Dennel B. Tyon
Argosy University Online
Dr. Richard Craven
December 13, 2010

 SCI 110 - The Rise of Modern Science

The Evolution of Creation

     I grew up, and was baptized, in the Mormon faith.  But somehow, it always felt wrong.  We went to church every Sunday, had ‘Family Home Evening’ every Monday… but rarely ever spoke of God at home except for that.  My mom never spoke of her beliefs and my dad only told me what the church instructed.  By the age of six, I had the idea that God, Himself, was speaking to me (telling me not to believe everything I heard in church; to “take it with a grain of salt”, whatever that meant).  I left the church at the age of 15.

     After leaving the church, I started riding my horse up into the mountains early Sunday mornings.  There, I would sit and talk to God.  I told Him I was confused.  I was lost in this world.  I knew I did not belong here – and sitting there, somehow, His spirit would consume me.  He encouraged me to examine nature… to see the beauty in the world around me and to learn from it.  “Watch the ants”, I remember hearing, “they work as one”.  That is why I got my first ant farm.  It intrigued me like I could not have imagined.  As I have grown older, I have come to realize that I am not so alone as I used to think I was.

     Other people hear Him too; some are just too afraid to admit it.  And there are others like me, who believe that evolution was the means of our “creation” and it was guided by the hand of our Creator.  So my question is: Why do so many people feel they have to choose between believing in God and accepting evolution?  I believe in both.  Religion puts far too much emphasis on a literal translation of the Bible, not allowing for scientific fact… but science, without some type of intelligent design, simply is not possible.  Evolution requires the hand of God to guide it; Creationists need to accept it as fact.

A Creationist’s View Against Evolution

     Creationists claim, “the major ‘evidence’ for evolution is based upon the assumption of evolution” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 371).  “No ‘missing links’ have been found… between supposedly related organisms,” says this Beka Christian Science book.  “Thus, …no evidence that fish evolved into amphibians, amphibians… into reptiles, or… reptiles… into birds and mammals” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 294).  Another Creationist goes on to say, “thousands of extinct kinds of animals have been revealed,” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 367) but, they are all distinct kinds and “none can be regarded as truly transitional forms” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 367).  They argue vehemently that the fossil record “vividly illustrates the Biblical truth” that different kinds of creatures do not change into other kinds, but rather, that every single creature “reproduces ‘after its kind’ (Gen. 1:11-12, 21, 25)” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 368).  Creationists hold what they claim to be “the lack of transitional forms” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 382) as strong evidence that evolution has not occurred (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 382).  They say there should be a vast supply of innumerable ‘missing links,’ only they should not be missing at all.  “We should be stumbling over them every time we step out into the open;” these Creationists say, “… the earth should be packed with them”  (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 402 and 403). 

     Transitional forms, as it is theorized, could not have possibly survived.  Take the wing of a bat, for example; this is an organ, or rather a limb, that could not have developed gradually.  Supposedly evolved from a shrew-like creature, a bat’s wing is actually “extraordinarily long finger bones connected by a thin web of skin” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 382 & 383).  Admittedly, it is hard to understand how this particular transitional creature would have looked or how it could have survived with its fingers getting so long; it could not possibly use its front legs for running anymore, and yet, at this point, it would not have gained the ability to fly either.  Therefore, “such a deformed creature would not have survived and reproduced… long enough to become a bat” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 382).  Evolution demands every structure, no matter what kind, develop “one small step at a time, while remaining fully functional at every step” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 382).   Darwin knew that the discovery of any structure that could not have developed gradually “would destroy the hypothesis of evolution” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 381 & 382).

     Paleontology, from a strict Christian point of view, proves that every animal alive today was created in its present form along with those that have become extinct.  Those must have had “difficulty surviving the post-Flood environment and gradually died out” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 366).  My Beka book, which I use guardedly to home school my son, names “mammoths, dinosaurs, 40-foot-long crocodiles, 2000-pound turtles, giant birds and eagle-sized dragonflies” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 366) as some of the creatures who were living, along side man, but died off after the Flood – perhaps because the ark was not big enough for dinosaurs.  So, the book contends that the fossil record, when viewed from a purely Biblical perspective, is essentially “one of the most powerful evidences” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 366) against evolution… because, it says, if evolution had occurred, it would have left evidence of the process.  But the fossil record shows “no traces” of any sort of creature having “evolved from something else, or… into something else” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 367). 

