Chapter 2

Chapter 2: words, expressions, theories, and science specific to creation

As is the case with anything written, one must understand a document’s wording if one is to understand the document. This is of course equally true with biblical translations. The problem is, although the actual wording has not changed, many common words found in biblical translations, including the King James Version, have morphed into meanings that suit popular religious beliefs.

Popular religious beliefs, right or wrong, become the next generation’s rigidly held traditions- the traditional beliefs of the “faithful.” Any serious challenge to those traditional beliefs old or new is sacrilege.

The addition of popularity into word meanings trivializes the creation story. In fact, with a few minor distortions, the entire creation story could be interpreted as God’s recipe for making chocolate fudge. After all, chocolate fudge is popular with most everyone, young and old, and all would agree that any true god could make chocolate fudge. All would agree that chocolate fudge is heavenly.

So how can one’s understanding of the literal biblical creation story with its original word meanings be improved? Only truth from other sources can improve one’s understanding. Given that God exists and the Bible is the truth, all truth no matter what the subject matter is of God. All of reality is of God. That said, the only other source of truth about creation comes from science.

Clearly, strict adherence to the story’s original meanings is important and, equally clearly, true detail about creation from science must factor in and fit perfectly without “fudge-factors.” Once discovered, a perfect fit will add insight into all of the creation story’s descriptions and will serve as overwhelming proof of the ancient creation story’s validity.

The definitions that follow add obvious reason to several words, expressions, and scientific theories that are directly applicable to the creation story. Most of the words and expressions occur several times. These definitions form an essential basis for the entire discussion that follows. The definitions leave no room for mysticism. It may be advantageous to have a Bible at hand and to verify their context in Genesis Chapter 1. We should be careful not to fall into the age old “out of context” excuse religiously used in avoidance of any change.

2.1 “And God said ‘Let…’

The phrase “And God said ‘Let …” is the phrase that begins every new scene in the chronological creation story and “Let there be light” is the first biblical use of the word “let.” There are eight of these phrases each designating a new scene’s start in Genesis Chapter 1, but only six days. Days 3 and 6 both describe two scenes for a total of eight scenes covered in six days. The phrase “And the evening and the morning were…” signifies the end of each day and it occurs 6 times. The seventh day was the day of rest that begins Genesis Chapter 2.

One should note that the biblical chapter and verse designations were added for our modern convenience long after Genesis was written.

In the minds of many, the common word “let” erroneously takes on a separate and irrational meaning in the biblical creation story. Its definition is simply to “allow something to happen.” Let is synonymous with allow. “Let” does not mean something physically exists from nothing. “Let” is not a word that means instantaneous creation. The phrase “Allow there to be light” has an identical meaning. Moreover, one cannot reasonably assume that a change in the availability of light occurred coincident with the command; it merely says that light shall be allowed to exist at Earth’s surface- presumably for the duration of human time. It is unreasonable to expect that the Sun lit-off with this command, but it could have.

Light is another word that seems obvious yet requires definition.

2.2 Light

What is light? Obviously, light is required for visibility. Without light, nothing is visible. Even after light exists, one can be completely in the dark and unable to see. If one then “lets” there be, or allows there to be light in a dark area, visibility becomes possible.

Light, which has existed at least since the Big Bang, exists in a very broadband sense but there is only a narrow spectrum that is visible to people. Light is energy.

Biblically, in addition to what is essential to sight, light is associated with knowledge or enlightenment. Perhaps this usage is symbolic since everything is much clearer in the light. Biblically God is said to be light. Interestingly, the speed of light is uniquely independent of any perspective. If one were to apply the scientific meaning of the word light to God, it would suggest that God is perhaps broadband, the same for everyone, and independent of one’s perspective. God is steadfastly who he is.

In the creation story, “light” is simply that light required for visibility and is without any obvious deeper meaning.

Another word that requires definition is the word firmament. It is a word used to describe the changes in Earth’s atmosphere and the effect those changes had on the visibility of Heaven. The word “firmament” and its use in Genesis is often completely meaningless to people.

2.3 Firmament

One of the more common modern definitions of the word firmament is “expanse.” Expanse is a good but condensed meaning of the word firmament.

More completely defined, the word “firmament” is the name of an ancient process. During the Bronze Age, an artificer of bronze would take a lump or uselessly shaped quantity of bronze and smelt it. Then by hammering, the smelted bronze was spread out into a sheet. Finally, the hammered out sheet of bronze was shaped into something useful. Therefore, the process called firmament, was the process whereby something useless was spread out and shaped up into something useful. This process was used when creating shields for military battle, cooking utensils, etc.

As translated into English, in the biblical creation story’s “day 2”, the word firmament is used to describe the expansion of clear, or cloud free, lower atmosphere on Earth. Ancient historians would attempt to add their explanation to the verses concerning Earth’s atmosphere and would suggest that there were shells surrounding Earth. The shells would be populated with lights on “day 4.” Those same ancient explanations do not add meaning to the verses, but instead, they show that the biblical verses were beyond the understanding of the ancients.

The ancients had no rational concept of the universe and could not have fabricated a valid story about space, or about creation for that matter. Any attempt would be obvious mythology today. Yet, the actual biblical creation story makes perfect sense in light of today’s modern science. All one need do is look beyond their religious mythology- the only hurdle to a full and factual understanding of biblical creation.

The use of the word “firmament” from ancient technology illustrates the level of technical language, or actually, the lack of technical language available to the author of, and later, the translators of the creation story. At the time of Moses, there was no scientific language.

Another word critically important to understanding the creation story is the word “Heaven.”

2.4 Heaven

Where is, and what is, Heaven? When was Heaven created?

Heaven was created prior to the chronology of the creation story. In the creation story’s very first words is the statement “In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth, and the Earth was without form and void… (Gen 1:1, 2). This statement implies that Heaven was already “formed up” or finished at the story’s beginning since only Earth was without form and void.

In the chronological creation story, the eight changes cited over the course of six “days” result in an Earth that is useful or livable for its inhabitants. Two of the eight changes affect the visibility of Heaven from Earth’s surface. Heaven required no change.

As to its location, Heaven is the space above Earth, from ground or sea level up through Earth’s atmosphere, and then includes the entire universe. The Sun, Moon, planets, and galaxies are all in the midst of Heaven, as is Earth.

Changes to Earth’s atmosphere would allow changes in the visibility of Heaven from Earth’s surface. As one reads the creation story, the already completed Heaven was first visible from a position at sea level as, at best, only a narrow area of occasional visibility between the sea-covered surface of Earth and Earth’s near sea-level cloud cover. Back then, at the time of the first creation day’s scene, the existing sea-level cloud cover was steam since Earth was very hot, and although atmospheric pressure was very high, it was rapidly falling; either condition was adequate to cause steam. Together the conditions guaranty steam at Earth’s surface.

