From: jeffcox@zeta.org.au (Jeffrey Cox)

Newsgroups: talk.origins,news.answers,talk.answers

Subject: talk.origins FAQ (Creation)

Followup-To: talk.origins

Date: 02 July 1997 07:47:14 GMT

          1.  Who is a biblical creationist?

References; Notes

[0] About this document.

[A] The scientific explanations for the origin of the universe, the earth,the various species of living organisms and of humans are based on evidence that is also consistent with creation by God. The aim of the following answers is to explain the origin of life from a Christian perspective and to point out some of theflaws in the explanation offered by supporters of evolution.

 

[1] Who is a biblical creationist?

[A] A person who believes that the creation account in Genesis (the first book of the Bible) is correct.

[2] Do all biblical creationists believe the earth is around 6000 years old?

[A] No. There are different schools of thought among biblical creationists.

Young earth biblical creationists believe the earth is 6000 to 12000 years old, they think that the ages determined by radioactive dating of specimens are incorrect and they quote examples of errors in individual dating attempts in support of this view.

Old earth biblical creationists accept the age of the earth estimated by geologists at around 4500 million years.

Many biblical creationists believe that God created the earth but do not think that the time scale of the creation process is important.

[3] Does the Bible tell us how old the earth is?

[A] No. There are passages in both the old and new testaments that immediately follow a discussion of creation with the statement that a day to the Lord is as a thousand years.

From the Old Testament,

"A prayer of Moses the man of God. Lord, you have been our dwelling-place throughout all generations. Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men" For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." [Psalm 90:1-4]

           From the New Testament, Saint Peter writes: "But they deliberately                  forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth             was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world             of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the                         present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the              day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not forget                  this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand              years, and a thousand years are like a day" [2 Peter 3:5-8] So,              according to the use of the word day in the Bible, the separate               phases of creation described in the first book of the Bible need not              be literal days as we now use the word day. The phrase "and there              was evening and  morning" is used after each day in the Genesis              account and this indicates to some that they were literal days,              however the phrase is used after each of the first three days of              creation and the fourth day of reation records the creation of the sun              so it is difficult to see how evening and morning as we now use the              words could have occurred without the sun. It seems likely in the              opinion of this writer that the "evening and morning" phrases refer to              interludes in the creation process when no new creation was taking              place.

[4] How does the big bang theory explain the origin of the universe?

[A] According to the big bang theory, the universe came into existence in a very small space then immediately began expanding outwards. Most astronomers now date this event around 10 to 15 billion years ago.

During the early stages of expansion the energy density of the whole universe was so high that matter was unable to exist. As Einstein explained, energy can be converted to matter and matter converted to energy, and at this time (according tothe theory) all of the universe was in the form of energy. As the universe expanded outwards, the energy density lowered and the particles we now recognise formed out of the energy. The first to emerge were wave / particles of electromagnetic radiation that we call light together with electrons and positrons (the antimatter equivalent of electrons). Only later as the universe continued to expand and the energy density was further reduced were protons and neutrons able to remain stable as they formed from the initial energy and produced atoms.

[5] Does the big bang theory contradict the Bible?

[A] The opening lines of the Bible are: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light", and there was light." [Genesis 1:1-3]

The formation of light in the very early history of the universe is a feature of both the biblical account of creation and the big bang theory. The big bang has the appearance of a creation event.

[6] The big bang theory is accepted by virtually all astronomers, should we regard the big bang as a fact?

[A] The big bang theory is supported by the apparent expansion of the universe and by other evidence such as the energy level of the cosmic microwave background radiation but astronomers regard the big bang as an explanation that is probably true,not definitely true.

[7] Does our modern understanding of geology contradict the creation viewpoints?

[A] The old earth creation view is entirely consistent with conventional geology.

Geology does contradict the young earth creation viewpoint. Some of the young earth creationists are attempting to develop an alternative explanation for the origin of rocks, particularly those that contain fossils.

[8] What is abiogenesis?

          [A] Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that suggests life originated from a self-replicating (reproducing) molecule that was formed by chemical reactions that occurred following random collisions of simple molecules in oceans, lakes or puddles on the pre-biotic earth (pre-biotic = before life). The energy for these chemical reactionsis said to have come from lightning or UV radiation and the molecules themselves from the earth’s atmosphere. In the original form of the hypothesis a combination of amino acids formed by natural processes was thought to have formed a self-replicating  protein molecule that evolved into a cell. A flaw in this hypothesis is shown in a 1957 paper by Miller: "It is pointed out that organic compounds would not be synthesised on the Earth if oxidizing conditions were present. Therefore, if one assumes that amino acids (and other organic compounds) must have been present for life to arise, thenthe atmosphere of the Earth must have been reducing. In particular, ammonia must have been present (in the oceans) for the synthesis of amino acids. This implies that the partial pressure of hydrogen was at least 10**-3 atmosphere." [#1]

Miller assumed the correctness of the abiogenesis hypothesis in order to justify the starting conditions for experiments that he then claimed as support for the hypothesis.

More recent research indicates that the early earth did not have the reducing atmosphere Miller suggested.

Some scientists continue to consider the explanation where life begins with a self-replicating protein because of the difficulty of explaining the synthesis of a nucleic acid (RNA) by the combination of simple molecules as a result of purely natural processes.

In the pre-RNA world hypothesis as it is now known a self-replicating protein evolves the ability to make RNA, although how this could happen is not explained.

Self-replicating proteins would have to be able to both reproduce themselves and catalyse nucleic acid synthesis to be part of a plausible origins story, yet it is far from certain if it is possible for a protein to self-replicate and to catalyse nucleic acid synthesis. Even if a self-replicating protein could exist the synthesis of RNA by a single molecule is highly unlikely.

[9] What is the RNA world hypothesis?

[A] The current version of the abiogenesis hypothesis is that life originated

from self-replicating RNA molecules that were formed by the combination of simple organic molecules as a result of random collisions of these molecules in oceans, lakes or puddles. Natural selection within the resulting population of RNA molecules is then thought to have favoured molecules changed by mutations that produced molecules with an increased chance of survival with the continuing ability to self-replicate. Individual molecules with Nitrogen base sequences that produced advantageous characteristics would be more likely to survive and reproduce than others and, assuming limited resources and the breakdown of some molecules, the molecules with advantageous characteristics would predominate. It is imagined that changes to Nitrogen base sequences caused by mutations produced genes coding for characteristics that increased the complexity of these self-replicating molecules and that they evolved into a living cell.

