THEORIES OF ORIGINS
The Newest and Oldest Explanations of the Universe
Until the beginning of the nineteenth century, scientists and non-scientists alike accepted. the explanation of the origin of the
universe, the earth, and life on earth as we find it set forth in the first chapter of Genesis in the Bible. The development of
the sciences of geology, anthropology, botany and zoology fostered theories of origins that differed from those given in the Bible.
With the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” in 1859, which gave the first logical explanation of the origin of life on
earth, the scientist raised serious questions concerning the accuracy of the Genesis accounts. For more than a century there has
raged a controversy between the Bible student and the scientist on this point of scientific accuracy of the Bible, with the
scientist slowly winning the battle, until today there are only a few voices raised in support of the Biblical account.
The unprecedent discovery of new knowledge in the Space Age has greatly increased man’s understanding of the universe in which we
live. New theories of origins have been proposed and the older theories are being modified by the new knowledge. What conflicts
still exist between these new and modified theories and the ancient story from Genesis? The writer had occasion to study this
matter in the Fall of 1972, and the present chapter is the result. The Space-Age theories will be briefly described and the
pertinent verse from Genesis Chapter 1 will be quoted. The reader can judge for himself the degree of conflict that still reamins.
The Origin of the Universe
(The "Big Bang" Theory)
In 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubbell, using the then new 100-inch telescope at the Mount Wilson Observatory near Los
Angeles, made a discovery that electrified the astronomical world. He found that the island universes we call galaxies were all
receding from the earth. Whatever direction in space he looked, he found that these remote collections of stars were receding.
Furthermore, the ones that were more distant were receding at greater velocity. This led to the formulation of a theory that, at
the beginning of time, all matter was crammed into the center of the universe in a gigantic fireball, which exploded and sent its
fragments into space in all directions. These fragments became stars, star clusters and galaxies, and are still travelling away
from the center of the universe with essentially the same velocity as that with which they started. This theory has facetiously
been given the name of “Big Bang Theory”.
In recent years computer models have been devised and studied to see how such a process could have occurred. These studies show
that a mass of matter 60,000,000,000 degrees hot would indeed send this matter into all directions with the velocities now observed.
Computers have also been used to work backward in time and space from the observed directions. distances and velocities of these
galaxies, to see if they could all have come from a common point in time and space. These latter calculations show, within the
uncertainties of the observations, that they could indeed have originated from a small region of space in the center of the
universe, approximately 10 billion years ago.
Where did all this matter come from, and how did it get so fantastically hot? Science has no answer except that given in the very
first verse of Genesis:
“In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1)
At this tremendous temperature, ordinary matter could not exist. The very atoms would be torn apart into their constituent
electrons, protons and neutrons. According to the principle of the conservation of matter and energy, most of the particles that
comprise the earth, the buildings, our very bodies, were present in that fireball, but without any form or shape whatever.
“And the earth was without form and void;" (Gen. 1:2a.)
The tremendous concentration of matter created a gravity field of unimaginable intensity. According to Einstein’s Theory of
Relativity, such a gravity field would produce such a curvature of the path of emitted light, that such light would loop right
back into the fireball and no light at all would escape. The universe must have been utterly dark.
“and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” (Gen. 1:2b)
As the explosion progressed, throwing the mass of plasma, as hot electrons, protons and neutrons are called, in all directions into
space, the gravity field slowly lessened, until the curvature of the path of emitted light no longer caused it to loop back into
the fireball, and light began to fill the universe.
“And God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light.” (Gen. 1:3)
As the plasma expanded and cooled, individual electrons and protons joined to form atoms of hydrogen. These combined with neutrons
to form atoms of helium and other elements. Mutual attraction caused these atoms to come together to form larger units — molecules
of gas and dust, which in turn were attracted toward each other to form the stars. Somehow one certain region of the original
plasma would coalesce to form one star, and another region would come together to form another star. Until recently scientists
thought that the distribution of stars in a galaxy was haphazard, but recent studies have shown an unbelievable degree of order
and organization, not only among the stars and star groups, but among the galaxies and galaxy groups. Such order could not have
come about from any known natural process.
