CHAPTER SIX
PREHISTORY
... Thus saith Jehovah, who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him: (Zechariah 12:1)
I. THE "CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION"
CONTROVERSY, OR: "MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING"
...The more famous subject of Darwin's uniformitarianism, usually termed "evolution," comes to the front. This is always a controversial and emotional subject, and is usually discussed in a quasiscientific manner. 128
In dealing with the subject of this section, I will endeavor to avoid the above pitfall by being as logical and objective as possible. Let the reader be the judge of whether or not I succeed in doing so. I shall first discuss the merits and foibles of the "pro-evolution" argument and show where objectivity ended and human error began.
... The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
... Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.
for God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: (Rom. 1:19-20)
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?
And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)
We see here the detailing of the forming of man as he now is. (Although the account here is preFall, the present constituency of man is as given here; the Fall changed the nature of man, not his parts.) The account here indicates that the formation of man was not an instant supernatural thing but, as in the six-day account, was also accomplished through a process. Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground. Throughout the Scriptures, the physical body of man is likened to clay, not just the vague dust of the ground, so that we should expect clay to have played an important part in the evolutionary process that culminated in man.
What does the scientific record say?
The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.
In the beginning "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." Rocks at the surface began to weather and dissolve, producing dilute solutions of silica which trickled away and percolated down through porous beds, finally gathering into supersaturated solutions that, from time to time, crystallized out as clay. The synthesis of clay is very slow and still poorly understood, but the end product is very different from the feathery silicates such as asbestos and the threedimensionalframework silicates like feldspar that make up most of the solid material of the earth's crust. Clays are extraordinary, layered, crystal structures which have, built into them, what amounts almost to an innate tendency to evolve.149 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath (spirit) of mankind? (Job 12:10)
But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding. (Job 32:8)
Let me point out the following facts:
1. According to the scriptures, all living things have a soul, but only man has a spirit.
2. The Hebrew word translated 'breath' may equally be (and is in some other verses) translated as spirit.
3. If a creature does not have a spiritual existence, then, in God's eyes (Him being eternal) that creature is not really living, as its life can only be a temporal one. Today man's soul is immortal, but only because he has a spirit.
What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved, and at a certain point in his evolution he was given a spirit directly by and from God with which he could express God and have the likeness of God. Adam was the first man as we his descendants are, being the first creature to reach the stage of evolution at which God gave him a spirit. This also seems confirmed by the thought of other Scripture (l Cor. 15:45, 47): ... The first man Adam became a living soul.... The first man is of the earth, earthy:...
What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions). The less developed an animal's brain is, the more instinctual is its behavior. Only man has a will that is free and can choose according to neither of these. God would give man a spiritual existence only if man is responsible for his actions, and man could not be held responsible for his actions unless he has a free will.
Does the scientific evidence verify this hypothesis?
Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. 153 If we look back to an extremely remote epoch, before man had arrived at the dignity of manhood, he would have been guided more by instinct and less by reason than are the lowest savages at the present time. 156
... yet it is not improbable that there is a certain amount of interference between the development of free intelligence and of instinct . . . 157
The attainment of a free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence, and the greater the level of intelligence the less the influence of instinct (emotion). This is why the mind is the leading part of the soul, a further verification of Scripture by science.
The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable- namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with wellmarked social instincts, the parental and fillial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man. 158
If we look back to an extremely remote epoch, before man had arrived at the dignity of manhood, he would have been guided more by instinct and less by reason than are the lowest savages at the present time. 156
This recessive mutation was spreading itself through the pre-Adamic population as a heterozygote, that is, it was paired with a dominant gene of the pre-mutation variety. The selective advantage of the mutation ensured such a spreading. Inevitably, two individuals with such heterozygous genes mated and produced the first offspring with both genes being of the recessive mutant variety. When this offspring reached maturity, he was the first one of his species whose intelligence was of a degree sufficient for him to have a free will. This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the preAdamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam's immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the "first man" of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.