Later, on “day 2”of the creation story, the cloud cover of “day 1” had lifted and had expanded the visibility of Heaven to include everything above Earth’s sea covered surface up to a high level of cloud cover or waters above. The biblical waters above the expanse or firmament were waters in the atmosphere in the form of cloud cover. Then, Genesis 1:10, clearly states that the water under the firmament is the sea. These points will be clear by “day 4” of the creation story. For a time and largely due to this cloud cover or overcast sky, the full range or height of Heaven was invisible from an earthly perspective.

Finally, as the cloud cover cleared, the place called Heaven or the visibility of Heaven from a position on Earth would include the entire universe.

There are numerous biblical references implying the location of Heaven. The air that we breathe, and that birds fly in, is part of Heaven. Although not the part of Heaven people commonly talk about, since we all live on the surface of Earth, all people reside in the biblical Heaven even while physically alive- although perhaps at Heaven’s lowest level. The Garden of Eden story explains why the ancients could not fully enjoy the Heaven on Earth or the “Kingdom of Heaven” (Kingdom of God).

The expression “after their kind” shows up several times in Genesis Chapter 1 as well.

2.5 After their kind

When animals mate, they produce similar animals- animals that are “after their kind.”

“After their kind” is a descriptive phrase applied to life’s winners in each of the creation story’s mentioned categories of life. Life’s winners had progressed and had become “after their kind” or had become separate species. There is no mention of life’s genetic variance or of life’s seemingly ruthless competition- not in the creation story at least. There is no mention of life’s extinct losers. Yet competition and then isolation had yielded up separate species or survivors- species that are “after their kind.” Some have speculated that animals before Adam just loved each other- yes its true, they loved to eat each other.

Life has exploited many survival strategies. Moving away from competition adds geologic isolation to life’s survival strategies. Other factors require survivability as well. They include changes in Earth’s environment that are often long-term, and catastrophes that are sudden. The “after their kind” condition was true only after speciation, and speciation was only true after surviving in a changing environment while competing against other life.

Genetics provides a subtle variance between generations. Genetically, there are always differences between parents and their offspring, and then between siblings. Sometimes the differences are not so subtle. Genetics clearly has an element of chance in its outcomes and then, with competition, genetics yields up winning life- life that has become after its kind. Evidence of this is obvious and undisputed.

As a biblical case in point for chance genetics, consider Isaac’s fraternal twin sons born well after creation and after the flood of Noah. Isaac’s firstborn son Esau had a red complexion and a very hairy body, and his second son Jacob had a plain (perfect) appearance. The story (Genesis 25:25) makes it clear Esau had an unusual appearance- something of a genetic throwback to Neanderthal perhaps- who knows. To many, God appeared to have been disappointed with Esau even before birth (Romans 9:11-13) – but perhaps not disappointed at all.

Esau, the notably odd-looking son, was a good son to his father Isaac and in fact, was perhaps Isaac’s favorite while Jacob involved himself in petty deception and other misdeeds. The brothers were adversarial competitors.

Why would God have made Esau disappointing in the womb? Was Esau’s appearance the result of genetic chance that God knew about and disliked before Esau’s birth (Genesis 25:23)? Is this a case showing that the natural laws of chance genetics simply were not interfered with, or did God choose to make someone who was less favorable?

Esau’s appearance was the only negative mentioned about Esau in the story- assuming it was a negative. Some speculate that his unusual ability to hunt was his true negative. Oddly, some think God would naturally dislike a great hunter even though he regularly required the sacrifice of animals (wealth) for the atonement of sin and for ceremony. This brings another earlier biblical story to mind; the story involving Nimrod and the advent of societal competition in a world populated entirely by Noah’s descendants; a world that, since Noah’s time, had been a world with one common language.

Nimrod, as per the biblical story (Gen 10:8), was a great hunter who had achieved notoriety in the region now called Babylon. Then, the “Babylonians” as they are now called, set out to build a tower reaching to higher levels of Heaven, but a God caused split in language effectively ended their grandiose tower building project. The sudden split in language divided the world’s population into several competing kingdoms (Gen 11:4-9).

Although unsupported biblically, some see the Nimrod story as evidence that God disliked Nimrod, or at least disliked the hunting skills of Nimrod. Actually, the split in languages guaranteed that societies would have to compete, and as a result, would be honed by competition. With neighboring competition, they could no longer afford useless undertakings such as building towers reaching the heights of Heaven. The split in language had created, or perhaps had recreated, competition on a societal level.

Is God a god of competition? Even Christianity had its beginnings honed against planned competition. Clearly, competition is not anti God and in fact, competition is a tool of success built into all of living creation and into everything that experiences long-term success.

In modern science, there is abundant evidence of healthy competition at all levels of life- from microbial to human. Even vegetation competes for dominance. Animals have always killed to survive, even before Adam and Eve transgressed. Winners prosper while losers move away, wither, die out, or change. Competition always forces positive change.

So what happened to Esau and Jacob? Ultimately, and contrary to what was common protocol, Jacob’s lineage would inherit the land called Israel and promised to Abraham’s descendants while Esau, the oldest son (only a few minutes older), fathered a large family and was given, by God, his own region called Edom. Edom was adjacent to the region called Israel but remained separate from it, yet Esau had a very good life. Edom would later become a source of strong competition against the people of Israel and against their promised land.

Nevertheless, only after life in each of life’s categories had existed for a sufficient time, and only after having survived intense competition, did the “after their kind” statements become true. As life both animal and vegetable had first begun, the “after their kind” statements were not yet valid.

Since the categories of life are “after their kind,” each of the several biblical days for life’s creation must signify the substantial completion of life in each of the mentioned categories. So consider that the creation story is only about “finished” life in each category. Finished life is life that has been refined by competition and still exists today after extinctions. This makes perfect sense and explains why the “after their kind” expression is applicable.

The isolation needed for speciation need not have been geological but often was as simple as living in the trees out of reach of predators.

One problem, among others, that religions seem to have with evolutionary scenarios is the obvious time factor essential to evolution. How could all this happen in a few days? The time necessary for evolution, genetic isolation, and all other geologic processes, is shown to have existed in this writing; and in complete agreement with the Bible.

Note that modern human life is the only life not said to be “after their kind,” yet modern humans are in fact “after their kind“. There is an obvious reason (covered later) for modern humans to have been excluded from this constraint.

The religious question “If primitive humans evolved from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?” could be answered by the “after their kind” constraint. First, a species was isolated either by chance or by choosing to move away. Then the species competed successfully in its own unique environment, and finally with time, it developed significant genetic differences and was “after its kind”. Although easily answered, did religion ever really want an answer to this question? If so, many can answer it most thoroughly! It should be noted that, biblically, modern humans originated with the being called Adam and Adam existed amongst neighboring primitive humans called Nephilim.

We have now seen biblical evidence consistent with chance genetic variance, speciation, and competition. While some may argue against the evidence, they are perhaps those who are more comfortable with the hazy mist that surrounds their biblical word and phrase meanings; the hazy mist of mythology. Humanity now has both the ability and the evidence to support a better understanding.