“And God said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.'”
Astronomers have learned a great deal about the life history of a star — how it is born, how it develops, how it dies. The major
factor in the life-span of a star is its size. The larger it is when formed, the hotter it becomes, due to the impact of accreting
plasma. The minimum size is that necessary to generate the temperature at which hydrogen will “burn” in an atomic reaction to form
helium. The energy released by this reaction provides the radiation which causes the star to shine. This minimum size is about half
the size of our sun. The smaller stars, due to their lower initial temperature, burn the hydrogen rather slowly, and hence last
many billions of years. Most of the smaller stars we see in the sky with our telescopes were probably among those created from the
original fireball. The larger stars, being hotter, burn their hydrogen much more rapidly, and exhaust it after a few billion years.
Then they start burning their helium, at the same time becoming much hotter and able to generate the more complex atoms of the
higher atomic numbers. When the helium is exhausted, these stars enter the “nova” stage, in which they become exceedingly hot and
finally explode, in a miniature repetition of the original “Big Bang”. The resulting cloud of expanding plasma, now containing
many or all of the atoms possible in nature, slowly cools, contracts, and forms one or more smaller stars, and perhaps planets as
Origin of the Solar System
We know that our sun contains all 92 natural elements, and yet it is too small and at too low a temperature to have generated them.
Accordingly, scientists believe that there was once a much larger star in our part of space, which reached the nova stage about
five billion years ago. Our solar system is the result of the condensation of the dust cloud created by the explosion of that star.
Such explosions are observed somewhere in our galaxy or other galaxies every few years, perhaps each one creating a solar system
Due to the rotation of the dust cloud from which our sun was formed, not all of the matter could be condensed into the sun, as
some of it would have enough velocity to orbit perpetually around the sun. We believe at least ten rings of this dust were so
formed, nine of which slowly condensed into the nine planets. The tenth ring formed the asteroids which populate the zone between
Mars and Jupiter, where Bode’s Law says a planet should be. Similar rings must have been present around the outer planets (Jupiter,
Saturn, Uranus and Neptune), which condensed to form the moons of these planets. The rings of Saturn are now known to consist of
billions of rocks and pebbles that never became moons. Thus we have a sample of both the planet-forming process (in the asteroids)
and the moon-forming process (in the rings of Saturn). The final stages in the formation of a planet or moon involve the impacting
of fragments of rock of all sizes. The results of this process are to be seen in the craters of the moon. Mariner IX has disclosed
similar craters on Mars. Due to the lighter gravity of the Moon and Mars, the energy of impact of these rock fragments was
sufficient only to melt the local area of impact, thus forming the craters. The Earth and Venus have a much stronger gravity, so
that the energy of impact (36 times as great for the Earth as for the Moon) melted the entire planet. Our Moon was formed as a
planet, not as a moon, probably on the opposite side of the sun from the earth, but in very nearly the same orbit. Because the
orbits were not exactly the same size, one planet circled the sun a little faster than the other, and hence caught up to the other.
When the two planets came close enough for their gravities to interact, they began to circle one another, as they now do.
The findings of the Apollo Program have provided strong sustantiation for this theory of origins (originally called the Dust
Hypothesis), and scientists can now explain the presence of all types of stellar objects (galaxies, stars, planets, moons,
asteroids, comets, meteors) by this one theory. Whatever the size and number of the end products, the process involves first an
explosion, then the expansion of the cloud of plasma and dust, next the separation of a portion of the cloud into a region, and
finally the condensation of the cloud into a galaxy, a star, a planet, a moon, or a smaller body. If pure chance was the operating
principle, how can the highly precise system that results be accounted for? Could it not be the mind of God that determines how
the plasma shall divide?