There are many differences between a molecule and a cell. Cells are complex structures made of many different chemical substances that are produced within the cell. Nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) control the activities of a cell and the synthesis of cell components by coding for proteins, these proteins include enzymes that carry out chemical reactions within the cell. There are many stages of increasing complexity between an RNA molecule and a functioning cell that can reproduce, and possible mechanisms for these stages of development are unexplained.

[10] What is the current state of research into producing a non-creation explanation for the origin of the first living organism? [A] It has not been possible to produce the nucleotide monomers that make up the nucleic acids RNA and DNA using sparked or UV irradiated mixtures of gases that may reasonably presumed to have been present in the atmosphere of the early earth and water. Mixtures of the stereo isomers of Nitrogen bases have been produced under laboratory conditions that include combinations of cyanoacetylaldehyde and urea and some researchers have suggested that puddles with relatively high concentrations of these substances may have been present of the early earth (a highly unlikely story).

Some very short polymers have been made to produce copies under laboratory conditions with a relatively high concentration of monomers present and in the absence of other reactive molecules. The laboratory "self-replication" of longer polymer chains has not been achieved and the nature of larger molecules presents obstacles to replication that appear insurmountable, a long polymer will coil into a three dimensional structure and will not be able to replicate in this state. A 1993 paper by Joyce and Orgel, two of the leading proponents of the RNA world, explains the highly imaginary nature of the hypothesis: "In our initial discussion of the RNA world we accept The Molecular Biologists Dream: ‘Once upon a time there was a pre-biotic pool full of (beta)-D-nucleotides....’

We now consider what would have to have happened to make the dream come true. This discussion triggers The Prebiotic Chemist’s Nightmare: how to make any kind of self-replicating system from the kind of intractable mixture that is formed in experiments designed to simulate the chemistry of the primitive earth." [#2]

Although the authors go on to discuss possible solutions to the dilemma they concede that there are many unresolved problems in developing a plausible scenario for abiogenesis, for example:

"The only remotely plausible route to the molecular biologists pool would involve a series of mineral-catalysed reactions, coupled with a series of subtle fractionations of nucleotide-like materials based on charge, stereochemistry, etc. Even minerals could not achieve on a macroscopic scale one desirable separation, the resolution of D-ribonucleotides from the L-enantiomers. This is a serious problem because experiments on template directed synthesis using poly© and the imidazolides of G suggest that the polymerisation of the D-enantiomer is often strongly inhibited by the L-enantiomer."

[#2] Thus RNA would not form in the sort of mixtures that might very optimistically be imagined to have existed on earth because in such mixtures chemical reactions with other molecules would be favoured rather than the reactions that made functional RNA.

A 1996 paper published in the journal "Nature" [#3] describes experiments where a calcium phosphate mineral and a clay were used as a catalyst to produce polymers up to 55 units long by daily additions of a nucleotide monomer over some weeks. It is unremarkable, given the considerable ingenuity of biochemists, that an experiment designed to synthesise a polynucleotide from nucleotide monomers succeeded in doing just this. This experiment has no relationship with the real pre-biotic earth, since there is no reason to suppose that nucleotide monomers were actually present in the oceans of the primitive earth and, if they were present, they would react with other molecules that would also be present rather than combining to form RNA. The RNA world is an imaginary world in the minds of molecular biologists.

The treatment of this imaginary world as science rather than science fiction is a result of the lack of any other non-creation explanation for the origin of life on earth and a historically recent determination not to accept creation as part of biology.

[11] Could a self-replicating molecule have formed on the real earth as imagined in the molecular biologists dream?

[A] No. Functional biological molecules need to be stereo specific, that is, they need to be present in only one of the two mirror image forms that can occur. Even if the relatively complex nucleotide monomers were formed in puddles or oceans of the pre-biotic earth by random collisions of simpler molecules they would include approximately equal concentrations of the two stereo isomers (mirror images) of each molecule.

A polymer such as a protein or a nucleic acid must be stereo specific in order to coil into a three dimensional structure properly, that is, it must be composed of only one of the two mirror image forms of the monomer units that make up the polymer.

It has been suggested that the RNA strands produced in the hypothetical RNA world could have used both alternative forms of the nucleotide monomers and that natural selection could then have eliminated the molecules that were not stereo specific leaving only a stereo specific form. This could not have happened. A self-replicating molecule would need to be large. If either RNA or a protein is to function as an enzyme the distribution of partial electric charges over the three dimensional structure of the molecule is critical to be able to bind the precursor molecules in useful orientations. The hypothetical self-replicating molecule would need to copy itself, but it is not clear how a long molecule could do this. One hypothesis is that such a molecule may have two enzymatic synthesis regions so that each could copy the other and a flexible section in the middle. The first end would uncoil, loses the enzymatic ability that was a function of the electron charge distribution over it’s structure and be copied by the second end then the second end would uncoil and be copied by the first end. The above hypothetical view is presented by this writer to show the incompleteness of the abiogenesis hypothesis, there is no explanation for the coiling and uncoiling of the ends of such a molecule should at appropriate times.

It is probably impossible for a large and complex self-replicating molecule to exist. Even if RNA or a self-replicating protein could be formed on the pre-biotic earth only the stereo specific forms of the polymer would be functional and these represent an infinitesimal proportion of polymers of sufficient length. For a 1000 unit polymer to be formed by natural selection of randomly joined monomers only one in 2**1000, or approximately one in 10**300 molecules of the right length would be functional.

In the unlikely event of the monomers existing at all they would be in limited supply, there is a very large number of possible combinations of monomers and a very small number that might work. A thousand million years is not nearly long enough to make a self-replicating molecule in this way on a small planet like earth.

[12] Are there other weak points in the belief that abiogenesis took place?

[A] Yes. A major gap in the abiogenesis explanation is the lack of any explanation for the origin of protein synthesis. Protein synthesis works like this:

DNA contains a long chain of Nitrogen base pairs, each three bases on one side form a codon that is the code for one particular amino acid. There are 4 different Nitrogen bases in DNA and different combinations of these bases in a codon determine the amino acid (of 20) that codon specifies. A sequence of 900 bases can specify the types and order of 300 amino acids in one protein. (A protein is a long chain  of amino acids joined end to end and folded into a three dimensional structure, the length of DNA containing the base sequence that is the code for one particular protein is known as a gene)

Genes are a code, to convert the code into a protein a number of separate and complex structures are needed. First the gene is transcribed by a large molecule called an RNA polymerase enzyme into a strand of messenger RNA that is similar toa single strand of DNA. This strand is sometimes edited when the strand is cut by an enzyme, sections containing many bases are removed and the cut ends of the long  mRNA strand are rejoined.