     The fossil record actually reveals… “sudden death and destruction that is consistent with the Biblical teaching concerning a Worldwide Flood” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 367).  In order for plants and animals to be so quickly preserved, they would have had to experience a quick burial, “such as flood-deposited sedimentary layers of rock” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 294-295).

     Fossils from around the world are dated according to the presumed age of the rock in which they are found.  In Biology, God’s Living Creation, it states, there is no objective way to look at a sample of sedimentary rock and determine its age.  Rather, it says, certain fossils known as ‘index fossils’ or guide fossils are considered characteristic of a specific period and are used to identify rock layers in the field” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 370). 

     Fossils are then arranged, it says, in an “assumed order – a simple-to-complex progression – to compose the geologic column.”  (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 371).  “The evolutionary hypothesis determines the ‘age’ of fossil-bearing rocks, the ‘age’ of the rocks determines the ‘sequence’ of fossils, and the ‘sequence’ of fossils is said to support the hypothesis” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 371).  Thus, it can be said “the evolutionist dates the rock layers by checking to see what kind of fossils they contain, and he dates the fossils by checking to see what age has been assigned to the rocks.  This is circular reasoning, not scientific reasoning” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 292-294). 

     The geologic column is misunderstood.  “The earth’s crust is built up of many different layers of rock and sediment,” (Parker, 1997, p. 369), which make up the geologic column.  It theorizes, “a record of evolution should be present from the simplest invertebrates… supposedly representing some 4.6 billion years of earth’s history” (Parker, 1997, p. 369).  The geologic column is “divided into four major time divisions, called eras” and each era is “subdivided into periods and epochs” (Parker, 1997, p. 369).  The problem is that the rock and sediment are not always in the same order – it varies from location to location - “there is not a single place on earth where you can go and see the geologic column” (Parker, 1997, p. 369).  The largest part of the geologic column that can be seen anywhere on earth is in the Grand Canyon and most are represented by “only two or three periods and often widely separated in ‘age’” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 369).  Many creationists believe that the nine layers in the Grand Canyon strata are not anywhere as old as scientists claim – that is, about a million years.  “The rock in the lowest of its nine strata are thought to be much, much older… from half a billion to a billion years” (Parker, 1997, p. 369) but, the creationists’ desire is to ultimately reveal that many of the fossils, which are in the geological column, are not those of animals or plants that once lived during various eras, separated by millions of years, “but animals and plants that were probably all created at the same time” (Sonder, 1999, p. 55). 

     Fossil studies have revealed “a ‘biological big bang’,” where something like “fifty separate, major groups of organisms, or ‘phyla’, (including… basic body plans of most modern animals) emerged suddenly without evident precursors” (Forrest, 2005, p. 50).  Paleobiologist, Dr. Paul K. Chien, known for his work on the Chengjiang phosphate-rock fossils, which represented this period, “the Precambrian and the long-known Cambrian radiation”, (Forrest, 2005, p. 49-50), did not believe in evolution.   His work was steadily scrutinized.  He claimed these fossils were not nearly as old as it was suspected.

     Complications with dating methods have confused scientists and anthropologists.  A skull, “dated by the controversial potassium-argon method… judged to be about 2.8 million years old” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 298) but is similar in appearance to the skulls of many people living today.  Thus, according to evolutionary dating systems, “modern man… existed long before” many of the supposed ‘ape-men’ (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 298).  “In 1890, a Dutch physician named Eugene Dubois discovered bones of what he assumed to be a prehistoric human being on Java, a large island of Indonesia” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 298).  He claimed these bones of ‘Java man’ were at least 500,000 years old.  “Dubois also discovered, a ‘normal’ human skull – a fact he kept more or less a secret for 30 years” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 298).  Obviously, if Java man was buried in the same rock layer with a modern man, he could not be man’s ancestor.  Because of the massive lava eruptions and floods, which had occurred in that part of Java, many scientists believe that the rock in which these bones were found “could not be more than 500 years old” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 298).  Some authorities now believe that Java man was fully human, and that Dubois “exaggerated the ‘ape-like’ characteristics of the skullcap” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 298).   “Another ‘human ancestor’ that has been discarded,” was Piltdown man, which was later discovered to be a fraud.  Someone apparently, deliberately placed the skull of a modern man and the jaw of an orangutan together where they would be discovered… and for forty years, from 1913 to 1953, evolutionists listed the Piltdown man as a human ancestor, “although he never existed” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 297-298).  For these forty years, it was on exhibition in the London Museum and… “represented the earliest type of primitive humanity” but it was found that this “was not a primitive man at all.  He was a very modern type of ape” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 402).  At one time, evolutionists had included (in the human family tree) a stage of development known as ‘Nebraska man’.  This stage, was based solely upon the discovery of a single tooth, and has since been discarded because the tooth was exposed as having come from an extinct pig! (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 297).