How did God solve this problem? And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 2123)
It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring.
amessageforthehumanrace.org
PREHISTORY
... Thus saith Jehovah, who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him: (Zechariah 12:1)
I. THE "CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION"
CONTROVERSY, OR: "MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING"
...The more famous subject of Darwin's uniformitarianism, usually termed "evolution," comes to the front. This is always a controversial and emotional subject, and is usually discussed in a quasiscientific manner. 128
In dealing with the subject of this section, I will endeavor to avoid the above pitfall by being as logical and objective as possible. Let the reader be the judge of whether or not I succeed in doing so. I shall first discuss the merits and foibles of the "pro-evolution" argument and show where objectivity ended and human error began.
... The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
... Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.
for God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: (Rom. 1:19-20)
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?
And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)
We see here the detailing of the forming of man as he now is. (Although the account here is preFall, the present constituency of man is as given here; the Fall changed the nature of man, not his parts.) The account here indicates that the formation of man was not an instant supernatural thing but, as in the six-day account, was also accomplished through a process. Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground. Throughout the Scriptures, the physical body of man is likened to clay, not just the vague dust of the ground, so that we should expect clay to have played an important part in the evolutionary process that culminated in man.
What does the scientific record say?
The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.
In the beginning "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." Rocks at the surface began to weather and dissolve, producing dilute solutions of silica which trickled away and percolated down through porous beds, finally gathering into supersaturated solutions that, from time to time, crystallized out as clay. The synthesis of clay is very slow and still poorly understood, but the end product is very different from the feathery silicates such as asbestos and the threedimensionalframework silicates like feldspar that make up most of the solid material of the earth's crust. Clays are extraordinary, layered, crystal structures which have, built into them, what amounts almost to an innate tendency to evolve.149 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath (spirit) of mankind? (Job 12:10)
But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding. (Job 32:8)
Let me point out the following facts:
1. According to the scriptures, all living things have a soul, but only man has a spirit.
2. The Hebrew word translated 'breath' may equally be (and is in some other verses) translated as spirit.
3. If a creature does not have a spiritual existence, then, in God's eyes (Him being eternal) that creature is not really living, as its life can only be a temporal one. Today man's soul is immortal, but only because he has a spirit.
What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved, and at a certain point in his evolution he was given a spirit directly by and from God with which he could express God and have the likeness of God. Adam was the first man as we his descendants are, being the first creature to reach the stage of evolution at which God gave him a spirit. This also seems confirmed by the thought of other Scripture (l Cor. 15:45, 47): ... The first man Adam became a living soul.... The first man is of the earth, earthy:...
What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions). The less developed an animal's brain is, the more instinctual is its behavior. Only man has a will that is free and can choose according to neither of these. God would give man a spiritual existence only if man is responsible for his actions, and man could not be held responsible for his actions unless he has a free will.
Does the scientific evidence verify this hypothesis?
Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. 153 If we look back to an extremely remote epoch, before man had arrived at the dignity of manhood, he would have been guided more by instinct and less by reason than are the lowest savages at the present time. 156
... yet it is not improbable that there is a certain amount of interference between the development of free intelligence and of instinct . . . 157
The attainment of a free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence, and the greater the level of intelligence the less the influence of instinct (emotion). This is why the mind is the leading part of the soul, a further verification of Scripture by science.
The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable- namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with wellmarked social instincts, the parental and fillial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man. 158
If we look back to an extremely remote epoch, before man had arrived at the dignity of manhood, he would have been guided more by instinct and less by reason than are the lowest savages at the present time. 156
This recessive mutation was spreading itself through the pre-Adamic population as a heterozygote, that is, it was paired with a dominant gene of the pre-mutation variety. The selective advantage of the mutation ensured such a spreading. Inevitably, two individuals with such heterozygous genes mated and produced the first offspring with both genes being of the recessive mutant variety. When this offspring reached maturity, he was the first one of his species whose intelligence was of a degree sufficient for him to have a free will. This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the preAdamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam's immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the "first man" of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.
How did God solve this problem? And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 2123)
It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring.
amessageforthehumanrace.org