Different varieties of another type of RNA, transfer RNA, attach to an amino acid at one end and and to the base triplet on the messenger RNA strand that codes for that amino acid at the other. The attachment of amino acids to the appropriate transfer RNA molecules is done by specialised enzymes, a different enzyme attaches each of the amino acids to the transfer RNA that matches the code for that amino acid.

The positioning of the appropriate transfer RNA’s carrying the coded for amino acids along the messenger RNA strand and the formation of peptide bonds between the amino acids to complete the synthesis of a protein is done by a cellular organelle called a ribosome, a complex structure consisting of several large molecules.

Without the different forms of transfer RNA, the different enzymes that join amino acids to the appropriate transfer RNA molecules, messenger RNA and ribosomes DNA is one complex structure in isolation and proteins are other complex structures in isolation. Protein synthesis is a complex multiple step process and the intermediate structures are large and complex molecules that are not useful in isolation. The question of the origin of protein synthesis is only answered by creation.

[13] Where does evolution stand in the absence of abiogenesis?

[A] Without abiogenesis evolution is a story without a beginning, such a story is incomplete. Evolution does not explain the origin of species.

Evolution is an incomplete explanation for the origin of life and of species and so Occam’s razor does not preclude the investigation of alternative hypotheses that may represent a more complete explanation.

Since there is no plausible explanation for the origin of the first living organism by purely natural processes it is reasonable to assume that the first living organism was created by God, and therefore reasonable to consider that the process of creation continued beyond the appearance of the first species.

[14] How is evolution currently defined?

[A] In biology the term evolution refers to the theory first published in 1859 by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. The current version of this theory suggests that the processes of random mutations and natural selection produced the present variety of species following the appearance of a simple ancestral organism. The term evolution has been used to include the whole process of speciation as a result of natural processes for more than a century and this usage is still current, yet some people have recently tried to define evolution in a different way.

Evolution is currently defined as any change in the gene or allele pool of a population. It is often unclear if any given usage of the word evolution in biology refers to the definition of genetic change or to the Darwin / Wallace theory.

It is also unclear from the current definition of evolution if the genetic changes referred to are only those that arise as a result of random natural processes or if genetic changes that take place following the active intervention of God also satisfy the definition. The former case is often assumed but it is an assumption that is unstated.

A definition should isolate an idea from other ideas, the current definition of evolution also includes creation and does not distinguish between the process that is said to produce changes and the presumed outcome of these changes.

[15] What is the effect of having a broad and misleading definition of evolution?

[A] Minor examples of natural fluctuations in populations and small changes in existing characteristics can be observed and claimed as evidence to support the evolution explanation for large scale change including the formation of complex organisms with novel characteristics from simple ones.

[16] How should evolution be defined?

[A] Evolution should be defined as an explanation for the origin of all species by the natural selection of organisms that inherit advantageous genes produced by random mutations following the formation of an ancestral organism by the combinationof simple molecules as a result of natural processes.

Evolution includes a large part of the RNA world hypothesis since the processes that are thought to have occurred during the formation of the first cell (following the appearance of a self-replicating molecule) are identical with those of evolution:

A population of RNA molecules that carry the codes for different  characteristics during the hypothetical development of the first cell is an example of a gene or allele pool, the population of RNA molecules is changed by mutations,individual RNA molecules containing Nitrogen base sequences that produced advantageous characteristics would be more likely to survive and reproduce than others and so would be naturally selected,     limited resources are present, and some molecules are broken down, so the molecules with advantageous characteristics would predominate. Thus the current explanation for the formation of the first cell includes the evolution of RNA into a cell, and this view is accepted as evolution by leading researchers studying the RNA world hypothesis

[17] Does evolution contradict the Bible?

[A] Yes. The Bible states in Genesis Chapter 1 that God created plants and animals "according to their kind" and this phrase is repeated a number of times. Thus the Bible states that God created different kinds of plants and animals and evolution contradicts this.

[18] Is natural selection evidence of evolution?

[A] No. One well known example of natural selection was observed in populations of _Biston betularia_, the peppered moth. Individuals of this species may be dark or light in color. Records of moths collected last century show that near

Manchester in the North of England around 1% of individuals of this moth species were dark and 99% were light colored in 1848, and that by 1898 95% of the moths were dark with only 5% light colored.

The moth population changed because pollution from industry killed the light colored lichens that had previously grown on trees trunks and blackened the trees

so that light colored moths in later years were more easily seen by birds. Since dark moths were less likely to be eaten, they produced more offspring and the dark form of the moth color gene became more common in the moth population.

The dark moths were much more common in 1898 but they were no different to the dark moths that had been alive 50 years earlier. This change in the frequency of existing alleles in the gene pool of the moth population is definitely an example of natural selection and definitely not an example of evolution if evolution is defined in a way that is similar to what it means. The term evolution has been used in Biology for more than a century to include large scale changes that are suggested as an explanation for the origin of all species as a result of natural processes, and this usage precedes the current definition.

 

[19] What is the difference between natural selection and evolution?

[A] Natural selection involves changes in existing species in response to changes in the frequency of existing alleles in the gene pool of the species. It is likely that this type of change happened in the past because similar changes are observed today. However natural selection resulting from changes in the frequency of unaltered existing alleles cannot produce novel characteristics. Natural selection has been observed to act on alleles that have very minor changes in base sequence produced by mutations, however these minor changes are insufficient to explain the development of novel characteristics.

Novel characteristics in organisms such as a change from invertebrates to vertebrates clearly require many new genes with many different Nitrogen base sequences to those in the ancestral organisms and it is assumed that mutations produced the novel genetic material. This genetic change is different in kind to the change in the frequencies of existing alleles that are produced by natural selection.

There are questions regarding large scale change that do not apply to natural selection as a result of existing allele frequency changes, for example the relative rates of beneficial and deleterious mutations, the origin of new characteristics that require many genes, and the development of multiple step processes.

