe, however, it was still static. The theories that form modern cosmology, concerning an expanding universe, were yet to come. Years later, in the 1920's, it was Edwin Hubble who used observations from the new 100-inch Mount Wilson telescope to support his claim (earlier made by Georges LemaCtre) that there exists a linear relationship between spectral shift and distance.(v) This claim, involving the well-known "red shift", made possible the affirmation that the universe was expanding and would ultimately lead to the Big Bang Theory which is generally accepted as truth today. If the Universe is expanding, it must at one point have been more compact, or denser, than it is today. Take this idea to the extreme and you will have a universe of infinitely dense matter that at one point explodes in a big "bang". Nuclear processes slowly create from an abundance of matter the different elements. As matter spews forth in haphazard clumps- nebulae, stars are born, and slowly the universe is created. This embodies the Big Bang theory in its most basic form. We now return to the present, having still omitted many competitive theories and so far limiting the Big Bang, the most cataclysmic event in history, to the space of a paragraph! Big Bang theory is the first to "require" a moment of creation, unless the oscillating universe model is accepted. The value of a ratio Omega determines whether or not the universe is oscillating. This ratio relates the current density of the Universe to a "critical density"- the density at which the velocity of expanding matter would equal escape velocity and therefore expand infinitely. A current density greater than critical density implies an oscillating universe, while the opposite supports the infinitely expanding Universe. "Omega" is the ratio between the current and critical densities. A value less than 1 supports the eternal expansion theory.(vi) The value, though extremely difficult to accurately calculate, is now considered to be very, very close to, though less than, 1(vii). So, the Big Bang does imply infinite expansion from a temporally finite creation. This genesis is open to debate. In 1951, Pope Pius XII used the Big Bang as evidence of the work of God- this cosmology "has confirmed the...deduction as to the epoch when the cosmos came forth from the Hands of the Creator."(viii) No purely "scientific" account is available, since no empirical evidence of "what was before" lay extant after the inferno that sent matter to the four "corners" of the Universe. Many purely religious perspectives involve a creation myth. In addition to Enuma Elish, the Greek system also contains multiple gods, the progeny of Chaos and Earth, ancestors to Zeus and his children with whom many are familiar. Christian creation is explained in the first sentence of the Bible: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." The proceeding verses explain how creation was accomplished in six days, with God resting upon the seventh day. While these stories vary in content, they all contain a prime mover. At the heart of each is the idea of spirituality- not the "how", but the "why" and the "by whom". This spirituality, though very different from the empirically-based scientific method, can complement Big Bang theory if one chooses to believe that God created the matter which issued forth from the explosion. The two perspectives may therefore easily be reconciled, if one should choose to do so. It is also important to understand that these different cosmologies obviously do not all agree with one another, but share instead a common theme. The Christian religion cannot realistically expect its members to believe that God created Adam and Eve as the parents of humanity when they have learned about Darwinian evolution. Neither can they be expected to believe that the earth was created in seven days simultaneously with the universe, when compelling evidence shows us that the earth is significantly younger that the universe. If Enuma Elish was solid, immutable truth, how were the Babylonians so comfortable with changing the name of their hero Marduk several times in order to reflect their contemporary heroes?(ix) The answer: these are not an immutable truth- they are stories intended to appease curiosity. Often, religious works wherein the creation myths are contained, teach through parable. Perhaps Biblical genesis, now pretty effectively proven as false, exists not necessarily to make a solid claim as to how it occurred, but instead to emphasize the power of God. Indeed, the 1958 publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species was the death knell for Adam and Eve, but what keeps this tale alive is not its content, but the moral message it conveys. On a personal note, I must add that I am in strong agreement with this idea. In a television promotion for the film Contact, for which I have no direct transcript, Jodie Foster made a statement that complements what I have just discussed. Her grossly paraphrased quotation was something to the following effect: "Throughout history, we have tended to fill in gaps in our scientific understanding with an answer of "God". Slowly, however, many of these gaps have been replaced with empirical explanations." Will science ever fill in all the gaps? If so, what will become of God? My belief is that religion would or will be pared down to its purest form- an almost mystical spirituality. This is a spirituality driven by the belief that, since matter cannot physically create itself from nothingness, some one or some thing must have "manufactured" that matter. Personally, I accept the Big Bang theory, but am ambivalent towards the need to pair it with God. My curiosity is such that I would inevitably continue wondering, "Well, what created God?" This is not a unique conflict. For centuries and even millenniums, observers have been asking themselves the same question. Since this is a "supreme" unsolved mystery, perhaps the best avenue to follow is to accept and respect the enigma. Some may claim that, if it "were" intended for our knowledge, then we would know. Personally, though with some chagrin, I too have learned to respect not knowing. If we knew, it would no longer be a mystery. On a final note, I would like to incorporate the idea of "faith". Faith is defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary as "firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof." This definition is directly followed by the assertion, "(for the scientist, faith can be no virtue, because it is inconsistent with the resolution to accept the fact as supreme.)" The irony, however, is that we possess "faith" in the Big Bang Theory- one universally accepted and based solely on deduction from solid observation. True, we can accurately confirm the universe's expansion, and this in turn leads us to the idea of an originally compact universe. However, no one observed the Big Bang. This, one of science's most important principles, is founded almost entirely on faith. i Lightman, Alan. Ancient Light. Harvard University Press, Cambridge: 1991. P. 5. ii North, John. The Fontana History of Astronomy and Cosmology. Fontana Press, London: 1994. P. 82. iii Hetherington, Norriss S., ed. Cosmology: Historical, Literary, Philosophical, Religious, and Scientific Perspectives. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York: 1933. P. 129. iv Ibid., p. 269 v Ibid., p. 341 vi Lightman, Alan. Ancient Light. Harvard University Press, Cambridge: 1991. P. 59. vii Ben Zuckerman and Matthew Malkan. The Origin and Evolution of the Universe. Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury, Mass.: 1996. P. 5. viii Hetherington, Norriss S., ed. Cosmology: Historical, Literary, Philosophical, Religious, and Scientific Perspectives. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York: 1933. P. 383. ix Munitz, Milton K., ed. Theories of the Universe. Macmillan, New York: 1957. P. 8.