An Evolutionist’s View Against Creation

     Missing links have, in fact, been found, which support the theory of evolution.  By the mid-nineteenth century, fossils were just beginning to be uncovered and people, for the first time, were beginning to realize “that it has an interpretable pattern” (Ruse, 2001 page 18).  Fossils, which ranged from early marine forms (commonly known as trilobites), “up through the vertebrate fish, amphibia, reptiles… birds and mammals,” covered the globe (Ruse, 2001 page 18).  From the evidence before us, it has been determined that “the big explosion of life” known as the Cambrian period, began about 530 million years ago, although life – itself – began “about 3.7 billion years” ago.  (Ruse, 2001 page 18).  Thus, we see, the fossil record shows “a roughly progressive fossil sequence up from extinct forms to remains of organisms hardly different from those we see around us today” (Ruse, 2001 page 13).

     In the early 1860’s, the entire skeleton of an unknown creature was discovered, in Germany.  This creature appeared to be a “bridge across the gap between reptiles and birds”.  A transitional form said not to exist by Creationists.  This creature, dubbed Archeopteryx, had a reptilian brain, separate digits, a tail and teeth… but also had feathers and, “with the apparatus for flight, was just the ‘missing link’ that evolution demanded (Feduccia 1996)” (Ruse, 2001 page 21).  In the 1870’s, many “mammalian monsters” like the titanotheres, which was a rhinoceros-like beast “with fabulous baroque appendages” on his snout, were found buried in the American West (Ruse, 2001, p. 21).  Finally, equid discoveries made it “possible to trace the modern single-hoofed horse right back to a dog-sized creature” – strange as it may seem, Eohippus, “ran around the prairies on its five toes” (Ruse, 2001 page 21).

     The fossil record does not stand-alone.  Archeology, as well, has provided evidence that many ancient civilizations existed and “devoted considerable time and resources to the accumulation of knowledge” (Deloria, 2002, p. 164-165).  The once-great city of Alexandria in ancient Egypt housed a university, which “included facilities for the study of medicine, mathematics, astronomy, botany and zoology, and it could house 14,000 students”  (Deloria, 2002, p. 164).  In our arrogance, we fail to appreciate that the “vast majority of important, ancient scholarly works were lost and… we are dealing with only a minuscule representation of what was actually known by ancient peoples” (Deloria, 2002, p. 163).  Over the centuries, “many ancient libraries were destroyed in wars and religious purges” (Deloria, 2002, p. 164).  There have been, at the least, over 1,700,000 books - in scroll form - which have been burned to ashes with the destruction of several great libraries, either by acts of war or deliberate order of ancient leaders (Deloria, 2002, p. 164).  We could have learned much from these ancient writings. 

     Some of the most ancient writings found were taken and compiled, by men, choosing which writings to include and which to exclude for canonization and in 400 A.D., set and bound them to form the first book ever printed.  Declared holy by the Roman Catholic Church, the Bible was then distributed to the people and indoctrinated as “the Word of God”.  Since its first printing, the book has been revised and reprinted time and time again – in 1250 A.D., the scriptures were divided into chapters… the division, as we know it today, was made about 1550 A.D., - the “Authorized Version” of the Holy Scriptures (that is, the English translation, otherwise known as ‘the King James Bible’, which is now in common use) was published in 1611 (Holy Bible, 1611, p. 16), so that “there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue” (Holy Bible, 1611, n.a.).  Changes have been made to it, too, as there are numerous different versions out there now - even though my King James Version strictly forbid the changing of any words.  But, the fact is, the words were written by men.  Inspired or not, they are, therefore, prone to error (because no man is perfect).

     The Eastern Indians “calculated aspects and events by means of stars” (Deloria, 2002, p. 165).   They were concerned with “perishable versus imperishable worlds, about ages, catastrophes, cycles, and new ages; and they were concerned about mathematics, causes of natural phenomena, planets, orbits and zodiacs” (Deloria, 2002, p. 165-166) and, it is said, “the Mayas and Aztecs in the unending calculations seem to have had similar attitudes” (Deloria, 2002, p. 166).  “A Sumerian tablet… begins the list of zodiacal constellations with that of Leo – taking us back to circa 11,000 B.C., when Man had just begun to til the land” and “the Chaldeans had records of stars going back 370,000 years,” (Deloria, 2002, p. 166) while the Babylonians kept the horoscopes of all children born for thousands of years, “from which to calculate the effects on humans of various planets and constellations” (Deloria, 2002, p. 166).