Despite these differences, modern examples of natural selection are claimed to provide support for, or according to some, proof of large scale evolution. This is not sound logic because although natural selection acting on mutations has been observed to produce modifications to existing characteristics it has not been shown to produce novel characteristics. Proof of a simple process is not proof of a more complex process that includes the simpler one. To suggest that the variation among Galapagos finches was produced by these processes is extrapolating beyond the data, to say that vertebrates were produced from invertebrates by these processes is a guess.

[20] Some mutations have been shown to produce changes in multicellular organisms that appear to be beneficial. Does this show that evolution could have happened?

[A] No. Mutations that turn off a gene may produce altered characteristics that may be beneficial in some cases. Any one of a large number of possible changes to the DNA of the gene could produce this outcome by damaging the gene, or the section of DNA that regulates the expression of the gene may be altered. Some single base substitution mutations may also produce characteristics that may be beneficial in some cases.

These mutations are very different to the formation of a novel gene with a number of bases in the sequence that are not found in the base sequences of existing genes, and the evolution of very different kinds of organisms that have novel characteristics would require genes with many base sequences that are different to those of previously existing genes.

Many of the new genes (or duplicated genes that are significantly altered) that are required for large scale change would need to have been produced either by many separate base substitution mutations or by DNA strand rearrangements where a section of DNA containing a number of bases is inserted into a chromosome to produce a novel gene with a number of novel bases. Such mutations are very unlikely since novel genes will in many cases require base sequence changes from existing genes at more than one location in the base sequence of a gene.The mutations that have been observed to produce beneficial effects are base substitution mutations to genes that are already expressed or changes in the genes that control the expression of functional genes. In differentiated multicellular organisms there must be sections of DNA separate from the protein code gene that control the expression of the protein in different groups of specialised cells and so for a novel gene coding for characteristics that did not previously exist to be produced as a result of random mutations both the novel base sequence of the new gene and the associated regulatory genes must also be produced.In a complex multicellular species with a limited reproduction rate, the number of separate mutations required to produce the required number of separate base changes in both the protein code and regulatory genes would be exceedingly high because the vast majority of mutations will be harmful. Natural selection can’t sort the mutations before they produce an advantage and a selective advantage may require a number of separate mutations to occur before survival is increased. The view that evolution did occur as a result of such unlikely combinations of mutations is not supported by numerical calculations so it is a guess, a complex multicellular species would be likely to be rendered extinct by the exceedingly high number of mutations required to produce the genes for a novel characteristic in a limited time frame.

[21] Mutations are frequently observed in unicellular organisms such as bacteria and yeast, some of these mutations appear to produce beneficial effects. Is this similar to the evolution of multicellular organisms?

[A] No. Beneficial mutations in bacteria and yeast are not appropriate models for speculation about beneficial mutations in multicellular organisms with specialised cells where genes that regulate expression in the appropriate cells are needed as well as genes that code for the proteins that produce the novel characteristics.

Many separate fortunate and unlikely coincidences are required in a limited time to produce a new characteristic in a differentiated multicellular organism, and the observation of single fortunate coincidences in isolation is not evidence that this can happen. A base substitution mutation can be compared to a roll of a dice with millions of sides, in the case of the bacterium E. coli 16.8 million sides since E. coli has 4.2 million Nitrogen bases in it’s DNA and each base is one of 4 types. A single roll may cause a base substitution to an expressed gene in a bacterium that alters the surface coat protein and such a change may be beneficial for a bacterium. A few numbers could work. A novel characteristic in a multicellular organism such as the first appearance of bones around a dorsal nerve cord would require novel genes.

In most cases a species will lack genes that can be duplicated and produce the useful code by substituting a single base, so multiple rolls will be needed to make a cell protein code gene, other multiple rolls will be needed for a gene that regulates expression of the new protein code in the appropriate cells (how much protein is made) and still more multiple rolls will be needed for a gene that determines the cell types and locations where the gene is expressed.

In mice and humans the mutation dice have 1.2 x 10**10 and 1.3 x 10**10 sides respectively, in each case this is four times the number of Nitrogen bases in the haploid genomes of these species. A significant proportion of the numbers will produce harmful effects and one such roll will render a series of rolls useless.

Gene regulation can involve multiple regulatory genes at each stage and more than one gene will be needed. Unicellular organisms are not a model for vertebrate evolution.

[22] Is it possible to definitively disprove evolution?

[A] It may be possible to definitively disprove evolution (what everybody means by evolution, not the disingenuous definition) by calculating the probability of the combination of random mutations that would be needed to for complex characteristics to evolve and comparing this with the total number of individuals in a vertebrate species that can reasonably be assumed to have lived over the length of geological time when significant change in the fossil record of vertebrates of this kind is observed.

We may not know enough about the nature of genes to do this yet since one of the important factors in the development of novel complex characteristics is the control of the expression of particular genes in specialised cell types and the molecular nature of this control is not currently understood. It is reasonable to assume that the control of gene expression in specialised cells of multicellular organisms involves a significant number of bases in their DNA and at the current rate of increase of our knowledge of molecular biology this information is likely to become available in the next decade or so. When this is known, a person who has a very good understanding of molecular and general biology and an aptitude for probability calculations should then be able to prove definitively that new kinds of life could not be produced by evolution.

[23] Are there other flaws in the explanation for the origin of all species as a result of random mutations and natural selection following the appearance of the first living organism?

[A] Yes. Some characteristics in organisms are produced by several genes and in some cases these genes will not be useful in isolation. If a single new gene was produced by random mutations, then if the new gene is unused it will be likely to be damaged by mutations over successive generations and will only remain in a population for a limited time. For combinations of several genes to be produced by random mutations not one but many extremely unlikely events must occur in a limited number of individuals in a limited number of generations. This is so unlikely that it is effectively impossible, yet the evolution explanation requires this virtually impossible enhance appearance of groups of complex genes to happen repeatedly during the development of complex species from simple ones.

This flaw in the evolution explanation is most obvious in the very early stages of the development of life. The evolution of a self-reproducing RNA strand into a cell could not have occurred by random mutations and natural selection because cells require combinations of genes to function and the presence of only one or two of these genes would not produce a selective advantage in a RNA strand if three or more genes are needed to carry out a process. Without a selective advantage an RNA strand carrying a potentially useful base sequence would have little chance of surviving enough generations to accumulate the number of mutations required to produce an advantage.

