Evolutionism

Evolutionists hold that man arose by the same gradual process as other creatures. This belief follows from the principle that the same laws of nature apply to man as to the rest of the physical world. The Evolutionist Model (at left) demonstrates how an ancestral "ape-man" could have evolved an upright stance and humanlike physiology. However, it does not explain the tremendous expansion of the intellect and other intangibles that characterize humanity.

Creationism
Creationists, on the other hand, believe that man was created instantaneously by a cosmic powered super-being from another dimension. This belief is based on ancient, heavily retranslated writings taken from badly decomposed fragments of scroll found in a series of caves in the middle-east. The Creationist Model (at right) explains the advent of human intelligence by ascribing it to divine fiat in the creation of the first humans, Adam and Eve. A major weakness is that it fails to account for the origin of Adam and Eve's daughters-in-law.

Early Man
There were many "missing links" between the earliest ancestral apes and modern Homo Sapiens. Scientists learn about these extinct species from fossil remains. Here is an example (at left) of a fossil found near the famous "Lucy" fossil discovery. It is the skull of an australopithecine male, named "Desi" by its discoverers. Another couple, named Fred and Ethel, were found in a nearby cave, but Desi is the best preserved specimen. Scientists can learn much from a relatively small fragment of skeleton. From this fossil, it was deduced that Desi stood about four-foot seven inches tall, walked with a slight limp, disliked zucchini and was a registered Democrat

Nature's Mistakes
Man and the modern apes are not the only families that descended from the ancestral primates. (left) Many early branches of the hominid tree are now extinct, or survive only in isolated areas. Other fossil remains have yet to be reliably interpreted.
) It has been established that the basis for cellular functioning and structures in both individual cells and in organisms is their DNA. That's the "master code", so to speak (of course there's other stuff, RNA, various cellular structures, mitochondria... but DNA is the necessary basis.). When DNA is changed, the organism changes (although there are some changes to DNA that are insignificant for the organism... but when there is a permanent change, it's ultimately due to a change in DNA I mean, car accidents will change our bodies too, but clearly that's not the kind of change I'm talking about.). Ok... DNA is what maintains and can change our body shapes and functions. Us and virtually all life on earth (there are some viruses which might be minor exceptions they rely on RNA). I don't think anyone except the most fanatic (and ignorant) religious bigots will deny the above. 2) DNA is what passes those physical characteristics to offspring (I don't need to justify this also, do I?). 3) DNA is a chemical, a big complex molecule, and like any chemical, it can be changed accidentally through a variety of random factors, including radiation, chemicals, even physical force. 4) by 1), above, at least some of those changes will result in changes in the organism, at some level. Just totally randomly; we're not talking anything profound here, just garbage getting into the system. 5) Meanwhile, we're living in a dangerous, rather chaotic world. All sorts of things going on outside: we need food, there are accidents, animals and bacteria and whatever out to kill us, etc., etc. 6) So those garbage changes in 3) are probably going to screw something up and kill us. 7) But what if we get lucky, and one of them makes us stronger, faster, just a little warmer at night, because our hair is longer; our beak is a little longer so we can get further into a seed pod, or something like that, which, just by chance, helps? Well, we do a little better than anyone else who wants that same seed (etc.), right? Or the opposite might happen: we get unlucky and do a little worse. (What if some bigchange