     These ancient civilizations, as well as many others, recorded great catastrophes, which wiped out nearly all of mankind, and predicted the occurrence of similar disasters in the future.  “If almost every other society has believed that the planet is periodically destroyed by cosmic-size catastrophes, should not this possibility be thoroughly explored?” (Deloria, 2002, p. 220).  In 1830, a noted geologist named “Charles Lyell… proposed the theory that the earth was always changing slowly and in small increments – not just by catastrophe” (Sonder, 1999, p. 9).  In 1813, English scientist William Charles Wells “formulated theories of natural selection,” as did Patrick Matthew in 1831.  “A young naturalist named Alfred Russell Wallace… had independently arrived at the same ideas” and “prompted” Darwin to announce his theory of natural selection (Sonder, 1999, p. 12), revealing “in 1858, that he was ready to propose the same theory” (Thorndike, 1999, p. 25).  “Almost fifty years before Darwin’s voyages, a French naturalist named Jean-Baptiste Lamarck had done extensive research in an attempt to develop this theory of gradual descent” (Sonder, 1999, p. 9). 

     Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist and evolutionist, stated that “evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science” and that it can, therefore, be called a “fact” (Deloria, 2002, p. 2).  As for Dr. Chien, it turns out he has no standing in paleontology.  He “has proper scientific credentials.  However, paleontology… is entirely absent from them” (Forrest & Gross, p. 63).  Dr. Chien admits “that he has no expertise or training in paleontology” and “that he came into this issue believing evolution is not true” (Forrest & Gross, p. 62).  All of this fuss, regarding the Chengjiang fossils and the Cambrian ‘explosion’ has “nothing to do with the real scientific questions about that geological era” – like, what caused the sudden increase in the procreation of life?  In short, it appears there is not anything posing “any legitimate challenge to standard evolutionary biology as a whole” (Forrest & Gross, p. 86). 

     We have learned much in the past hundred years.  It has been a century of great discovery.  “Christianity arose when we had virtually no knowledge of the larger cosmos and this planet was presumed to be the center of creation” (Deloria, 2002, p. 214).  “To cling to past paradigms and doctrines is not the way to proceed… We should demand that we be treated as adults – no more ‘Just So Stories’ or religious myths need be fed to us” (Deloria, 2002, p. 221).

Discovering the Middle Ground – in Favor of Both

     The majority of top scientists now believe “that the universe was created in a Big Bang – a view not at odds with religious belief” (Deloria, 2002, p. 2).  Evolution is almost as widely accepted today as the concept of intelligent design.  “Public opinion polls report that 40 percent of adults… think creationism is scientifically as valid as evolution” (Thorndike, 1999, p. 116).  Recent nationwide studies show that 44 percent of Americans hold a biblical creationist view, 40 percent hold a belief in “theistic evolution” and only 10 percent are “strict, secular evolutionists.”  Furthermore, four out of five Americans “support teaching creationism as well as evolution in the public schools”  (Deloria, 2002, p. 3 & 4).  Therefore, finding the middle ground in this day and age seems to make sense.  “The anomalies in Western science and religion are so numerous that they now constitute an easily identifiable alternative to what we are presently asked to believe” (Deloria, 2002, p. 221).  Is it not possible for both to be true?

     Living cells demonstrate both intelligent design and evolution.  Red blood cells, for example, seem intently deliberate as they voyage through the blood, “loaded with oxygen to feed the other cells” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 122).  Muscle cells, constantly working, “are sleek and supple, full of coiled energy”.  Cartilage cells, with their shiny black nuclei, stay glued tightly together for strength to provide shape for such things as ears and noses.  Lastly, fat cells “seem lazy and leaden, like bulging… bags jammed together” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 122).  Organisms of different species, which have adults who take on very different forms after maturation, “have embryos which are identical… this points to a shared evolutionary origin,” (Ruse, 2001, page 18) as well as intelligent design.  A woman’s egg cell, one of the largest in the human body, with “its ovoid shape just visible to the unaided eye…” is an elegant and primordial structure, from which all other cells in the body derive (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 122-123).  Many great minds throughout history, with complete faith in the sciences, held firmly to their belief in God. 