“And God said. 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters (plasdma), and let it divide the waters from
the waters'.” (Gen. 1:6)
Due to the rather significant differences in composition between the rocks of the Moon and those of the Earth, scientists agree
that the Earth and Moon had separate origins. The Earth captured the heavier masses of rock, those containing iron and other
heavy metals, which form the core of Earth, whereas the Moon has only traces of these heavy elements. When the Earth’s surface,
originally molten from the heat generated by impacting meteors, cooled sufficiently to permit water to collect in the basins,
the oceans and continents were established. Until quite recently, geologists were certain that the surface of the Earth cooled
into its present form, and that the six continents and seven oceans have never changed in gross shape. But within the last ten
years evidence from studies of the ocean bottom has changed their views. Exploration has revealed a huge crack in the Earth’s
crust which begins in the North Atlantic and extends through all the major ocean beds around the world. Over millions of years,
molten rock has oozed through this crack and caused the ocean floor to spread apart from the crack in opposite directions. The
segments of Earth’s crust separated by the crack are called tectonic plates, and one such plate underlies each continent. This
theory of Continental Drift, as it is called, was formally accepted at the International Congress of Geologists in 1971. According
to the theory, the surface of the Earth was originally shaped so that there was only one continent and one ocean. The words of
Genesis 1:9 now take on great significance:
“And God said, 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear'; and it
was so.” (Gen. 1:9)
One of the new sciences of space is called the science of planetary atmospheres. From the spacecraft that have explored the
atmospheres of Venus and Mars, as well as the Earth, we have been able to work out an acceptable theory about the evolution of
the atmosphere of a planet. This theory says that the Earth in its youth contained no free exygen in its atmosphere. Due to the
high temperature of the Earth’s surface, all the oxygen in the ring of dust from which the Earth was formed must have combined
chemically with hydrogen (to form water vapor and later the oceans), carbon (to form carbon dioxide), and other elements (to
form the surface rocks on the Earth). Then where did the oxygen now present in the atmosphere (23% of the total) originate?
The only known source of free atmospheric oxygen is the process of photosynthesis carried on by most green plants. Using the
energy of sunlight, these plants are able to take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and water and minerals from the earth, and
from these form the foods and tissues which support their life and enable them to grow. In this process, excess oxygen is
created, which is discarded into the atmosphere. Today, ninety percent of the oxygen so produced is from the algae that populate
the surface layers of the oceans, and these tiny plants have probably been the principal source of atmospheric oxygen ever since
life began on Earth.
Since animal life requires free oxygen for its existence, plant life must have preceded animal life by a significant fraction of
the age of the Earth. It is interesting that Genesis describes plant life as the first life to be created.
“And God said, 'Let the Earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his
kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the Earth'; and it was so.” (Gen. 1:11)
Study of Venus by spacecraft has revealed some interesting things about Earth’s most similar sister planet. The atmosphere is
rich in carbon dioxide, and devoid of oxygen. The perpetual cloud cover which has shrouded Venus in mystery since it was first
observed by telescope, seems to be related to this atmospheric composition. A consequence of the cloud cover is a uniform
temperature over all the planet, and the absence of day and night. The cloud cover distributes what little light seeps through it
rather generally over the surface of the planet, so that there is little to designate the passage of time. If our inferences from
the spacecraft findings are correct, Venus has no night, no day, and no seasons.
The early Earth must have had an atmosphere much like that possessed by Venus today, and hence likely also had no night, no day,
and no seasons. The findings of tropical plant remains in the coal of arctic regions is confirmation that there were no seasons
during the time these plants flourished. Other evidence also points to the absence of seasons in Earth’s early climate, the cause
of which has puzzled scientists until quite recently. It is quite likely that the Earth also had a perpetual cloud cover, which
admitted only a portion of the sun’s light, and distributed that over the entire planet. Thus the Earth, in its early life, like
Venus today, had no night, no day, and no seasons.
As the green plants slowly converted the carbon dioxide of the Earth’s atmosphere into free oxygen, the climatic conditions were
changed. The cloud cover dissipated, allowing more sunlight to reach the surface. The sun, the moon, and the stars became visible
from the ground. Night, day, and seasons appeared.