happens as a result of a little change in DNA? Like growing an extra foot taller, or becoming severely retarded? The logic is the same.) 8) So if we have a little better chance at coping, we'll also have a little better chance at having offspring, right? If we have less chance of coping, we'll have worse chance at having offspring, or maybe we just move somewhere where the extra height (or whatever) actually helps. 9) And since it's the DNA which has changed, and which is what passes on those changes to offspring, those latter will have, if they get that change passed to them, the same teeny (or whatever) advantage. 10) Then we just go back to step 4, and repeat the process. Over and over (and over and over and...). And maybe you think that it's difficult to get changes into DNA? No way, it's just the opposite, there are mutations happening all the time; we've got very elaborate repair mechanisms that fix most of them. But not all. And there you are. The horror of Darwinism, in 10 easy steps. Is there evidence that the above has happened? Well, there are libraries full of it; museums full of it; laboratories busy observing evolution in bacteria, in flies... in thingies that grow and multiply fast, so we can see it happening. How about much more detailed theory than the general outline above? Yes, there's evidence, by the truckload. I'm not even going to begin to give you references, there are too many. Just go on the web to pretty much anywhere studying evolution of any sort, and you'll get sick of all the evidence. And the next time someone says that some piece of "crucial" evidence is missing... just remember, first, that there will never be proof of any theory in science. Newton's "laws" of gravity are not proven, and indeed were shown to be approximations. Science deals (at base) in induction not deduction... you never know for certain; certainty is for people who want religion. Second, remember the logic above. Where's the flaw? You find it; I can't. Even if the Theory of Evolution has answered the puzzling questions of how life began, and also how we arrived at this point in time, it must be noted that it does not explain the beginning of the universe. It also does not explain: Why all that? Second, I cannot see why the arguments in favour Evolution:

1. The Evidence of the Fossil Record 2. "Mutual Affinities" 3. Geographical Distribution

should contradict the Bible, for the same reason. By the way, in Genesis God creates living beings roughly one after another, which is in essence the idea of evolution.

Third: People having had a divine vision, are very unlikely to write their exceptional experience in scientific "protocol statements", rather they will try to come up to their experience in a stylistic appropriate way, and one is simply praise. If expressions in sentences differ, then contents will as well. Therefore it's impossible to simply translate sentences of the Bible in scientific sentences. Perhaps it's possible to transform them. Attempting to tie the Genesis in to scientific discovery fails for another reason, as the Bible was "written" 3000 years before the rise of Geology. As a conclusion I would suggest, taking Creation seriously as a mature Christian is an affirmation that God is the Creator of all that is, with a realisation that the Bible gives no scientific explanation. Science will enlarge our understanding of Creation, but not overthrow it. Comment: You might be interested in reading books by Ken Wilber, who is one of the authors who pleads for reintegration of science, religion and philosophy. Integral Philosophy holds that there are three complimentary ways of knowledge each of them gaining knowledge using appropriate methods:
y y y

empirical knowledge using scientific methods and instruments rational knowledge using logical instruments mystical knowledge using meditative techniques

Claims or Theories in each of these epistemological "modes" can be examined, confirmed or refuted only by using the same method it was established.

THE CREATION OF MAN

GENESIS 2:4-25 Genesis chapter 2, further explains the creation of man on the sixth day. Some have supposed that this is a second Creation account and is evidence that the Creation story is but a myth that was passed down from one generation to another and at some point Chapter 2 was added to the myth. For evidence of their point they note that in Genesis 1, the name used for God is "Elohim", and in Chapter 2, the name of God is Lord God, or "Jehovah Elohim." They say this means there were two writers, one who used the name for God, "Elohim", and a later writer who used the name of God as "Jehovah Elohim." They further state that the idea of one God grew from an earlier tradition of man believing in many Gods. Thus, the earlier account of Genesis 1, notes God as plural, but later in the time of