     James Clerk Maxwell, who was known as the Father of Electromagnetic Theory, was the “first scientist to show that light was related to magnetism as well as electricity” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 66).  He probably made more contributions to theoretical physics than any other man except Sir Isaac Newton and was a devout Christian.  Prayer among his notes read, in part:  “…teach us to study the work of thy hands, that we may subdue the earth to our use, and strengthen our reason… that we may believe on Him Whom Thou hast sent, to give us the knowledge of salvation and the remission of our sins…” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 66). 

     Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was based on his intense belief that everything is connected.  He wholeheartedly believed that there was a greater power in charge of ‘relativity’ and experimented (attempting to prove divine intervention), although he never truly succeeded.  Many of his theories, however, still hold true today.  He just seemed to know things, almost as if he had innate wisdom.

     Sir Isaac Newton held strong beliefs in a creator.  This is evidenced by his writings where he tells, in detail, the wonders of the eye and the uniformity in the “outward shapes of all birds, beasts and men” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 285).   He saw these wonders as proof of a Being who made all things (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 198).  Newton wrote:  “ ‘The universe was rightly designed a temple of God.  This Being governs all things… as Lord over all’ – (1642-1727)” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 272).

     Galileo held strong beliefs in the Almighty, which are demonstrated vividly in his writing, as he contemplates:  “ ‘A hundred passages of holy scripture teach us that the glory and greatness of Almighty God are marvelously displayed in all his works and divinely read in the open book of the heaven’ – Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 272).  In 1632, Galileo proved scientifically “that Earth revolved around the Sun” (Thorndike, 1999, p. 27).  This was in direct contradiction with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church at that time, “that Earth was the center of the universe,” and was, therefore, declared blasphemous.  Galileo was banished from the church for opposing their views (Thorndike, 1999, p. 27).

     Charles Darwin, contrary to what most people think, actually did believe in God.  He wrote an epigraph to be included in his ‘Origin of the Species’, which stated that no man could “search too far or be too well-studied in the book of God’s word…” (Miller, 1999, p. xii).  He never tried to disprove the existence of God… but “he knew that his research would be considered blasphemous” (Thorndike, 1999, p. 27 & 28).  Because he did not provide answers to the questions of ‘What caused the first living thing to exist?’ and ‘What created the universe itself?’, he allowed that “one can be a Darwinian without being an atheist” (Sonder, 1999, p. 25). 

     We do not have to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible to believe in a “divine influence” throughout the history of the earth.  In fact, now “the majority of people who believe in evolution also believe that there is a God… they have come to be known as theistic evolutionists” (Sonder, 1999, p. 25).  Natural Selection, which refers to “a complex, interactive process” between plants, animals and habitats over a long period of time, itself, demonstrates intelligent design (Thorndike, 1999, p. 24).  Although no direct relationship between genetic developments and changes in the environment could be found at first, an eventual “link to the environment was discovered and the theory of natural selection was revised” (Sonder, 1999, p. 38) with the finding that, generation after generation, out of the total population, “mutations occur in very low percentages… at a fairly constant rate” and mutations “that prove favorable… are passed on… and more prevalent” (Sonder, 1999, p. 38).  At first, “ministers and older scientists ridiculed Darwin for his ideas,” but later, “the Church of England reversed itself and accepted Darwin’s views.  When he died, Darwin was lionized, or elevated to a place of great importance, and buried at Westminster Abbey in London” (Thorndike, 1999, p. 27).

     Carolus Linnaeus, who gave up studying theology for botany, “firmly believed that living nature had been constructed upon a pattern,” but eventually conceded to the theory of common descent (Alioto, 1997, p. 245).  Linnaeus was a creationist, who, through his studies, eventually changed his mind about the probability of evolution.  Keith Ward, a Professor of Divinity at Oxford, says “there is ‘every reason to think that a scientific evolutionary account and a religious belief in a guiding creative force are not just compatible, but mutually reinforcing’ ” (Ruse, 2001, page 11).  This is how I always felt.

     Stephen Jay Gould is a paleontologist who “sees no conflict between evolution and religion… closer to God than many conventional believers” (Ruse, 2001, page 10).  Gould has argued repeatedly and vehemently “that science and religion do not and (properly understood) cannot clash” (Ruse, 2001, page 10).  After hearing news of the discovery of the earliest known representative of the chordates – this is the division of the animal kingdom to which vertebrates, including humans, belong - Gould remarked, ‘So much for chordate uniqueness...  As for our place in the history of life, we are of it, not above it” (Sonder, 1999, p. 70).