“And God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be
for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.'” (Gen. 1:14)
Some years ago, a special layer of ozone (oxygen with three atoms per molecule instead of the usual two) was detected in the upper
part of our atmosphere. Ozone has the property of absorbing the ultraviolet light from the sun, which we know is strong enough
to kill all animal life on the land surface of the Earth. Before this layer was formed, then, animal life was restricted to the
protection of the water in the seas and oceans. It is not known how high the concentration of atmospheric oxygen must reach to
form this layer, but there must have been a considerable period of time when animal life could exist only in the waters of the
“And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above
the Earth In the open firmament of the heaven.'” (Gen. 1:20)
But in due time the ozone layer was established, and animal life appeared on the land, to live as parasites upon the plant life
that had already been established there.
“And God said, 'Let the Earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beast
of the Earth after his kind'; and it was so.” (Gen. 1:24)
From the amount of carbon in the vast deposits of coal all over our planet, there must have been a much greater quantity of carbon
dioxide in the air than now, for this coal came from the early plant life of Earth. Although the higher plants respire (use
atmospheric oxygen to convert their food into energy, as animals do, returning carbon dioxide to the atmos phere), the conversion
of carbon dioxide into free atmospheric oxygen by photosynthesis greatly exceeds the reverse process of respiration. Were it not
for the animal life in the seas, oceans and on land, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have been used up long ago, and
all life would have disappeared from the Earth.
The Origin of Life
How did life originate on our planet? This question has intrigued man for centuries. The Biblical account which we have already
examined says very little about the How, as its author was concerned only about the By Whom. When the invention of
the microscope revealed the existence of minute life forms as bacteria, spores, microbes, and the like, some scientists postulated
that life occurred spontaneously. The first logical explanation of how life began was put forth by Charles Darwin in his famous
book, “The Origin of the Species”, published in 1859. Darwin had observed the manner in which both plant and animal life could
adapt to its environment, and conceived the brilliant idea that this capability could explain the tremendous variety of plants
and animals that exist on Earth (now estimated at nearly 1,500,00 species). Darwin postulated that all life had originated from
the creation by God of a very simple one-celled plant. Later scientists said that this first creation was accidental. As this
plant adapted to its environment, it somehow formed a multi-celled plant, in which the cells began to specialize to perform the
various functions of life more efficiently. This multi-celled plant continued to increase in complexity and diversity, until
one day a plant came into existence that could respire (use atmospheric oxygen to convert its food into energy). Then a later
respiring plant, or possibly a one-celled respiring plant, developed mobility — broke its tie with the soil or the waters of
the ocean and became an animal. Over many millions of years both plant and animal life forms increased in complexity and diversity
until we have the situation we observe today. Darwin took the principle, which was only an observation and not a scientific law,
and boldy stated that it, and it alone, could explain the origin of all life from a single source. Darwin himself did not know
the nature of this principle — only its results. What made him think that this principle could explain the tremendous differences
in size, organization, composition, and function of the myriads of life forms? The prevailing scientific philosophy of his day was
that Nature at her source was essentially simple. Newton’s laws of motion were simple, and yet they explained a whole host of
physical situations. Why shouldn’t life, at its source, be simple. Why didn’t Darwin stop at a few hundred origins? Say, one for
each major type of plant and animal? Only because a single origin was simpler than multiple origins. No scientific evidence existed
that could influence the choice. It was anybody’s guess, and Darwin’s was the single origin.
So little was known of biochemistry, physiology and other life sciences in Darwin’s day, that the application of the principle of
adaptation to the environment seemed quite reasonable as the explanation for all life. After all, there did exist on Earth
representatives of all degrees of complexity in both the plant and animal worlds. Since no alternative to Darwin’s theory of
origin has been suggested, other than the Biblical account, scientists all over the world have accepted Darwin’s theory, and
teach it in the schools as the only theory of the origin of life. In fact, in many textbooks it is treated as fully and firmly
established, and scientifically proven, whereas there is still not one piece of evidence in any scientific discipline that
establishes one origin rather than many for life on Earth. Quite the contrary. The more we learn about life, both present and
past, the more certain it appears that life occurred many times, not just once. Let us examine some of these recent findings in
geology and genetics.