2.6 The “bring forth” phrase

Let the waters “bring forth,” and let the earth “bring forth” are phrases used in the creation story to describe where the several categories of life came from. This is not just an odd way of speaking in the ancient Hebrew or in the old English translations. This phrase says that life would be brought forward, or advanced, by either its earth dwelling existence, or by its water dwelling existence. What else could it mean if not that?

“Bring forth” is not about population increase. To command a population increase, a species is instructed to be “fruitful and multiply.” Instead, the “bring forth” command is about advancement.

Clearly, if life is being “brought forth,” or is advancing, then it is changing. To suggest otherwise might irrationally imply that life was at first hidden, and then simply stepped out of hiding into plain view. Although that may work for mammals, it is unreasonable for plant life.

To the evolutionist, advancing life is already a familiar concept since the Paleozoic era yielded up, after extinctions, seed bearing vegetation that had made its advancements primarily on earth. The Mesozoic era, known for its dinosaurs, yielded up, after extinctions, fish, and birds that had made their advancements primarily in the waters. Finally, the Cenozoic era yielded up mammals and many reptiles that had advanced primarily on earth. The three groupings of life are still advancing. The groupings and order of life from science, after each era’s extinctions, is the same as that from the biblical creation story.

Where the evolution of Earth is concerned, modern science has replicated the biblical creation story with verifiable discovery.

2.7 Soul

Another word that is often misunderstood is the word “soul.” The word soul is often used in conversations about creation. It is often used to set humans apart from all other animals even though, biblically, God made all animals. People often attach mystical meanings to words in the Bible. The word soul is perhaps one such word but to the ancients, the words in the Bible were commonplace.

People are said to have a soul. Biblically, all animals have souls. It is that sense of being every animal has. The Bible speaks of the soul of a dove and the souls of other animals. Therefore, monkeys, cats, rats, and dogs have souls, as do people. A soul is not unique to humans although humans have the strongest sense of being and supposedly the highest-level soul of any animal. In fact, a human’s “sense of being” is many times higher than all other animals. Perhaps only people’s souls have the potential for life eternal as per the Bible.

Although the above description seems simple enough, one’s innate sense of being is the least understood aspect of life. One’s sense of being, or ones soul, includes intangibles such as feelings of happiness, sadness, kindness, cruelty, jealousy, greed, compassion, guilt, remorse, worry, love, and hate. The intangibles are often opposites and their relative proportions tend to constitute one’s feelings of self-pity or self-worth and one’s general state of mental health.

Many in fields related to the human psyche claim one’s “sense of being” can never be understood, yet we exhibit those intangible traits at birth. We are born with a soul- whatever a soul is.

2.8 Religion

The word “religion” has numerous meanings in conversation. Some even treat the word as if it is sacred; or at least it is often used to describe one’s beliefs; beliefs that they consider sacred. Why would a human’s religious beliefs be sacred? The word religion as used in this book is more specific and does not imply anything sacred.

Most will agree at least to some extent with the statements made herein for all religions except their own. Although there are some potentially offensive comments about the reader’s own personal religion coming up, please understand that the religious beliefs that are of the biblical truth are esteemed.

Religions, in general, are social institutions. The members of each religious institution typically have a common set of spiritual beliefs and traditions most often based on some book or dogma. Their spiritual beliefs generally include, or are thought to stem from, some divine being or god. Their religious beliefs are most often an organized attempt to satisfy the requirements of their deity to achieve a higher state of being in life, and then a favorable afterlife.

There are many different religions, but the particular set of religions in consideration here are those based, at least loosely, on the canonical collection of writings from Judaism and Christianity- simply called the Bible in this text. Religions are often completely separate and contrary to biblical teachings, even within Judeo-Christian religions.

The world’s diversity of Judeo-Christian religions is a result of humankind’s varied interpretations of the Bible, and they vary greatly. History has shown that biblical interpretations resulting in religions are often wrong, yet religions offer essential services to their members, and to society.

2.8a Past religious mistakes

Religious mistakes? How could there be religious mistakes, after all, haven’t many intelligent well-meaning people struggled and strained to be accurate concerning the Bible’s every word? How could the Bible be so confusing?

The Bible is in-fact a very simple book. Those who misunderstand it do so because they filter its words and phrases through their own personal religious filter. They faithfully believe that their existing beliefs are already correct and they become blind to a better understanding (John 9:39). When a biblical saying seems contrary to their existing beliefs, they become fearfully confused rather than enlightened. For them, at that point, the Bible appears to be a book so confusing one’s “faith” in their existing beliefs is all that matters. They “double down” on their beliefs and withdraw to the pre-supposed sanctity of their religion. If one truly loves his or her religion, then religion, even when wrong, becomes an immovable barrier.

All too often, intense biblical study is aimed at justifying rather than correcting religious beliefs- beliefs that are presumed immutably correct. Clearly if a faithfully held belief is wrong, lifetimes of diligent effort will not make it right. One result of such efforts is a Bible that takes on a mystical air, an air of meaning different things to different people. The different meanings are often contradictory.

Ultimately, most find a few biblical phrases with which they can relate and they stick with them; nothing else passes through their religious filter. Eventually, even those few phrases are distorted and become locked-in as proper religious practice. The phrases are indeed, out of context.

Where the biblical creation story is concerned, an absence of understanding is the sacred standard sold to religious followers as proper belief. In their absence of understanding, the words and phrases of the creation story have no real meaning- just as if they were in an undecipherable language on an obelisk from another world. Speculation as to their meanings is sacrilege as is any view in opposition to established religious standards.

On matters of science, there have been many documented religious mistakes in the past. For instance, some in the Roman Catholic Church made the mistake with Galileo of outlawing what he said scientifically because it was thought to disagree with the official Roman Catholic interpretation of the Bible. Galileo had asserted that Earth and the other planets revolve around the Sun. Galileo’s epiphany was seen as in direct opposition to a long-standing biblical interpretation- an interpretation that put Earth at the center of the universe.

Based on a statement made in the Bible, the biblical interpretation of heavenly body motion was that all things revolve around Earth. However, motion is completely relative to one’s frame of reference. From the perspective of the ancient biblical author and every modern person on Earth for that matter, everything does revolve around Earth. The biblical author was completely correct in saying everything revolves around Earth. Earth was the biblical author’s fixed reference and it is at exactly the center of everything. A position on Earth was, and is in general, everyone’s fixed reference and perspective.

However, Galileo had assumed a different perspective. Galileo had assumed a fixed reference not on Earth, but centered on the Sun. Therefore, both Galileo and the biblical observer were completely correct. This is not a play on words, but is basic physics! One must always consider perspective! There are many other examples of religions attempting to enforce their interpretations as well- especially in modern times.