     Plato’s philosophy fits with this integrated point of view.  As an early Greek philosopher, his writings and thoughts influenced nearly every era of history – becoming known as the doctrine of ideas.  Insisting, “realities are unchanging and eternal, independent of a changing world of sensation,” Plato held strongly to his view that the physical world, as we experienced it, was “not genuinely real”, and was, therefore “changeable and relative” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 340).  Thus, he stated, man “cannot trust his senses for an understanding of physical reality – and there are no unchangeable physical laws of nature (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 340).”  No one understood, at that time, and many people still do not, just how right Plato was.

     We can not trust our senses for an understanding of physical reality… because what appears to be ‘real’ (solid) to us, is an illusion.  “The world is made up of imperceptible, infinite atoms, moving in a void, and their motion is simply an eternal jostling in which some atoms, upon collision, adhere to one another and produce compounds” (Alioto, 1993, p. 88).  But what causes an atom to move, nobody knows.  Atomists say nothing causes it… claiming “motion is natural to matter and was with it for all time” (Alioto, 1993, p. 88), but it sounds like God to me.  They say the movement is “purely mechanical”, so there is no need to account for the motion, or change for that matter… but the energy – or electricity – that exists within an atom obviously came from somewhere.  Atoms, which make up all matter in the universe, contain this energy in the form of protons, electrons and neutrons.  The force of this electricity is so strong that it creates impenetrable force fields that give matter the appearance of being solid.  “Through infinite time”, our textbook states, “worlds come and go, never the same, an infinity of worlds built from the never-ending collisions, adherences, and rebounding of the invisible atoms” (Alioto, 1993, p. 89).  I like that.  Mind, it continues, “is only a collection of smooth, rarefied atoms, and sensation is due to the impact of atoms upon the body”.  “Both sensation and thought derive from the same thing—the physical properties of atoms. A human being is nothing more than a miniature picture of the universe” (Alioto, 1993, p. 89).  Plato was right-on.

     There is a mathematical science to nature.  Every living thing follows the same pattern.  The ‘Golden Ratio’ always intrigued me.  I learned about it many years ago, on a Discovery Channel documentary - and then learned the mathematics of it when I took a "Qantitative Literacy" class earlier this year.  Beauty, as we see it, has a number.  That number is 1.618034.  This number is derived, by dividing a line between extreme and mean ratio.  It is also derived another way, and that has to do with the pattern of nature.  There is a numerical sequence that all of nature basically follows.  It goes:  1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55 and so on (each number being the sum of the two before it).  These are known as Fibonnaci numbers (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 2010).  This designated sequence of numbers, works throughout nature again and again – and the ‘number of beauty’ is derived from this sequence, because dividing each number in this sequence by the one that precedes it produces a ratio of about 1.618034… the golden ratio.  “Scientists say that the 1.618 leaves per turn on plant stems give the plant the best possible exposure to sunlight and to insects for pollination” (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 2010). 

     The Golden Ratio holds true time and time again… and beauty follows this rule.  If you take a “golden” rectangle (that is, one with its longer side 1.618 times longer than its short side) and divide it to make a square within the rectangle, the remaining rectangle will also be “golden” – one where a perfect square and secondary golden rectangle will be created. The number of times this can be performed within one rectangle is infinite, depending on the original size of the rectangle.  When repeated again and again, this division of a Golden Rectangle will form a logarithmic spiral (like that of a snail’s shell).

     Most flowers have, either 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 or 34 petals.  Many leaves on trees are arranged in Fibonnaci numbers; plants, animals and even humans are built, generally, based upon this principle.  The bone that extends from the third knuckle joint to the second is 1.618034 times longer than the bone between the second and first knuckle – and in turn, that bone is 1.618034 times longer than the bone on the tip of the finger.  Each one of our limbs, in turn, follows this rule, as do the proportions on our face.  This number, named by the Greeks as "Phi", is known as the number of beauty because all things (or people) considered "beautiful" by human beings follow this pattern most closely.  Of course, there are exceptions to every rule.  But Earth is simply too perfect to be attributed to chance. 

     The earth was obviously constructed to protect us from the harmful elements of the universe outside of our atmosphere.  With its invisible shield, the magnetosphere “shields the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere from the harmful effects of the solar wind, which could otherwise cause great problems or even death for living creatures” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 319).  The solar wind consists of plasma (which is made up of electrons and positively charged atoms) “streaming out from the sun’s corona in all directions” with the speed of some particles moving approximately 600 miles per second.  “These charged particles, like all forms of plasma, are affected by a magnetic field.  Thus, most of the solar wind is deflected around the earth’s magnetosphere like air around a baseball” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 319).  For many centuries now, man has used the magnetic field of Earth as an indicator for direction, but we know realize it was created for a much greater, protective role.