Geology and the Multiple Origins of Life
The geologist studies the evidence found in the rocks of the existence of life in ancient times. This evidence consists of remains
of one kind or another (bones, shells, teeth, skulls, occasionally whole skeletons) or the marks or imprints in the rock
(footprints, leaf outlines tracks, impressions) left by the life form either while it was living or before its dead body decayed.
These remains and marks are called fossils. Hundreds of thousands of fossils are to be found on exhibit in museums all over the
world. By the patient work of many hundreds of workers, these fossils have been classified, compared with living animals or plants,
and their time of life on Earth estimated. By comparing similar fossils from different parts of the world and in different types
of rock formation, the geologist attempts to correlate the age and environment of each life form whose fossil has been discovered.
Since the determination of the age of a given rock formation is a very difficult task, the discovery of a fossil in the formation,
which is similar to one found in a rock formation whose age has been determined with some confidence, gives the geologist a
convenient and sometimes abused method of arriving at the age of the rock at hand. Darwin’s theory of the evolution of life from
simple forms to more complex forms, has given the geologist a framework on which to pin each new find. Often the only criterion
for the age of a given rock is the type of fossils found in it. Hence the geologist has worked out an elaborate structure of the
divisions of geologic time into various ages in which he believes certain types of plants and animals lived. There are many
uncertainties about this structure and the allocation of life forms to the several ages, as evidenced by the differences of
opinion among the experts. But in the main, there is basic agreement.
If Darwin’s theory is correct, then the very earliest life on Earth should be very simple single-celled plants. But such a life
form has no way of leaving a record of its existence that could be found today. In fact, the life form has to be quite highly
developed in order to have a bone, a shell, or a leaf mark left in the rock to record its existence. Hence, the differentiation
of life forms is already very far advanced before the creation of fossils can occur. The roots of the “tree of life” are buried
in the past with no way presently known to uncover them. Hence, the division of life into families of major life forms is already
a fact when the first fossils begin to be imbedded in the rocks for modern geologists to find. Accordingly, the manner in which
these basic patterns of life became established cannot be determined from the fossil record. It can only be inferred from the
forms of life present on the Earth today, and from the changes in those life forms that can be observed in the fossil record.
Whether the branches of the thousands of types of living things all belong to one tree, or have sprung from many trees, cannot
be determined by the science of geology. But the geologist can determine many things about the way these branches have further
sudivided into smaller branches and twigs. As he traces the similar life forms back through time, do several branches join into
a common source? The question is unanswered. No specific case has been found of a life form which is ancestral to two or more
life forms whose organization differs significantly from the ancester. The geologist is still looking for the transitional form
that will demonstrate the correctness of Darwin’s theory. But over 100 years of searching has still not revealed one solid example.
Another source of corroboration of Darwin’s theory would be to trace existing life forms back through the rocks and observe their
changes. One of the life forms whose fossil history is most complete is the horse. Examples of horse-like creatures have been
found in all ages back to a time, 55 million years ago, when a dog-sized creature called Eohippus (first horse) grazed the pastures
of that day. But this creature is still a horse, similar in all organizational details to the horse of today. Earlier than
Eohippus, no horse-like creature is to be found, nor any creature from which the horse could have evolved. Where did Eohippus
come from? Did he come from some older transitional life form that has not yet been found, or was he divinely created, as Genesis 1
states (verse 24)? Science cannot answer that question. The tree of life is known to have at least 1,500,000 twigs, if we equate
a species of plant or animal to a twig, and count both living and extinct species. Geologists can trace most of these twigs to
branches, the families of species. But beyond that he cannot go from the fossil record. Whether these branches came from a single
tree trunk, as Darwin proposed, or whether they came from many trunks, as Genesis states, cannot today be determined from geologic
evidence. Geology has confirmed the major principle of Darwin’s theory. Life does adapt to its environment. But as to the claim
of Darwin that all life came from a single origin, geology cannot say “Yes” or “No”. Whether life arose from one source or many,
geology cannot tell.
