Describe the major differences which may exist between a scientific and religious account of the origins of the universe There are two different types

One of the most persistently asked questions is how the universe came to be; "The universe initiated from the death of a huge star (a supernova). When this star exploded, the atoms and molecules where scattered extensively across space. Over time these pieces all came together and diffused with each other to create `lumps` of rock, these lumps diffused with other lumps and the rest is history..." This is a source from a book titled "Deep Thoughts" and it tells us of how science speculates the origins of the universe. The first sentence "The universe initiated from the death of a huge star (a supernova)" Is basically the argument of science, and it is backed up furthermore with facts and proof; "When the star exploded..." This makes the argument very compelling and believable because when people find out about this view of the origin of the universe they will look for facts to back up what they have been told, the religious view can't offer any proof or facts.

Religion on the other hand disputes in contradiction with the view of science and believes that the universe was created by the one and only God, not by particles and atoms fusing and performing the, once believed to be, impossible. For thousands of years before people knew about physical cosmology they accepted that the world was "created in six days". Although no proof at all was proposed they believed this account as there was no alternative and. Ancient religious explanations show no awareness of modern scientific explanations. Their picture of the physical world is limited by the primitive knowledge of the culture that produced them.

Scientists refer to the "Big bang theory" as being true as they have facts to base the argument on. However most religious people will rely on metaphysics (human imagination), "The universe was created in six days" and believe it is true because it says so in the bible which is the word of God.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night." This is a source from a book called "The Bible". It goes on like this until the sixth day is reached and God saw all which he created was well and on the seventh day he rested. Now, to me this seems too perfect and it undermines the argument of religion, weakening it and deeming it to be artificial. No evidence is given to back up each of its claims it is all about what happened and nothing about how or why it happened which surplus is shown in the argument of science.

However, Genesis (the creation of the world) tells us literally of this view but maybe it is not to be taken literally, but metaphorically. In this case it is much easier and much more practical to believe, we can understand the relationship between God and the universe and how we as people were created.

This brings me to conclude that in my opinion science is to a large extent the greater explanation of the origins of the universe because it states a realistic claim, and backs it up with proof and evidence. Religion however, does not. It states a claim of an impractical and idealistic manor and has no proof or evidence to back these claims up.