     With protective belts around the earth, God prevents particles from penetrating beyond the magnetosphere.  A small portion of protons and electrons from the solar wind do get through that invisible shield and are trapped within the earth’s field, forming “vast doughnut-shaped belts called the Van Allen radiation belts… centered over the magnetic equator” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 321).  So, it is chance or is intelligent design?  “Although the earth is not the only planet with a magnetic field, it is the only planet on which God created life” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 323).  Aside from this magnetic field, many other factors, such as distance from the Sun, composition of the atmosphere, size of the planet and rate of rotation about its axis, combine to enable the earth to support life.  “The perfect combination of these factors gives strong evidence for God’s creative design rather than evolutionary chance” (Parker, et al., 1994, p. 323).

     The Bible is not a scientific text, however, “whenever it speaks of scientific matters it speaks truly and accurately… items of ‘modern discovery’ were written in Scripture thousands of years ago” (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 341).  Specific “truths about chemical and biochemical processes, the ocean with all its mystery, the earth, animals and plants, the composition of the human body and its characteristics, and diseases and their prevention” are all written about in Scripture (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 341).  Many scientific truths were revealed in the Bible long before being discovered by modern scientists:  (1) Earth is a sphere suspended in space – Isa. 40:22; Job 26:7; (2) The water cycle keeps the land watered – Genesis; Job 36:27-28; Eccles. 1:7; Amos 5:8; (3) The universe is running down – Isa. 51:6; Psalms 102:26; (4) Ocean currents flow through the sea – Psalms 8:8; (5) Blood sustains life – Lev. 17:11; (6) The universe is made of invisible things – Heb. 11:3; (7) The stars are incredibly distant from the earth and cannot be numbered – Job 22:12; Gen. 15:5, 22:17; Jer. 33:22; (8) The winds form a circulating system – Eccles. 1:6; (9) Earth rotates on its axis – Job 38:12, 14; and (10) Man’s body is composed of the same materials as the earth – Genesis 2:7, 3:19; Psalms 103:14 (Parker, et al., 1997, p. 342).  This shows us that there is much Truth to the Bible.  We just need to learn how to separate the Truth from the fiction.

IV.  SUMMARY

      So why not look at Creation a whole new way?  With God’s hand in evolution, or rather, with evolution in God’s hands… it all makes sense.  As he brought life into being, stirring those very first cells into motion (as the atoms, which make up all matter began to form bodies), that “spontaneous generation” of which Evolutionists speak, occurred.  There may very well have been only one Adam and one Eve – of each Phyla – to begin with (cells encoded with DNA for a variety of species), which procreated to build future generations of all kinds of creatures.  The development of these species allowed God to prepare the earth for us, as it went through the necessary changes to create just the perfect atmosphere for our bodies to breathe.  He put a lot of thought into it… and slowly, carefully molded us into our present form through the process of evolution.  From primordial form, through all stages of our creation, God knew exactly what He was doing – and kept in mind His final design for us.
     We were created “in His image”, yes.  But as I see it, this means that we are ‘like’ Him, in that we love each other, we desire connection with each other, we have dreams and goals, likes and dislikes, we rejoice in watching our children grow… and we are individuals who truly do not want to be alone.  We love to receive acknowledgement.  And we like to be given credit for our achievements. 

           

V.  CONCLUSION

After reading the Bible cover to cover, I concluded that it can not be the ‘literal’ Word of God.  God has inspired all kinds of people to write things over the years – just as, I believe, He inspires me at times.  And people wrote on whatever implement they had available to them, whether it be paper, metal or stone.  I have read every word of the Bible and to take the entire thing as “literal,” would mean that God has Multiple Personality Disorder, ADD, is bi-polar and a bit obsessive-compulsive too.  Well, that may all be true.  He speaks of Himself as more than one being, many times, demonstrating many personalities… He’s an angry and vengeful God, he’s a loving God in favor of forgiveness – one minute threatening to destroy all mankind and the next, promising salvation.  He likes to make comparisons, to talk in riddles and tell short stories to make a point and does so numerous times throughout these writings.  The Bible was printed in English “to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people,” (Holy Bible, 1611, n.a.) but in order to find the Truth in it, one has to look past the lies.
The Bible is full of Parables, sarcasms and Allegories. The story of Adam & Eve is an allegory – a sort of ‘fairy tale’ that uses fictionalized characters to explain human characteristics. Time and time again, symbolic representations are used in the scripture to tell hard truths, to give warnings and to provoke thought.  Some scripture, actually, leaves room for evolution though.  Genesis, throughout its first twenty-two chapters, actually tells the story of evolution (if you read it closely enough). 

