… Thus saith Jehovah, who stretcheth
forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the
spirit of man within him: (Zechariah 12:1)
I. THE “CREATION VERSUS
CONTROVERSY, OR: “MUCH
ADO ABOUT NOTHING”
more famous subject of Darwin’s uniformitarianism, usually termed “evolution,” comes to the front.
This is always a controversial and emotional subject, and is usually discussed
in a quasi”‘scientific manner. 128
with the subject of this section, I will endeavor to avoid the above pitfall by
being as logical and objective as possible. Let the reader be the judge of
whether or not I succeed in doing so. I shall first discuss the merits and
foibles of the “pro-evolution” argument and show where objectivity
ended and human error began.
validity of evolution would not, in the
slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine
Evolutionists for nonÂscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis
account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as
being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time
to logically examine the merits and foibles of the “pro-ÂCreation”
If the Bible
is the Word of God, then science cannot help but subÂstantiate its validity-
there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for
both “evolutionists” and “Creationists,” should be:
“Do evolution and Genesis concur?” In other words, is Genesis
(particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as
we understand it?
What can we
deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular
have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain
ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will.
If the six
days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in
the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would
leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will.
We should expect that God used a “natural,” progressive means of
forming man. What is time to God other than a necessary process? Time is not the
barrier to Him that it is to us. Why should we not expect God to have used eons
of time to bring about life as we know it? Why do some people insist that God
brought about life instantaneously: would such a means really be any more
in any supernatural manifestations to man of a magnitude that would leave
archeologically verifiable traces, we should expect that God would likewise use
a natural means of accomplishing such stupendous events”‘ a means in accordance
with the laws of the physical universe.
the ramifications of free will, then, whenever traces of God’s actions are of a
nature or magnitude sufficient to leave verifiable traces, He will accomplish
these actions in conformity to the laws of the physical universe. Thus, we should
logically expect that evolution was used by God to form man and that
catastrophism was used by God in His major supernatural dealings with man.
Also, just as any skillful artist will personally put the final finishing
touches on a great masterpiece, we should expect to find subtle traces of direct
In the three
following subsections, I will put forward both Scriptural and scientific
evidence substantiating that all three of these processes”‘evolution,
catastrophism, and direct divine intervention”‘ have indeed occurred.
we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth;
but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the
six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they
were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection
asah signifies to make, fashion,
or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a
house, or prepare a meal.139
Firstly, God formed
the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay)
of the ground.
evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same
kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably
a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be
ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or
more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.
some lines of Neanderthal man died out, but it seems likely that a line in the
Middle East went on directly to us, Homo sapiens. 162
was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free
will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus
express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious
being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of
the pre”‘Adamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his
offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will,
while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam’s immediate offspring must be
homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the “first man” of the
Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for
the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.
How did God
solve this problem?
And Jehovah God said, It is not
good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him…. And
Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one
of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which
Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her
unto the man. And the man said, This is
now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21”‘23)
It is possible to
clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman.
dollar question: Who was Cain’s wife?
It is clear
from the order of these verses that Cain’s wife was not a member of his
immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against
incest) ”‘ something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the
literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she?
Cain’s wife was one
of the offspring of Adam’s heterozygous contemporaries.
If Adam and
Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the
progenitors of the human race, then why didn’t God save only Noah and his wife
(especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that
He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is
that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not
the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their
descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit.
To promote the
literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the
Roman Catholic Church’s defense of the earth as the center of the universe in
the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days
were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until
the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally
mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical
people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific
minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied
effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would
cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were
defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase
them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to
cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than
our most subtle enemy, Satan.
Who can say that God is not everywhere
else in the universe where He has created habitable planets raising up
intelligent life by the same processes and for the same Divine Purpose that He
has done so here on Earth? This is why we have not heard from these
What about the incarnation of God as a man?
else must he (Christ) often
have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the
ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice himself. (Heb.
How could this
verse be true, if God is doing the same thing elsewhere in the universe? He
only incarnated into the four”‘dimensional physical universe one time. Wouldn’t
the working out by God of His Divine Purpose elsewhere in the universe also
require His incarnation elsewhere? Yes! Wouldn’t this contradict the above
the laws of our four”‘dimensional physical universe, God can incarnate on other
worlds at other points in time and still have only incarnated from a spiritual
universe into the physical universe only once. Besides, the reference in
Hebrews 9:26 evidently applies only to our world, the Earth. But even if it is
in reference to our physical universe, there is no contradiction. Thus, there
is nothing scriptural to preclude the identical working out by God of His
purpose through extraterrestrial life forms on other planets in the universe.
the reasons why the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is not directly
mentioned in the Bible are: First, we do not need to know; second, such knowledge
would violate free will since it would be direct indication of knowledge that
could not be obtained by objective means.
If God is
indeed consummating New Jerusalems elsewhere in the universe, then there will
be evidence of the sudden emission of increased amounts of energy (seven-fold,
mainly in the visible spectrum) emanating from a singular source. This could
explain otherwise (scientifically speaking) inexplicable phenomena. Whether or
not these phenomena are detectable with our current astronomical capabilities,
I do not know.
search the physical universe in a vain quest for answers that cannot possibly
fill your emptiness or satisfy your longing. These
answers can only be found within you, and then only by turning back to your
Creator and receiving Him. All else is truly vanity of vanities, temporal