It is noteworthy that the modern stand of the Roman Catholic Church on the sciences is- they do not have a problem with them. In fact, a Roman Catholic priest originated the Big Bang Theory and Catholics are responsible for other major theories including genetics. Unlike some religions, the Roman Catholic Church learned from, and then, apologized for its past scientific mistakes.

Now some “Catholics” treat creation as an unsolvable mystery- a truth one need not bother trying to understand. However, Orthodox Judaism embraces the sciences as a means of better understanding God; the biblically supported position from the Old Testament and New Testament as well.

Beware. Religion is never a right or wrong package deal. Right or wrong about science does not imply correctness about any other biblical topic. A religion may be perfectly accurate on some issues while blatantly wrong on others (with respect to biblical teachings).

There are of course many examples of horrendous deeds carried out by protestant peoples as well. In fact, the Protestants are the primary source of the senseless contention between science and religion today. They clearly do not realize how much damage they do to their own stated purpose. They claim to want to “save souls” by spreading the “good news,” yet the bad news is that many badger evolutionists and other scientists right out of church. The brotherhood and sanctity of their religions is more important than the teachings of the Christ! This is not a new phenomenon (John 12:43) and is a phenomenon that applies in some measure to all religions.

Some religions even attempt to influence changes in what is taught as science in public schools. They would require people to subscribe to their religious beliefs and want science to conform and as a result, they have lost credibility with the masses. Their unfounded and frequently voiced biblical interpretations are largely responsible for a sharp decline in spiritual beliefs in recent decades. They preach their interpretations only to the dwindling few who still believe them true.

Many religions and religious people have long since fallen into the trap Augustine (St Augustine- Bishop of Hippo. 354 to 430ad) wrote of in his book The Literal Meaning of Genesis1. They have brought upon themselves the scorn of the scientific community, and that scorn has now propagated through much of the world. They feel that their religion is under attack by science- and it is! Faithfully, they are reluctant to question their religion. However, those same religious people feel like they are doing God’s work and they often mean well. Of course, most everyone thinks his or her own religion is true and correct even though it disagrees, at least to some extent, with every other religion, and with modern science. Humanity’s most irrational traits are exhibited in religion.

Instead of people applying reason to their religion and learning more about the god of the Bible, religion is simply that muddy ground in which most people become stuck. It is rare for anyone to change his or her religion, no matter which religion it is.

Religious groups should have realized that their biblical interpretations were flawed and then sought to correct them shortly after the discovery of the first dinosaur bones. Clearly if the god of the Bible exists, there could be no physical evidence to the contrary- a simple application of faith. Instead, they seem hopelessly stuck in their religious beliefs.

Other clues as to religions’ flawed interpretations are the biblical statements that make no sense to them; some of which are thought to be grammatical errors, or that one must “simply have faith to understand.” Some people even celebrate the biblical confusion as if it is an essential hurdle of faith.

Religious leaders often claim that “true” science will ultimately prove the existence of God. However, their “true” science is only that “science” which is distorted enough to support their entrenched interpretations of the biblical creation and Noah flood stories. Science already proves the existence of God and simultaneously disproves their “entrenched interpretations.” Their beliefs are common mythology.

We all tend to believe ourselves fortunate to have been born into the correct religion, no matter which religion it is. Yet clearly most religions are biblically wrong- at least on several issues. Religions have been consistently wrong about science throughout history. Religions largely create the confusion about an otherwise straightforward Bible.

One should assume personal responsibility for his or her beliefs- especially those they would teach to others. Above all, one should not confuse religious beliefs with the truth about the Bible, or God.

The modern nemesis of the religiously faithful is evolution. Some, acting in opposition to evolution, willingly dilute other aspects of the Bible including the accuracy of chronologies, genealogies, and biblically specified dates for the sake of explaining ancient finds from anthropology. Their anti evolutionary stand has become their last stand of faith in their religion. Consider this- if they are correct about the biblical inaccuracies, should one really expect their otherwise flawed Bible to be accurate concerning evolution?

Knowledge of evolution and of science in general, eliminates all that has been presumed erroneous in the Genesis stories and renders them readable and completely true- as is! Knowledge of modern science eliminates the religious confusion for all except those who are blindly religious. The truth of creation has had a growing presence for over a century yet the religiously blind refuse to see it.

As a side note, from a New Testament standpoint, of prime importance is the new covenant (contract) afforded humanity by the sacrifice of the Christ- no matter what a person believes about the creation story. Why would any “Christian” religion divide people away based on their creation story interpretations that are unexplainable at best, and that are clearly contrary to science; creation story interpretations that have the tone of mysticism and mythology? Shouldn’t Christianity readily embrace a better understanding of creation? Understanding Genesis in the light of scientific reality is a key to understanding the rest of the Bible. Moreover, understanding Genesis in light of modern science is an essential key to winning back the masses.

The religious reader is reminded that biblically, God’s only adversary is Satan- not science, not even scientists of non-belief.

2.9 True science/creation science

So, what is true science? Although continuously challenged, true science is that which the vast majority of scientists believe to be true and is devoid of philosophical opinion. Most of science is completely verifiable and is scientific law while theories make logical sense to those who are logical enough to understand the scientific laws. Theories are not contrary to verifiable facts.

Science is about solving problems, not perpetuating them. Science is not just concocted from gut feeling and assumed factual- not since Aristotle at least. True science undergoes intense critical scrutiny from all who follow. Only after scientific theories survive scrutiny do they become acceptable science. To date, science has only scratched the surface of all that exists- of all that could be known.

In opposition to true science are those who subscribe to creation science; science distorted enough to fit one’s religious beliefs. Distorted science cannot be used to prove anything nor can it be used for the design of an airplane, television, satellite, ship, or anything useful for that matter.

Creation science books tend to cast maximum doubt on the technical subjects that they address. Their implication is that science is clearly in error since it is contrary to common religious beliefs and biblical interpretations. Yet, science is only as often contrary to religion, as religion is contrary to the Bible.

There are no new medical cures, or diagnostic techniques, found in creation science books. There are no new energy solutions in them either.

Creation science books do not solve the problems they address, but instead, they perpetuate them. Ultimately, they satisfy their religious readers that their antiquated religions are correct, and that their true enemy is science. They mostly only criticize what others do scientifically. Yet, this is not to say that their authors are not well intentioned. Criticism is often a good thing. Consider that this same critical analysis is best applied to one’s self, and to one’s own religion.

Surely scientists, “real scientists,” would change their beliefs if they were presented with substantial and credible evidence on a matter- wouldn’t they? Substantial and credible evidence is at the core of true science.

As one should expect, scientists are often jubilant about their discoveries. They have discovered a new piece of the body of truth. Yet, one should beware of philosophical views sometimes found in scientific writings and on “nature shows.” Whether perceived as good or bad, they are not science at all, but are opinion. One should be careful not to confuse the two.