The first time I read it, it was easy for me to see.  But then, I have known evolution was a fact all along… somehow, I believe, God has instructed me since my childhood.  Some people might see this as arrogant – but it really is not so.  I always told Him I did not want to ever tell people.  It was my secret.  It was just He and I.  For the longest time, God was my “invisible friend”.  But eventually, He revealed Himself more fully to me – and I began to see Him all around me.  Suddenly, I could not help but share with a few select friends how it was I was seeing Him and before I knew it, I was talking to strangers about Him, while waiting for my car to be fixed… and surprisingly, the responses I received were encouraging.  People actually listened to me.  Most actually agreed.  Circumstances eventually led me to receive my ordination with the Universal Life Church - and here I am today, trying to refrain from “preaching”, while defending God in a thesis paper! 
Yet the defense of God is really just a small part of my paper.  The larger part is my feeble attempt to provide others some explanation of how evolution could be true if “intelligent design” is actually true - and how it all fits together, as I see it.  Honestly, the truth of the matter is that I believe evolution clearly demonstrates intelligent design.  From the very first generation, with the slightest genetic variation of each creature ‘after its kind,’ God led nature on an unimaginable evolutionary journey.  With careful intent, through the process of natural selection and other natural processes, He adjusted each creature as needed to fit its changing environment, until His final design for Earth was achieved – with modern man, His ‘crowning glory’.

In my opinion, there should be no argument over whether or not God exists.  What form He takes, perhaps, is something that could be debated – but not His existence.  The obvious evidence in favor of Intelligent Design is simply too overwhelming.  But the scientific evidence, which has been carefully set right before us, is pretty overwhelming too.  Evolution is a fact that cannot truly be disputed, as it still goes on today in one form or another.  Aside from my personal feelings and beliefs from childhood, all of the facts herein, are the reasons it is my contention that God and evolution go hand-in-hand.

References:

et al., (1611). The Holy Bible, Authorized King James Version, The Epistle Dedicatory, page n.a., & The Bible Readers’ Aids, p. 16. New York:  The World Publishing Company.

Deloria, V., (2002). Evolution, Creationism and other modern myths, p. 2, 3, 4, 163, 164, 165, 166, 214, 220 & 221. Golden, CO:  Fulcrum Publishing.

Alioto, A. M., (1993). The rise of modern science, p. 88, 89 & 245. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:  Prentice Hall, Custom Publishing.

Parker, G., et al (1994). Matter & motion in God’s universe, p. 66, 272, 285, 292-295, 297-298, 319, 321 & 323. Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Christian College.

Parker, G., Graham, K., Shimmim. D., Thompson, G., (1997). Biology - God’s living creation, p. 122, 123, 198, 340-342, 366-371, 381, 382, 402 & 403. Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Christian College.

Ruse, M., (2001). Can a Darwinian be a Christian?, p. 10, 11, 13, 18 & 21. New York, N.Y.:  Cambridge University Press.

Miller, K. R., (1999). Finding Darwin’s God, p. xii. New York, N.Y.:  Cliff Street Books, Harper Collins Publishers.

Forrest, B. & Gross, P. R., (2004). Creationism’s trojan horse – The wedge of intelligent design, p. 49, 50, 62, 63 & 86. New York, N.Y.:  Oxford University Press.

Thorndike, J. L., (1999). Epperson v. Arkansas: the Evolution-Creationism debate, p. 24, 25, 27, 28 & 116. Berkeley Heights, N.J.:  Enslow Publishers, Inc.

Sonder, B., (1999). Evolution and Creationism, p. 9, 12, 25, 38, 55 & 70. New York, N.Y.:  Franklin Watts, Grolier Publishing Co., Inc.

Numbers, R. L., (1992). The Creationists – The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. New York, N.Y.:  Random House, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Linnaeus, Carl (2000 revised). Carl Linnaeus UCMP. Referenced from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnacus.html

Holt, Rinehart and Winston (2010).  Retrieved from:  http://go.hrw.com/math/cnn/course2/2_5_Golden/2_5_Golden.htm