Even if a cellular organism was formed, evolution could not produce complex processes like photosynthesis since genes for only a relatively small number of biochemical processes would be present in a simple ancestral organism. Photosynthesis requires a pigment to trap photons of light and use the energy from the photons to raise electrons to higher energy states as well as additional pigments or coenzymes to transfer the energy from the electrons to enzymes. Many additional enzymes are also needed to synthesise molecules that store energy. Both the pigment and enzymes to convert the energy captured by the pigment are required, and these are complex molecules. The

Calvin Cycle never contains molecules shorter than 3 Carbon atoms and it is far from certain that a functional biochemical pathway for photosynthesis involving 1 or 2 Carbon intermediates could exist since such a pathway would involve large energy jumps, possibly too large for the energy to be transferred by electrons associated with pigments.

Without such a pathway photosynthesis could not have evolved. Even with such a pathway many genes are needed for photosynthesis and these genes would not be useful in isolation. Natural selection could not sort mutations to produce these genes until the process of photosynthesis had begun and so the evolution of photosynthesis would require many genes for enzymes to transfer energy and for the synthesis of a pigment to be formed purely by unsorted random mutations.

Other examples of characteristics that require several genes include the biochemical processes that synthesise complex molecules. These reactions often occur in several stages, each stage of the reaction is carried out by a different enzyme and each enzyme is coded for by a different gene. For multiple step biochemical processes to have arisen during the early stages of cellular development by the natural selection of mutated genes, each step would have to be useful in isolation because of the small number of enzyme genes that would have been in existence at this time. Genes coding for enzymes that produced steps that were not functional at a given stage of change would be likely to be damaged by mutations before the number of genes required to produce a novel multiple step process that rendered the genes useful could be produced by random mutations.

[24] I have heard that some people claim evolution is now a fact. Is this true?

[A] Only some supporters of evolution attempt to claim this. One way of pretending that evolution is a fact is to use the word fact in a way that is different from the meaning it has for most people, defining a fact as something that is probably true rather than something that is definitely true. When evolution is claimed to be a fact in this way without explaining that the word fact is used to mean something different to the usual meaning of something that is definitely true, the claim is misleading.

Another way of pretending that evolution is a fact is to use a definition of evolution that includes very small changes in a population, then to say that small changes occur and so evolution is observed. This is also misleading because the term evolution has been commonly used for more than a century to mean the whole process of speciation as a result of natural processes following the formation of the first ancestral organism and this usage is still current. People who claim that evolution is a fact without explaining that the term evolution is used in a narrow sense that is different to the other current and more common usage of the term must know that their claim of evolution as a fact is likely to be misunderstood. The people who claim evolution is a fact are being deliberately misleading and are therefore dishonest.

[25] My science educator claims evolution is a fact and I am concerned that he or she is misleading students. What can I do?

[A] You could speak to this person and politely point out that the use of the word fact in this context is misleading and should be clarified since the word evolution in Biology refers both to the current definition of genetic change and to an unproved theory based on the one proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. If this does not help, then it is likely that your educator either lacks understanding of the subject or is dishonest. You could then raise this issue with someone in the administration of the educational institution you belong to, some consider it good manners to move up one level of administration at a time if your complaint is not resolved at any given level.

Most or at least many people who actually understand evolution recognise that it is an explanation that cannot be proved to be correct, although most biologists believe that evolution is what actually happened. Origins is an issue that many people are interested in and when evolution is popularised, the actual position "most scientists are convinced that ...." often becomes distorted by oversimplification to be "what actually happened was .." and the popularisation becomes a misleading representation of the true picture. This distortion is worsened by a team spirit feeling that produces a tendency to overstate the case of one side in a disagreement.

[26] Since evolution is unproved, what are the alternatives?

[A] Some people believe that the origin of living things is unknown and possibly unknowable, the only serious alternative to evolution is a belief that God created living things.

There are different schools of thought among Christians who regard the Bible as truth.

Many biblical creationists believe that God created different kinds of living things, but do not think that the time scale of the creation process is important.

Young earth biblical creationists believe that God created life on earth 6,000 to 12,000 years ago. Some of these people believe that God created each species individually and others think that some separate species have arisen in this time by natural processes.

Old earth biblical creationists believe that God created life on earth over the time scale estimated by geologists at around 4500 million years, their views differ on the number of species God created directly and the amount of natural variation that produced species diversity. Some believe that all species were created separately by God and others, including this writer, believe that God created different kinds of living things then mutations and natural selection produced additional species within these kinds.

Some Christians believe that God created the first living organism and that mutations and natural selection produced the present variety of species purely by natural processes without the active intervention of God. Some also believe that God set up the starting conditions for life so that it would inevitably appear.

[27] What is the "fine tuning" argument?

[A] Many biblical creationists believe that God created different kinds of living things with the potential for a limited amount of change by natural selection to enable adaptation to a new or changing environment. It annoys them when others observe this fine tuning process in operation and claim that it is evidence for a completely different type of change, large scale change to produce very different kinds of living things.

[28] Does the fossil record show that Darwin was right?

[A] No. The fossil record does not show the gradual change from one kind of life to another that Darwin predicted but reveals long periods when relatively little change took place and episodes when large amounts of change took place in a short period of geological time. All the major animal phyla appeared in a rapid "explosion" of life forms at the beginning of the Cambrian period that is dated about 600 million years ago.

[29] Many people think that the fossil record and the similarity of DNA from different groups of organisms indicates direct biological connections between species. Is this view consistent with creation?

[A] Yes. God may have created different kinds of organisms by modifying existing species, deliberately altering the Nitrogen base sequence in the DNA of gametes or zygotes (such as unfertilised or fertilised ova) so that females produced offspring that were significantly different to themselves. God may alsohave ensured the survival of successive generations of individuals that were changed in this way.

This progressive creation by designed modification explanation is a modern alternative to the older explanation of the individual creation of each species.

Progressive creation by modification is consistent with evidence from DNA similarity studies.

[30] Is progressive creation by modification a form of evolution?

[A] No. The sculpting of one species into another at the molecular level would produce similar fossil and DNA evidence to the evolution explanation but this explanation is not evolution. In the evolution explanation, random mutations sorted by natural selection is the process that is thought to have produced new kinds of living things.

In the progressive creation by modification explanation God deliberately produced new kinds of living things by the deliberate modification of the DNA in existing species. Random mutations sorted by natural selection is not the process that produced new kinds of living things according to this explanation and so progressive creation by modification is NOT a form of evolution.

The term mutation is inappropriate to describe multiple changes in base sequence that arose directly from the active intervention of God. Researchers using recombinant DNA do not describe the alterations in base sequence they produce with restriction enzymes and other techniques as mutations, and creation events where God adds designed base sequences to an existing species to form a new kind are also different to mutations.