2.10 Key science

Since they pertain to this writing, a few major theories and branches of science deserve some discussion. These topics are from the vast body of science and are those commonly bandied about by religion. Although these topics have great technical depth, only brief overviews are offered and for good reasons.

It is all too easy to become lost in the details of science- all too easy for one to become blinded by expertise at the expense of a succinct “big picture.” Science’s “big picture” is of very high resolution, and an occasional view a few steps away from the screen is both helpful and warranted. Moreover, as per the upcoming comparison, the biblical creation story is itself a very succinct “big picture” of the evolution of Earth and proves perfectly similar to science’s “big picture” without violating the high resolution details of science. In addition, no one knows all the details of known science, this author certainly included!

The science mentioned is the result of incredible investigative work into the mysteries of our past or biblically, into the mysteries of God. It represents investigations into our beginnings conducted by many scientists seeking the truth. Many lifetimes over many centuries are invested in this knowledge. The science presented represents some of humanity’s finest achievements.

2.11 The Big Bang2

The Big Bang is a generally accepted theory that describes an astronomical release of energy and energy’s conversion into matter beginning about 14 or 15 billion years ago- the power of God perhaps. The Big Bang describes the origin of the entire universe. It best describes known universal phenomena.

Scientifically, from an almost point source about the size of a baseball or even the size of an atom, all matter explosively originated about 14 billion years ago. Prior to that event, there was only a singularity3 where space and time as we know and understand it, did not exist. So all physical matter, and time, which seems so arbitrary and constant, seems to have had a beginning. Note: this is only a brief description of the Big Bang Theory and these statements actually trivialize the complexity of the initial size of the modern universe; after all, the units of time and distance, as we now understand them, were irrelevant.

Nevertheless, as per the Big Bang Theory and after an initial explosion, hydrogen, and ultimately all that physically exists began rapidly spreading out. Hydrogen and perhaps a few of the lightest elements formed rapidly due to a process not understood but called nucleosynthesis.4 Then, due to gravitational attraction, stars formed of hydrogen gas as the gases traveled away from the Big Bang’s epicenter.

Eventually the forming stars, each after a sudden gravitational collapse, produced their first light. A stars production of light would then be sustained by the fusion of hydrogen into helium inside each star. Other elements up to the atomic mass of iron were/are produced by fusion inside stars as well.

Much later, when their hydrogen fuel was spent, some of the first generation stars would become red giants, go supernova5, and violently explode. The spreading supernova debris would include the heaviest elements and would create a new generation of stars orbited by planets, moons, meteors, and asteroids. All the while, galaxies formed around the intense gravitational attraction of super massive stars or perhaps, Black Holes, which are themselves the result of a collection of stars. All that “is” was continuously forming up. Yet, even the galaxies are traveling away from the Big Bang’s epicenter. This process continues and is very well supported by scientific measurements.

If the Big Bang, attributed to Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic priest and scientist, in 1931, had been described biblically, it might have been described as a firmament. In the absence of a word like explosion in the ancient languages, the word firmament would have been an excellent description of the entire “Big Bang” process. Everything continues to spread out and shape up in the universe. Instead, the biblical creation story is about the transformation of Earth and Earth’s life into what exists now. The Big Bang occurred some ten billion years before Earth and our Solar System first existed. The Big Bang is not part of the chronology of the biblical creation story.

There is little or no reason to disbelieve the Big Bang Theory. There is little or no credible evidence against it. Those few who do argue against the theory generally believe that the universe has always existed and will always exist. They prefer a steady state universe. They argue that assumptions based on “red shift” are in error, yet a steady state universe would collapse due to gravitational forces. Evidence is to the contrary; the universe is not collapsing but instead, is expanding.

Religions seem to be mostly at odds with the time required for the Big Bang. Religions seem to like the idea of a beginning for everything. Religions are not as offended by the scientific explanation of the creation of “dirt. “ The creation of life from “dirt” is a much touchier subject- especially human life.

2.12 Evolution and extinctions

Evolution is the touchiest subject of all!

There are many books on the evolution of life- life from “dirt.” The Theory of Evolution,6 first published in 1859 by Darwin, a theologian and scientist, has long since gained acceptance among scientists worldwide. There are now reams of evidence and information on the subject of ancient life. Evidence of evolution is everywhere including in the Bible. Evolution is science in progress.

After reading this short piece on evolution, some who are devoutly religious will refuse to read on. Others will refuse to read it at all. It is as if any true god that created life surely would have done it in a manner acceptable to their religious beliefs; such is their faith, not in God, but in their religion and in their religious leaders. There are even religious colleges that promise to terminate the employment of instructors who entertain positive thoughts about evolution (education or indoctrination?).

For those who do read on, evolution’s biological evidence will prove to be among the best scientific evidence available for the existence of God- that is, for all except the invincibly ignorant.

The reader should beware; I have a thorough pro God bias and am an avid Christian.

In the scheme of things, where do I fit in? I may not fit in anywhere. I am not corralled into a religious brand looking to a leader for religious beliefs nor am I a future leader of my own created brand. So far as is possible, I am not blinded by religious bias (John 9:39). Unhindered by the religious philosophies, the Bible (the Rule and Guide) becomes an easy read.

As I see it, things are just as they should be. Evolution fits the creation story like a glove and is merely added detail about creation and about our Creator; it’s all just more pieces of the big puzzle. The anti God philosophies that have stemmed from evolution are not evolution at all but are the opinions of philosophers- opinions aimed at the religions that they loathe. Religion has its share of philosophers as well.

Although contrary to the teachings of some thriving religious businesses, those things not understood by the religious reader about biblical creation are easily explained by evolution and the associated biology, geology, and science in general. Expertise in those fields is helpful but a basic understanding is all that is necessary.

That said there is not much evidence during the recorded history of humankind that life evolves. The time necessary for evolution is another of the complaints of religion to be addressed. What has evolved considerably in humanity’s recorded time is religion. In 2000 years, Christianity has become a thriving business often with little semblance of biblical teachings.

The science of evolution incorporates chance and probability into its projected outcomes, as do others. Owing to this, there are unsettled details and there probably always will be. It is impossible (for us humans) to know in advance the outcome of any particular chance event. Knowing a sequence of past events leading to a particular known outcome is nearly impossible as well. If one knows the outcome of a poker game from a hundred years ago, imagine the difficulty of knowing today each hand in the game that led to that outcome. This is similar to the task of the evolutionist.

Many in the religious world dislike the concept of chance. Yet biblically, chance does exist, and whenever he pleases, is controlled by God. As per God’s requirement, Israel’s first king was selected by a form of chance. So God either controlled the outcome of the chance event by having the desired person selected, or chance was merely employed to show that whoever was selected, God could make into a king. Nevertheless, those same religiously disliked laws of chance will solidly prove the creation story true.