Genetics and the Multiple Origins of Life
The science of genetics deals with the reproduction of life, having been named from the “gene”, that mysterious bearer of hereditary
control postulated by the nineteenth century monk, Gregor Mendel. Ever since, scientists have been trying to find out what the
nature of the gene is, and how it controls the characteristics of offspring. Today, thanks to the painstaking work of thousands
of researchers, and the development of such powerful tools as the electron microscope, science has uncovered the mechanism of the
gene, although it is still not known how it works. The machinery, so to speak, has been observed in action, and its end products
are known, but the internal processes of the machinery are still mysterious. The basic unit of heredity is the chromosome, now
believed to be an enormously complex single molecule of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). This molecule contains within its structure
the genetic code which determines the manner in which all cells to be produced by the organism are to be organized and constituted.
When we consider the enormous complexity of the human body, for example, with its three trillions of cells, of thousands of
different compositions and functions, the 46 chromosomes of the human egg cell must contain a fantastic amount of specific
information, for all of this vast number of cells have their origin in the fertilized egg cell of the human mother.
The life and function of the living cell has been studied now for many years, and the major functions are well known. The organism
grows through the multiplication of cells, by the process of mitosis, cell division. In mitosis, the chromosomes containing the
genes are duplicated, one set going to each of the two daughter cells. In the vast majority of cases, the duplication is exact.
However, once in a great many divisions, a change takes place, which is called mutation. The mechanism of mutation is completely
unknown, although its effects are quite obvious. Mutations occur spontaneously, at rates that differ in different kinds of
organisms, and can be produced artificially. In the latter case, X-rays or chemical agents can be used to produce mutations, but
there is no way to control the type of mutation which results. In plants and animals which reproduce sexually, mutations have been
occurring since the beginning of the species, and the resulting variability has made each member of the species a unique organism.
The great majority of mutations simply alter the size, shape or color of some part of the plant or animal. Some mutations suppress
the normal development of some portion of the structure of the organism, resulting in a deficiency which may or may not impair the
survival of the animal or plant. Since mutations are copied when the chromosomes divide to produce daughter cells, their effects
are hereditary. The process of mutation, then, is the key to Darwin’s principle of adaptation to the evironment. Here is the
process by which life forms change and develop.
What is a gene? And how does mutation affect the gene? We are close to the answers of these questions, but they are not yet
answerable. The gene is thought to be an “active site” along the length of the DNA chromsome, which brings about the manufacture
of some chemical substance used by the organism. About half of these substances are proteins, the enormous molecules made of
long strings of amino acids. The twenty most common amino acids can be arranged in so many different ways in the enormously long
ribbon of the protein molecule, that the number of different kinds of proteins is literally as great as the number of stars in
the sky or grains of sand in the Earth. It has been estimated that if just one of each possible kind of protein molecule was
assembled the resulting mass would be as great as 1,000 Earths. Hence the proteins of each organism are unique, and the organism
can recognize its own protein molecules and reject foreign ones. This is the basis for the body’s protection against disease
caused by foreign bacteria or viruses. The gene, then, seems to control just which forms of protein the body will make, and how
much and at what rate. The gene also seems to control the growth of the cell, when and if it will divide, and possibly also some
or all of the cell's life functions. If a mutation is completely uncontrolled, as those caused by radiation and strong chemical
agents appear to be, then the expected result of a mutation would be a derangement of the organism’s delicate machinery, and this
indeed is what we observe. The spontaneously occurring mutations, on the other hand, seem not to be destructive, but simply
provide variability in the structure of an organism. How great a change can a mutation effect? Can the observable differences in
structure and function of the million or so species of plants and animals be attributable to the mechanism that controls mutation?