[31] Is the progressive creation by modification explanation consistent with the available evidence?

[A] The fossil record shows the appearance of increasingly complex kinds of living organisms over time and the remains of some species that may be intermediate stages between major groups. This is entirely consistent with the modification of existing species by the active intervention of God to produce specifically designed novel sequences of Nitrogen bases in the chromosomes of gametes or zygotes. These creation events could produce new kinds of living things with new characteristics when a number of new genes are formed in this way. Mutations and natural selection could then produce different species within these newly created kinds of organisms, explaining the great diversity of form we observe among living species and in the fossil record. Over geological time, progressive creation by modification would produce increasingly complex kinds of living things together with a small number intermediate stages and this is what the fossil record shows.

The similarity of base sequences in the DNA of extant (living) species is consistent with progressive creation by modification since only a small proportion of the bases in the chromosomes of existing species would need to be changed by God to produce each new kind of living organism. Since current species are, in this view, descended from ancestors that are common to other species then DNA similarity would be expected.

The biochemical similarity of extant species is consistent with progressive creation by modification over geological time. In this explanation the increase in complexity of organisms is produced by the deliberate modification of existing genes or by the replacement of sections of DNA that do not code for proteins with genes that code for new proteins or functional lengths of RNA. Kinds that are created modifications of existing species would retain the same basic biochemistry, so different kinds of living organisms that are descended from a common ancestor as a result of creation by modification will have similar biochemistry.

Homologous (related) structures present in fossil and extant species such as the pentadactyl (5 digit) limbs of vertebrates are consistent with creation by the modification of existing kinds of living things to produce new kinds with the same body plan since only a small proportion of the genes in an existing species would need to be changed to produce, for example, a kangaroo from a quadruped.

[32] Is the similarity of vertebrate embryos evidence of evolution?

[A] No. The similarity of the early embryos of different species of vertebrates is evidence for common descent but it does not indicate the process that produced the change, the similarity of embryos is entirely consistent with progressive creation by modification.

[33] Is the presence of vestigial limbs evidence of evolution?

[A] No. The presence of vestigial limbs in snakes is evidence that suggests

an ancestor with limbs, and therefore common descent, however both progressive creation by modification and evolution are consistent with this. Once a species has reached a high degree of adaptation to an environment there is no particular reason for God to continue changing the species to remove vestigial limbs.

[34] Are "transitional" fossils evidence of evolution?

[A] Some fossils appear to be the remains of organisms with characteristics that are intermediate between those of major groups. Examples include Archaeopteryx, a bird that had a number of characteristics similar to those of reptiles, and Therapsida, an order of reptiles that had some characteristics similar to those of mammals.These examples are commonly quoted as representing transitional stages in the evolution of more advanced or complex groups, however they would also be animals that were well adapted to a particular environment before environmental change rendered them extinct.

Transitional forms are consistent with progressive creation by modification since God was designing ecosystems as well as species and these extinct forms of life would have occupied ecological niches that were later filled by more advanced species.

[35] Some kinds of species seem to appear in the fossil record in simpler or more primitive forms that the forms that are currently found on earth. Why would

God create simpler forms of species rather than producing the more advanced forms straight away?

[A] Some of these apparently simpler forms may have been intermediate stages as it seems that God chose to create new kinds of species by modifying existing ones, however the intermediate stages would have been ecologically useful. God

was managing ecosystems as well as anticipating more complex kinds of life, and there is no particular reason why changes would have to occur quickly. A slow pace of change would have produced more stability in ecosystems.

Introducing a new kind of animal in a form with limited effectiveness as a predator would have allowed changes to ecological balance to occur slowly. Natural selection could produce small changes in prey species such as modifications in instinctive behaviour that would allow a prey species to survive in the presence ofa new predator. A new highly effective predator arriving in an ecosystem would be likely to cause extinction if there were multiple prey species or produce a small population if there was only one species of prey.

[36] What is a kind?

[A] A kind is a created group of organisms. The creation account in Genesis tells us that God created animals and plants "according to their kind".

Some interpret this to be each species but in many cases the term kind may also apply to a higher level of classification such as a genus or family. The arbitrary nature of classification means that kinds and our classification systems don’t necessarily match. Among different kinds of life to humans a kind may be a family in the classification system, for example kangaroos and wallabies appear to be a single kind although they belong to different genera.

An example of two different kinds are the the fossil Australopithecus species including Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus, A.boisei and A. robustus that are thought to include a common ancestor of humans, and the early _Homo_ species, Homo habilis and H. erectus.

All the Australopithecus species were one distinctly apelike kind. They had relatively small brains around 450 cc in volume, thick skulls, faces that jutted forward with a strongly protruding jaw, very large molars and premolars, a conical chest that was narrow at the top and broad at the bottom, little neck with no waist, an extremely apelike build with twice the body mass of humans of equivalent height, long and very muscular arms, short legs, toes that were long and curved, a high degree of sexual dimorphism and the occipital lobes at the back of the brain were larger than the frontal lobes.

Homo species have larger brains, thinner skulls, flatter faces, smaller molars, a barrel shaped chest, a longer neck and a waist, a leaner build more typical of modern humans, shorter and less muscular arms, longer legs, shorter and straight toes, sexes of approximately equal sizes, and the occipital lobes at the back of the brain are smaller than the frontal lobes. There are other changes to the shape of the brain

in Homo, including the appearance of Broca’s area, the part of the brain that controls complex vocalisation. The genus Australopithecus is thought to have evolved into the genus Homo over the course of about 1.5 million years and approximately 10**13 zygotes, a relatively large number of base changes would need to have been produced in this time and the number of beneficial mutations required may not be sufficiently probable for evolution to explain this change.

[37] Are fossils that appear to be apes that walked upright or simpler forms of humans evidence of evolution?

[A] No. If humans are directly descended from animals then these fossils may indicate stages that are close to the path of common descent, although different forms that do not appear to be direct ancestors of humans indicate a degree of adaptation to different environments by random mutations sorted by natural selection. This is consistent with progressive creation by modification. If the first humans were created by the modification of an upright bipedal species of animal, we are still a deliberately created design.