There are vast amounts of physical evidence that support the Theory of Evolution. There is no evidence against evolution. If there were, the theory would quickly change and then would be better. One should hope that the theory is proven inaccurate so that a more accurate one replaces it. It is, though, a sure bet that those who dislike evolution now will dislike an improved theory even more. No matter what, Darwin will forever be credited with having broken the ice around that taboo topic- life. He opened the door to much of what is known about life today. Most who leave hospitals alive today owe a debt of gratitude to Darwin.

Nevertheless, there are issues yet to be resolved about evolution but no evidence against the theory. Unresolved issues are not evidence against evolution. Likewise, unresolved issues about God are not evidence against the existence of God. Evolution offers a perfect chance to know something more about God.

Evolution is not philosophy. Neither is it something in which one should have faith. It is science- nothing more, nothing less. Evolution is a discovered mechanism of life and life is no accident. Evolution certainly has its limitations, but it is the best available description of known processes involving the advancement of life.

The Theory of Evolution asserts that life began at the lowest possible levels such as single cell life, then mutated, and adapted as conditions changed to best survive the new conditions. All living organisms compete for limited resources and the fittest, in their particular environment, survive to replicate. Environmental fitness is built in to all of life.

Darwin believed all things occurred gradually or he promoted the theory of “phyletic gradualism. “ This theory asserts that evolutionary changes occur gradually and uniformly. A more recent theory, an addendum to Darwin’s evolution, suggests that fossil records show punctuated equilibrium.7 This addendum asserts that there are rapid bursts in evolutionary change followed by long-term gradual change. The bursts in change occur after some extreme extinction-causing event. It is as if the excessive stress of the environment forces rapid change. Punctuated equilibrium fits both the fossil records and the creation story best as well.

The adaptation or evolution of life includes people as well as all other living organisms. Among the volumes of evidence of evolution is the varying skin color of people throughout the world. People, who live closest to the equator, or actually the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, have darker skin8 unless they migrated there recently. Aborigines, Indians, Bengalis, Africans, etc., all have dark skin. People have changed genetically. They have adapted to their environment. It would be absurd to think that people noticed their dark skin color and decided to move toward the equator while the lightest colored people chose to migrate toward the poles.

Skin color genetically adjusts to allow for optimum sunlight absorption as evolution predicts. This skin color variation is an improvement for people of both dark and light complexion if they continue to live in the regions of their evolutionary development. Skin color as a basis for racism is asinine.

No species has ever endured the generations without change and adaptation. There is even biblical evidence of human change in the course of biblical time. For life to change, all that is needed is sufficient time and environmental stress.

Given that God created life, he built in a means for life to adapt and thrive in gradually changing environmental conditions. What a brilliant creation! It is as if your full size SUV changes into an economy car when gasoline prices go up long term. Some philosophically claim that evolution precludes any intelligent design, yet how could the creation called life have been done more intelligently?

Extinctions add the ultimate intelligent touch to evolution.

What causes extinctions? The causes include, meteor strikes, changes in ocean currents, abrupt changes in atmospheric pressure, changes in the mixture of atmospheric and sea gases, and changes in the salinity of seawater.

Large meteor strikes cause sudden temperature and climate change. After Earth had cooled sufficiently, continental drift blocked or changed currents in the seas causing freezes and subsequently, extinctions. Changes in atmospheric pressure have caused saturated gases and methane hydrates to boil out of seas. Gases boiling out of saturation from the seas abruptly changed gaseous contents of both the sea and the atmosphere, affecting both air breathing land bound life and marine life. Abrupt atmospheric changes, certainly pressure changes, cause temporary floods and change temperatures causing climatic extremes.

Extinctions are integral to evolution and there have been many extinction events in the course of life on Earth. Extinctions set the timing for the creation story “days” that include life. The life that remained after extinctions is the life mentioned in biblical creation. Therefore, extinctions are essential to a thorough understanding of the creation story.

Given a multitude of self-sustaining, living, “chance” developments, and then eliminating, by extinction, all unwanted developments essentially eliminates chance from the outcome of life’s design. Extinctions add intelligent design to what may otherwise have been completely random processes. This is analogous to modern engineering practice.

Given a design goal and if they are to be a successful, engineers consider all existing possibilities for the implementation of their new design. They then systematically eliminate all unsuitable and ineffective alternatives. An optimal design results from that which remains. This is the practice of engineering in a nutshell.

With evolution, there were nearly unlimited living possibilities. Then, all unsuitable and ineffective design alternatives were systematically eliminated. The result was the carefully engineered, self-sustaining life that exists today. So does chance eliminate intelligent design? No. Chance is inherently involved in every intelligent design.

Due to extinctions, life that exists in modern times is only a small sample of what has existed over time. Most species no longer exist. In fact, well over 95% of every form of life, both plant and animal, that has ever existed is extinct today. The life that has survived (or the life that was not destroyed) is the fittest and most durable in each new after extinction environment.

One might ask why the old extinct forms of life do not re-evolve. The extinct forms of life do not re-evolve because Earth has changed in a manner that is unsuitable for their re-evolution. Changes on Earth had resulted in their extinction in the first place. Earth has changed considerably since dinosaurs roamed and ruled. Dinosaurs could not survive modern conditions even in a zoo setting.

There have been many mass extinctions in the course of creation. Extinctions and competition have refined life of all forms and have culminated in the life that we now know- life that is well suited to today’s environment.

Evidence of past life and of extinctions is abundant worldwide and is found primarily in rock strata and sediments. Fossil bearing rock strata exists largely due to flooding events, some local and others global. Anything causing a flood can cause life to be covered and preserved as fossils. Volcanic eruptions causing mudslides and volcanic ash deposits can certainly preserve fossils. Frozen remains covered by avalanches near mountainsides show evidence of recent life.

Generally, an event had occurred that was significant enough to lay down a thick stratum of dirt or mud. It is likely that whatever event laid down those strata also killed that which became the fossil. Waters slowly rising and then slowly receding do not move much mud and do not cover things up but may well kill large amounts of life and leave little or no evidence.

If animals dying and then their remains lying on the ground produced many fossils, the forests would be full of them. One could not walk through a wooded area without hearing animal bones crunching under their feet. That which lives in surface soil has evolved to take advantage of dead animal remains by completely consuming them.

Except for the pursuit of science (and the pursuit of a better understanding of God), knowing about extinct life is of little use to people. Extinct life is not included in the biblical creation story. In the biblical creation story, God did not say “do not let there be” dinosaurs. Extinct life was not shown to Moses. Knowing about extinctions was unnecessary detail to the ancient people of the Bible. The added information would have produced avoidable confusion until modern times. Now, knowledge of extinctions is usable as evidence supporting the creation story‘s accuracy.

In every case, the biblical creation story proves perfectly reasonable in its presentation and content. An analogy follows.

Consider that a homebuilder bought six key TV time slots to promote his homebuilding company. The agenda of his TV time slots was to educate viewers as to the quality of his constructions. He wants to show potential customers, what they get. He wants people to see that they get a home in the bargain. Would he use up airtime showing material scraps that normally exist at a construction site, or would he show only that finished work that exists after each particular phase of construction is complete? That which is extinct in the creation is similar to the scraps at a construction site. Scrap is of negative worth relative to the completed task of house building and is relatively non-essential to the builder’s message or promotion.