The adherent’s of Darwin’s theory believe so. But what we know of the number of genes that are active in producting changes in the
simplest forms of life, the probability of accidental mutations producing such radical changes as the type of metabolism, the
manner of obtaining oxygen for producing energy from food, the kind of nervous system, brain, and other body features, becomes as
low as the probability of accidental occurrence of life in the first place.
Rather than postulate the millions of favorable accidents that must be postulated, if one is to accept the accidental creation and
development of life, it seems to me much more reasonable to believe that these changes were induced by an intelligence, who knew
what He wanted to achieve at each step, and exactly what mutations were needed to achieve the desired result. To use a crude
human analogy, the operator of a gambling house can influence the performance of his gambling machines so that they produce
results favorable to the house rather than to the player, who supposes that his chance of success is unbiased. In just such a way,
the divine intelligence we call God could influence the operation of the mechanism of mutation to bring about the radical changes
required to produce a new type of life.
The Origin of Man
Where did man come from? The anthropologist would have us believe that man descended from an ape-like creature, and has produced
a series of ancient fossils to support his contention. These range from the sub-human types (Ramapithecus, Australopithecus) and
the “handy man” (Homo habilis) to the human types (Homo erectus, Java man, Peking man, Homo sapiens, Neanderthal man, Cromagnon man)
and finally modern man (Homo sapiens sapiens).
In the Summer of 1973, Dr. Richard Leaky announced the discovery of a skeleton of an ancient man in northern Kenya. These bones
were found beneath a layer of rock dated 2.8 million years old. This antedates the discovery by his parents in Central Africa of
the then oldest human type by nearly one million years. If Darwin’s theory is correct for human evolution, this find should have
been one of the sub-human types. But Leaky reports that its whole shape is similar to that of modern man; the leg bones are
practically indistinguishable from those of modern man; and the brain case, though smaller than that of modern man is considerably
larger than the brain case of a sub-human type. This find, at the very least, discloses the degree of uncertainty in the origin
of man. It is evidently far from being the well established theory that anthropologists have been advocating. If this skeleton is
that of Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) as Leaky believes, where did it originate? Could it not be that God took one of the
lesser varieties of man and “breathed his spirit into him”, “made him In God’s image”, as the passages like Genesis 1:26 affirm?
“And God said, 'Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth.'” (Gen. 1:26).
As we compare the creation statements from the first chapter of Genesis with the modern theories outlined in this chapter, it is
evident that, at the very least, there is complete agreement in the sequence of principal events. The little detail given in the
Genesis account is compatible with the pertinent theory. In the statements of the creation of life, Genesis very clearly sets
forth the concept of multiple origins which is being accepted by many life scientists as the answer to the problems of a single
origin being uncovered in geology and genetics, as well as other life sciences. Further, the Genesis account stresses the
reproduction of each life form “after its kind”, which is clearly the basis of genetic reproduction. These two concepts do not
change the theory of evolution in the slightest in those areas where it has been well established. It is only the concept of
single origin of life that is affected. And this concept has not been established. It is accepted completely on faith by its
adherents. It has been said by some that a scientist cannot accept something on faith; it must be proved to him.
How, then, can a scientist accept the theory of single origin, and that accidental, for which there is no proof whatsoever, and
for which there are arising more and more indications that it did not happen that way? There must be some motivation other than
scientific reasoning that leads men to an atheistic theory for the origin of the universe, the Earth, and life on Earth. Could
it be man’s pride, that does not want to admit that there is an intelligence greater than man’s in the universe? Or is it because
such people do not want to submit to God’s moral laws?
When the laws governing the growth and re production of cells are not followed, cancer is the result. And if cancer is not removed,
the organism dies. Human society is governed by moral laws, established by God, according to the Bible. Will not the refusal to
follow these laws on the part of the atheist similarly result in cancer, and will not this social cancer just as surely destroy
the organism which is man?