The existence of species that walked upright on two legs and were similar in appearance to humans would also have served a useful function for the coming humans, since God already had the design of humans in mind and was preparing the earth for us. Other species existing before humans may have had a tendency to attack human sized individuals, and the fights between cave apes and potential predators would have produced natural selection among then existing species for instinctive behaviour that favoured aversion to upright bipeds. Fossil evidence of tooth marks in bones show that early upright biped species such as Australopithecus afarensis were preyed on by tigers or similar predators. Cave dwelling apes that used simple tools and weapons, particularlythe more robustforms that had larger bones and presumably stronger muscles that humans, would have been useful for early humans in this regard by killing a proportion of these predators so that alleles that produced aversion behaviour towards upright bipeds became more common in the predator population. The cave apesmay have established an ecological niche for Adam and Eve and their descendants.

[38] Who was Adam?

[A] Adam was the first individual of our modern species Homo sapiens sapiens

The similarity of our DNA with that of chimpanzees suggests common ancestry and therefore that that God formed Adam by modifying an existing pre-human species, yet God changed Adam significantly from his pre-human ancestors. Adam was the first individual of the Homo genus to have a soul and this gave him and his descendants a sense of self that changed the nature of thinking so that abstract thought and the use of abstract concepts in language became possible.

There is a major change in the fossil and archaeological record called the Upper Paleolithic Revolution that is dated around 50 000 to 35 000 Years bp. (before the present), it shows the simultaneous appearance of a number of novel objects in the archaeological record - evidence of the appearance of modern human culture.

These new objects include sophisticated stone tools that required a high degree of skill to produce, the use of bone and antler as raw materials for toolmaking, tool kits comprising a large number (more than 100) of different items that included implements for fashioning rough clothing, beads and pendants for adornment and cave paintings.

Humans then began changing at a much more rapid pace, significant changes were appearing in thousands of years rather than in hundreds of thousands or millions of years as had previously been the case. Agriculture first appears after this change.

It is suggested by this writer that God modified the DNA of an archaic Homo sapiens zygote to form Adam and then Eve, and that this event immediately preceded the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. This implies either that the biblical record is

inaccurate by a factor of 6 to 8 as a result of errors in the duplication of the oldest manuscripts or that the dating of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution is incorrect. The rapid pace of cultural change that follows the Upper Paleolithic Revolution is consistent with the appearance of a new species with a new mode of thinking that arose when God gave Adam a soul.

Humans have a special place in God’s creation and we are a different kind to the archaic Homo species that lived before the creation of Adam. Although the existence of a soul may not be part of our molecular biology it is an integral part of our psychology and this mind within a mind of Homo sapiens sapiens makes us think very differently to our presumed ancestors.

The Bible describes the creation of Adam in this way: ".. the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." [Genesis 2:7]

This could refer to progressive creation by modification beginning with the creation of an ancestral organism from inorganic materials, and the giving of a soul to Adam.

The word "life" in the Bible is frequently used to mean eternal life.

[39] What about Noah’s ark?

[A] Noah’s ark was a miracle and miracles need not follow physical laws or scientific principals. We are not expected to understand how they happened.

[40] Can the sophistication of humans be explained by evolution?

[A] No. Human culture has progressed in around 12 000 years from the making of stone tools to the launch of spacecraft to explore the solar system. This is a fleeting moment of geological time, much too short a time frame for mutations sorted by natural selection to have produced the required increase in brain complexity since microelectronic circuit design and astrophysics require thinking skills considerably more advanced than those used by simple hunter gatherers or the members of the first small agricultural communities.

The sophistication of the human brain to enable very complex abstract thought depends upon the use of written language. Very complex ideas are not developed in a single generation but arise from the refinement and extension of existing

complex ideas over many generations, and only a small proportion of the individuals in a large population will be able to contribute to the development of these ideas.

Written language is needed to store the results of a gifted individual’s effort in developing or refining a very complex idea and make it accessible to that small number of other individuals who are able to continue developing the idea, including individuals in future generations.

Individuals who lived before the development of complex written language would be limited to ideas that could be understood by a significant proportion of the population and transferred verbally, or ideas that could be developed in a single generation. Evolution cannot explain the development of the mental ability to understand and develop concepts so complex that they require generations of rarely gifted individuals to develop since this thinking sophistication represents potential that was unused until very recently. Mutations and natural selection cannot increase the functional adaptation of combinations of genes that are not used, and the cultural environment where very complex ideas could develop has only existed in recent millennia. We were created in God’s image with the potential to develop to our present stage of intellectual and technological sophistication.

[41] Why should I believe the Christian version of creation rather than the alternatives proposed by other religions?

[A] Around 700 BC the prophet Isaiah told the Jewish people of a coming messiah who would be born of a virgin. Isaiah also described the things this messiah would do on earth and explained in detail how he would suffer for the healing of others. Other prophets including King David, the second king of the nation of Israel, also described this coming heavenly king.

Around 30 AD a man named John began baptizing people and telling them that the kingdom of heaven was near, then John the Baptist was imprisoned. Soon afterwards Jesus began his public ministry in Israel and John sent a messenger to Jesus asking if he was the messiah who the prophets had said was coming Jesus replied: "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor." [Luke 7:22]

Jesus was not saying that people should believe he was the messiah because he said so. He was pointing out that he was performing the miracles Isaiah had predicted several centuries earlier that the messiah would perform. Jesus later explainedto his followers that he and God our creator are one. He healed he sick, raised the dead and was raised from the dead, God came down from heaven and lived among us in the person of Jesus.

[42] What are the moral consequences of advocating a belief in evolution?

[A] Evolution contradicts the Bible because the Bible states that God created different kinds of plants and animals. The Bible also describes how to gain eternal life. If a supporter of evolution falsely claims that the Bible is wrong, and as a result another person disbelieves the Bible and loses their eternal life, then the actions of the evolution supporter produce an outcome far worse than the killing of another human.

People wonder where life came from, and many people have been mislead to believe that science has an explanation for the origin of life that has been proved to be correct.

This misleading of the public verges on outright dishonesty when the unproved theory of evolution is presented alongside other scientific explanations that are known with a high degree of certainty to be true without distinguishing clearly between the two types of explanations.

The followers of evolution have had 125 years to come up with a theory that is a complete and valid explanation for the origin of living things and they have failed to do so. The first living organism must have been created by God.

Scientists have been claiming that the Bible and, by implication, Christianity is wrong and this is a false, misleading and harmful claim. During the last  century science has gained an exaggerated importance in western philosophy and it is time for this harmful distortion to be corrected. People look to science to help them understand the world and if science gives them erroneous data then some very important decisions they may make based on their understanding of who they are and why they are here might be very wrong.