Suppose that later an expert investigative team studies the homes built by the builder and discovers the builder’s construction methods. They discover how things progress during the construction of a home, and they see buried scraps as evidence of their discoveries. They point out that it took several months to build the home- not six days as seen on television. Would antagonists step up and argue that the experts are wrong? Would they claim the experts are simply trying to belittle the builder? Not likely. Why are religious people different about the biblical creation? Has their religion blinded them to any better understanding of their builder?

Biblically, God is responsible for extinction events. God either uses the upcoming extinction causing catastrophes, or causes them, or both, to suit his creation purposes. This will become increasingly and overwhelmingly clear. Extinction events and die offs during the creation or evolution of life are similar to a gardener weeding his garden and pruning his trees. Extinction events are similar to an engineer eliminating ineffective design alternatives. The life that survives and re-develops after an extinction event is improved by the extinction and as a result, is tailor made.

For the sake of improving that which is to come, often that which exists must be destroyed. For instance, later in the creation and while dinosaurs remained, mammals could not flourish. Our human existence is now a reality at least partially due to the extinction of dinosaurs. The brilliantly intelligent and mostly self-sustaining design called life required only minimal maintenance, but extinctions are a large part of that minimal maintenance. It is also instructional to note that biblically, the abrupt destruction of life for a purpose has occurred on several occasions since the creation was complete (i.e. Noah’s flood).

Biblically, everyone is a descendant of Noah (Genesis 6) and so clearly people changed because of the environment where they chose to live. The life expectancy of animals, certainly humans, has changed dramatically since Noah’s time as well- biblically at least. Earth’s environment changed and then the changing environment changed Noah‘s descendants. In addition, Noah could not fit one to seven pairs of every existing species of land-dwelling/air-breathing animal in his ship along with their food stores. It was not big enough.

Clearly, Noah saved only major categories of animals and animals evolved after the flood. Anyone claiming to believe the flood story must admit many adaptations in humans, and all other life forms, have occurred since Noah’s time. These changes are evolution, but just in the short term and in a modestly changing environment.

Because our environment is extremely stable and life is well adapted, there is now only marginal propensity for change. As optimized creatures of Earth, any change is generally unfavorable. There is little or no environmental pressure to change. However, if forced into new and drastic environmental conditions, life would again favor genetic mutations and would again re-optimize its survivability in the new habitats. These are sound evolutionary principles.

Charles Darwin did not design the processes of evolution- so who did. The processes called evolution have existed at least as long as life has existed on planet Earth or first life would never have advanced. We know from creation story statements that life has advanced (i.e. “Let the earth bring forth…”).

Evolution does not currently explain first life. Within what is thought reasonable, several things had to happen rather simultaneously for life to begin and there are many unanswered questions. For instance, did first life begin by chance and then utilize chance to produce and perfect DNA’s ability to propagate successful chance mutations? It sounds like an impossible stretch. Perhaps randomly generated DNA existed first and rudimentary lipid cells exploited DNA’s randomly ingrained chemical logic to an eventual first success- a plausible scenario. However, why are there not pools of randomly generated DNA around- pools that could have accommodated such a first occurrence? Answers require new discoveries (more on this later).

Nevertheless, as interesting and brilliant a discovery as evolution has proven to be, it would seem that many religions have decreed that God could not possibly have created things this way. While many are excellent, some religious television programs aggressively claim that those who agree with evolution cannot possibly believe that the Bible is the truth- an argument that is baseless.

As simple as the Bible is, religions have distorted it into their own irrational lack of meaning; they have converted the biblical creation story into mythology. Religions assert that any “true” believer must willingly accept the mythology of those religions or shall risk loss of a heavenly eternal afterlife!

The modern decline of spiritual beliefs is concurrent with the rise of religious TV programs. It is reasonable to wonder if there is a direct correlation. Perhaps people that watch often see the irrational presented as essential truth, while the rational is damned as godlessness. How could anything rational be anti God? How could anything irrational be pro God? Are there preachers out there that humbly admit total ignorance on matters of creation?

Could the creation of evolutionary processes, and then making things incorporating evolution, be the one ability God does not possess? Oddly enough, it would seem that God and his choices and abilities are limited by religious beliefs. Have modern religions gained control over their god?

Although the puzzle may never be complete, there are countless examples of biological evolution if one looks at all life forms with one’s eyes open and mind clear. If one denies this biological reality, one simply does not walk in the truth- biblically, one does not walk with God.

Contrary to religious myth, Mr. Darwin did not retract his famous theory just prior to death, although it would not matter even if he had. The theory is much better science today than at its inception. Actually, Mr. Darwin avoided addressing the evolution of humans. It was a troubling topic for him. He often attempted to show that God designed the processes involved in the creation of life. Life, he explained, is a secondary result of those processes designed by God. There are many myths (lies) about Darwin. His is one of the most religiously hated names of all time.

A little research will show that Mr. Darwin believed in God, at least during his early life, and was troubled that his discoveries were contrary to his own preconceived notions about creation. His preconceived notions were similar to modern backward looking religious notions. Preconceived notions are inherently wrong. In addition, Mr. Darwin was troubled lifelong by all the negative press his theory generated.

What might have happened to Mr. Darwin’s beliefs in God?

Note that there are claims that late in life Mr. Darwin contributed heavily to churches in his area implying continued belief. “Others” claim that he most assuredly gave up his beliefs or never truly believed at all. However, “those others” may be those “religiously elite” that fancy themselves able to discern “true” belief and for that matter, “true” science; or perhaps they are claims from atheists that are fed up with the pestering mythology of religion and prefer an atheist Darwin. Both camps work harmoniously for a common purpose, namely to discredit beliefs in God: the “religiously elite” by marketing their modern form of paganism and turning God into mythology; and the pestered atheists by discrediting any belief in myths. It is a symbiotic relationship.

Assuming that Mr. Darwin first believed but did give up his beliefs, relentless negative religious influence was the likely cause; he was a victim of religion. Why was Mr. Darwin the subject of negative religious influence? Clearly, he experienced negative religious influence because his scientific findings were contrary to prevalent religious interpretations- and they still are! Mr. Darwin was one of religions’ first modern era victims- a poster child for failed religion. Based on his improved understanding of God’s creation processes, his face is a religious dartboard. Yet, one should always be zealous about truth; nothing else has ever made rational sense; the truth is sacrosanct.

What has zealous adherence to those prevalent and popular religious interpretations accomplished? One clear answer is that the increasing prominence of outspoken atheism is a direct result of misguided zealous religion- not evolution, not an absence of God, not a flawed Bible.