the Hebrews man's concept of God had evolved into the belief in one God. However, there is no basis for such a unbiblical interpretation of these Scriptures. "Elohim" is plural name of God and is found only in Hebrew. No other Semitic language has this word. It is a plural word and is always modified by a singular adjectives and pronouns and used with singular verbs. This notes the unity of God in the singular, yet allows for the plurality of persons in the Trinity. The word denotes God as the "strong one", and is a reference to His power. This is exactly what God is doing in Chapter 1, showing His power by speaking the Universe and all in it into existence. In Chapter 2, the Bible is dealing with man, and his relation to God. It is logical to have the name of God reflect this in using the name "Jehovah Elohim", meaning "Jehovah (Lord) Elohim (God)." God is the Lord, and Creator of man. Thus a better explanation for the use of two different names for God used in the first two Chapters is that the writer of Genesis, who Jesus said was Moses, was noting the work of God in Chapter 1, and God's relation as man's Creator in Chapter 2. This view does not contradict Scripture and is grammatically and within the bonds of the normal use of the Hebrew language. This is a more valid view than supposing two writers with two conflicting accounts. Those who hold to the view that Genesis 1 and 2, are two separate accounts written by two writers at different times do not believe the inspiration of Scripture. They are evolutionist who deny the Creation account of Genesis as myth contrived in the superstitions of primitive man. THE EARTH JUST PRIOR TO THE CREATION OF MAN. (Gensis 2:46) The phrase in the KJV Bible reads,"These are the generations of the heavens and earth." is translated by the New KJV, "This is the history of the heavens and earth", the NIV renders the phrase, "This is the account of the heavens and earth." The phrase summarizes the events of Chapter 1, and then proceeds to the Creation of man and the condition of the earth just prior to his creation by God.

There were not yet on earth any cultivated plants of the field or herbs (shrub) growing because man was not yet on earth to cultivate them. It did not rain on earth at this time and God watered the earth with the mist or dew that came up from the earth. Thus the original earth was created much different than what it is today. The earth today is watered by rain and there are great weather patterns on earth which make some areas arid and others areas wet. On the second day of Creation God created a great water canopy in the heavens above the earth. This created a green house effect over all the earth. The canopy kept climatic conditions stable which would account for the lack of rain fall which unstable weather condition would cause. Later as recorded in Genesis 6, God opened the fountains of heaven (the canopy) and rain fell on the earth for the first time in the Great Flood. MAN BECOMES A LIVING SOUL. Genesis 2:7 God's last acts of Creation was that God formed man and woman. First God created man's body. Everything was in place but it was lifeless. Next God, started man's heart, and lungs to function and man came alive. God was the source of life, although the material man was made of was lifeless matter of the earth it only became a "living being" when God put life into it. God breathed in man's nostrils the breath of life. The word breath is used in various ways in Scripture, Generally it means "spirit" which this seems to be what is meant here. God gave man the "spirit of life." The word "soul" can be translated as "being." It is not referencing man's spiritual nature, but of his being alive. The word is used also in reference to animals, yet we know animals do not have a living spiritual soul as does man. Animals were not being created in God's image, having intelligence, will and emotion. Animals were created for the benefit of man as was all of Creation. (Genesis 1:28) Animals live by instinct rather than by their intelligence directed by their will. God programmed animals to function instinctively as they do. There is no Scripture that suggests animals will go to heaven. They will be apart of the Millennium, but are not mentioned in the New Heavens and Earth. Theistic evolution that accepts the hypothesis of the evolution of man directed by God can not find support for their false ideas in the Genesis account of the Creation of man. The Biblical narrative states man was

made personally by God from the dust of he earth. It does not say man came from an evolution of the family of primates (monkeys, apes, chimpanzees and etc). It states man was first created and then energized or made a living being. Man did not come from living matter but from inert material which was formed by special Creation of God and then given life. GOD MAKES THE GARDEN OF EDEN FOR MAN Genesis 2:8-9 God made man and immediately gave him a home. God called it the Garden of Eden. God personally "planted" the garden. This does not seem to be referring to an act of Creation but of designing a special garden where man would live. The word "Eden" means "delight." This garden was beautiful to look upon and there was good food for man. God made beauty. He gave man within his makeup the ability to appreciate things that are pleasant to look at. This gives some small incite into God Himself in that God appreciates beauty and made us to regard beauty also. The reference to Eden being "eastward", coupled with the information found in verses 10-14 concerning the rivers of the garden has lead some to believe the location of Eden was in the area of Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). More will be said later. The reference to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, indicates it was at the center of the garden. God placed this object of testing where man would be living. In time, man failed the test by exercising his will in disobeying God's clear instruction not to eat of he fruit of this one tree.