Science is a guessing game with rules, it is a useful way of answering some types of questions but it cannot answer moral questions because our understanding of the nature of humans and of human behaviour is imperfect. The answers that sciencecan give are limited to the hypotheses that can be posed and tested, if an area is insufficiently understood for the real answers to questions to be guessed then science cannot give us understanding of that area. Science is unable to provide definitive answers to questions of right and wrong in human behaviour since science has only a limited understanding of humans.

Moral relativism, the idea that right and wrong can be determined by arbitrary decisions based on what is known of the possible consequences of actions, is junk philosophy.

Rather than giving an answer to moral questions it invites people to pick their own answer that may or may not be correct. This limited view of living derives from the limited understanding that science gives us of life.

We once had a Christian culture that integrated philosophy with moral values,

this has been replaced in a large proportion of popular culture by a science oriented philosophy and almost a moral vacuum. This shift in philosophy from religion to science has had a very harmful impact on our society. The loss of moral values from popular western culture has resulted in major social problems caused by damaging relationships including family breakup, violence and the self destructive

behavior that results from lost self esteem.

Christian moral values are the instructions for life given by the creator of humans,

if we disregard these instructions our lives will not work properly and if our culture disregards these instructions then our culture will develop serious social problems.

[43] Are there any unsolved problems in developing an understanding of the Genesis account of creation that is also consistent with modern science? [A] Yes.

The genealogy found in the book of Genesis traces the ancestry of Abram from Adam, and Abram lived during the early part of history that is recorded in ancient texts other than the Bible. The biblical genealogy gives the ages of the fathers at the birth of their sons and simple calculations give a time span of a little over 2000 years between the creation of Adam and the birth of Abram who lived about 2166 BC. The Genesis account indicates that Adam was created about 6000 yearsago. Radioactive dating indicates that individuals that used fire and tools and had skeletons very similar to those of modern humans were present on earth more than 12000 years ago and the oldest human culture, that of the Australian Aborigines, dates back at least 30000 years based on radioactive dating of charcoal from campfires. This seems to contradict the 4000 BC date for the creation of Adam.

Radioactive dating of Carbon samples is based on the assumption that the ratio of the isotopes Carbon 12 and Carbon 14 in the atmosphere has remained relatively constant over time and it is possible that this assumption may not be correct,

however tree ring studies indicate that radiocarbon dating gives an accuracy of better than plus or minus 20 percent over 4000 years or more. Radioactive Carbon

dating is only useful for samples younger than about 50 000 years, for older samples isotopes of other radioactive elements or other methods are used.

Radioactive dating is done by comparing the amounts of particular radioactive isotopes of elements in samples with the amounts of other isotopes in the sample that are known to be the breakdown products of the original radioactive atoms.

Errors can occur when dating individual samples as some of the original isotopes or their breakdown products may have been lost. Radioactive dating is based on the assumptions that the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant over time,that the original samples contained only the radioactive isotopes and not a mixture of the isotopes and their breakdown products, and that atoms of the radioactive elements or their decay products have not been lost from a sample. Although the former two assumptions seem valid in the opinion of this writer, and the latter one may be valid in many cases, dates obtained by radioactive dating are not known with absolute certainty.

An alternative explanation to errors in radioactive dating may be that eitherthe ages or the number of individuals in the genealogy in Genesis may have been incorrectly copied during the history of the manuscript. This part of the Bible is much older than the rest and while we can be confident that the manuscripts we have

of the later parts of the Bible contain very few errors, this may not be true of the very oldest part of the Bible, the creation account. The repetition of the phrase "according to their kind" in reference to the creation of plants and animals enables us to be confident that this phrase accurately reflects the original manuscript.

[44] Does the discovery of material that is believed to be the fossil remains of bacteria in a meteorite was that is thought to have originally come from Mars mean that abiogenesis and evolution are now more plausible?

[A] There is considerable disagreement within the scientific community about the origin of the Carbon compounds in the meteorite. A number of scientists thinkthat the material in the meteorite was produced by inorganic processes and is notthe remains of living organisms.Abiogenesis and the evolution of a self-replicating molecule into a bacterium like organism cannot occur as a result of purely physical processes on any planet because small organic molecules formed in the atmosphere of a planet and dissolved in water would react in combinations other than the ones that produced RNA, molecules of a useful length cannot self-replicate and even if RNA was somehow formed by inorganic processes it would not be stereo specific and natural selection for stereo specificity to produce a functional molecule could not occur because the number of combinations

of useful length is much larger than the number of water molecules in all the earth’s oceans.

If there were or are bacteria on Mars, then God must have made them.

[45] Why is it important to develop an understanding of the Genesis account of creation that is also consistent with modern science?

[A] The Bible tells us how to live and how to relate to God, other issues are only addressed in the context of explaining our relationships with others and with our creator. In order to relate to God it is helpful for us to understand who

God is and so Genesis tells us that God is the creator of the universe, the earth, different kinds of plants and animals, and of humans.

The Bible does not go into detail about the process of creation since this is not the focus of Genesis. We are told that God created different kinds of plants and animals and that on a later occasion he created humans. It is relevant to relate this small amount of information we are given about creation in the Bibleto our quest for a scientific understanding of nature since those of us who consider the Bible inspired by God believe these answers to be statements of truth, andtherefore things that are known for certain.

Given this view of the Bible we have a limited number of reference points that are authoritative statements of truth we can gain a more detailed view of the world with logical deductions that are the product of applying the scientific method to observations of nature. If we want our understanding of nature to be close to the truth then it must be consistent with the statements of truth contained in the Bible.

If there is an apparent disagreement between science and the Bible then this appearance of disagreement can only result from our imperfect understanding of the Bible text, errors in translation or in the copying of the original Bible manuscripts or from errors in observation or deduction when using the scientific method to understand nature.

The scientific method and the accumulated answers to questions that have come from using it are an important part of modern culture, however the question of how to live and how to relate to God is more important.

The Apostle Paul writes:

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has

been made, so that men are without excuse". [Romans 1.20]

 

References

All quotations from the Bible are from the New International Version (NIV). [#1] Miller, S. Formation of Organic Compounds On The Primitive Earth. Reports On The International Symposium on The Origin Of Life On Earth, Moscow 1957.

        [#1] The Publishing House of The Academy Of Sciences Of The USSR.