We now have experts in biology such as Dr. Richard Dawkins going about as if a preacher but preaching against the existence of any god. His arguments are against religion, and in light of modern religion, his arguments have some general validity, but therein is his argument’s biggest flaw. Any comparison between science and the Bible necessitates an understanding of biblical creation, yet modern religion has never demonstrated any expertise on biblical creation. The premise that religion is correct about creation is an invalid premise- excepting their claims of the existence of God.

Dr. Dawkins exhibits other flaws in reasoning- flaws that generally stem from emotion and have no validity in any debate- certainly not scientific debate. Why would he take such a stand? Might he be countering insults from outspoken religious authorities?

There is no evidence against God’s existence. Even without evidence either way, one should expect rational people to err on the side of caution. After all, the rules attributed to Christianity are about common decency and freedom, and those rules are completely essential to successful societies. Rational people should hope for a God willing to reward them eternally- just in case! Yet even if eternal life were thought to be a hopeless concept, why would non-believers hatefully offend those who choose to believe?

To a non-believer, God must be like Santa Claus- an all-powerful being that rewards good while threatening punishment for those who are not good. Do those without beliefs in Santa Claus go to kindergartens rudely and offensively claiming Santa Claus does not exist? Do they fight to end the appearance of Santa Claus in public places?

The religious reader should consider this- given that evolution is in fact true science, at the moment of his epiphany, Mr. Darwin knew something more about God than anyone else alive. Epiphanies, certainly those of this type, are always new information about God, or at least, new information about God‘s design processes. Despising evolution is the same as despising something about God.

Ultimately, Mr. Darwin’s own religion stifled his scientific progress, but clearly, God wanted him to make the discoveries that he made. That which troubled Mr. Darwin is fixed in this book!

Biology, with evolution, is at the heart of creation and is at the heart of the biblical creation story. After making a few points below, biology will be factored into creation more thoroughly but only to the extent necessary to establish the actual time of several of the biblical creation story’s “days.” With the addition of geology and using established scientific findings, the timing of all of the creation story “days” is evident. In fact, common eons and eras from established science accurately mark most “days” of biblical creation if one looks at what remained at the close of the eons and eras- after the extinctions when the eons and eras were complete.

2.13 Biology

Biology9 is the study of life and is intimately linked to chemistry, genetics, evolution, and geology- and all in solid agreement. Biology is perhaps the most fascinating science of all! Modern biology serves as the best evidence for most of the biblical creation story’s “days.”

Of life’s major developments, only a very few are mentioned, but what is completely obvious from biology is the substantiated fact that specialized life forms such as plants, sea life, and mammals did not just suddenly exist. Instead, life had its early beginnings billions of years ago, perhaps even before sunlight, and has undergone countless changes- some gradual, others abrupt.

Some think evidence suggests that life first existed at around the time of a CO2/nitrogen atmosphere, temporary volcanic islands, and mild or nonexistent sunlight billions of years ago. Although biology and evolution describe how existing life adapts through mutations, it has not explained beyond speculation how first life originated, or how first life devised a means of metabolizing energy for the sake of sustenance and replication. In fact, life’s earliest ability to devise anything is unexplained. Currently, biology is to first life, as physics is to the Big Bang Theory. New and innovative science is missing.

If the earliest living cells were to resemble modern life, they had to have the ability to do many things simultaneously. Once there was a lipid membrane (cell wall), or capsule, with something worthwhile inside, there had to be proteins from amino acids selectively allowing that which is good into a cell through its membrane, while allowing that which is bad for the cell (waste) back out through its membrane. In addition, there had to be a means inside each cell for the cell to metabolize energy. There had to be within this same chance cell, a means of self-maintenance and reproduction. The known life forms, including the speculative ones, are not yet rudimentary enough to suggest chance generation- more knowledge of their smaller parts is missing. Simple single cell life is simply not simple at all.

Cells are like tiny factories made of chemicals and needing energy to function. They are biological machines. They are “alive” since they possess the ability to self replicate- a chemical process as well. Even the simplest of known cell life has a complexity rivaling that of a computer with its operating system.

A complete understanding of how life began awaits new brilliance from the likes of a new Darwin, or Mendel; or perhaps in the modern anti science religious era, a new team like Watson and Crick.

From the very brief overview of biology that follows in science’s creation story, an important point one should gleam is this: the cells called eukaryotes had the versatility to evolve, as described by evolution, into all advanced forms of life. Land dwelling seed bearing plant life would eventually evolve (or be brought forward) on land from life made of eukaryotic cells. Animal life in the sea (fish), and then dinosaurs (birds) would eventually evolve from life made of eukaryotic cells in the sea. Finally, mammals would evolve on land from life made of eukaryotic cells on land.

Eukaryotic cells are a common denominator for all advanced life. Like micro-miniature supercomputers, the early eukaryotic cell life forms equipped with their DNA awaited environmental and competition tested programming- billions of years of programming. Much of the programming apparently occurred by chance and resulted either in failure, no real advantage, or in successful advantage. The successful programming propagated its advantages through to modern times.

Some of DNA’s programming is shared throughout all of animal life- perhaps from the earlier prokaryotic cells that, through endosymbiosis, first developed into eukaryotes, but even more likely from ancient advancing life that no longer exists.

The embryos of fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals including humans, all look indistinguishable in their early stages of growth. There are areas within fish embryos and within mammal embryos that produce identical results when altered in a lab implying shared genes that control specialized growth processes for bone structures, etc…

Perhaps, if altered early enough, a fish embryo’s parts could be stimulated to produce a mammal. However, the specialized growth processes inherited by successive generations have either undergone programming in the sea to produce fish, or have undergone programming on land to produce mammals. They are “after their kind.” Fish and mammals are separate species that evolved separately- fish advanced in the sea and mammals advanced on land. Their common yet very distant ancestor would not likely have appeared to be either a fish or a mammal.

There remains the problem of timing- that same timing excuse held by religions as sacred. Age dating is often scoffed at except when it justifies other historical events cited biblically. We shall briefly consider the timing of creation’s events next.

1The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Volume 1; by Saint Augustine (Bishop of Hippo.); translated by John Hammond Taylor, Google Books.

2Kaufmann, William J., III. Galaxies and Quasars. San Francisco: W. H, Freeman and Company, 1979. Trinh, Xuan Thuan. The Birth of the Universe. The Big Bang and After. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1993.

3Penrose, Roger. The Road To Reality. New York: Vintage Books, 2004.

4Timeline of the Big Bang: Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang; also, Big Bang nucleosynthesis: Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis;

5Kirshner, Robert P. The Extravagant Universe. Princeton and Woodstock, Princeton University Press. 2002.

6Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 2004. Levine, George. Barnes & Noble.

7Ridley, Mark. Evolution. Blackwell Publishing. ref on punctuated equilibrium

8Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_color.

9 Starr, Cecie, et al. BIOLOGY concepts and applications, 3rd ed., copyright 1997, Wadsworth Publishing Company. ISBN 0-534-50440-X.