The M+G+R Foundation

The Creation Theory and the Evolution Theory are interdependent - Part I
Neither can subsist without the other
Originally published on June 11, 2005


PURPOSE

The purposes of this brief document are primarily two: (a) Confirm, utilizing the scientific proof offered by the supporters of the Theory of Evolution, the basic tenets of the Theory of Creation; and (b) Show the consequences of when man persists in his denial of God - he keeps making the same mistakes without learning anything from previous errors regardless of how painful the consequences were.


INTRODUCTION

If you ask a room full of individuals what came first, the chicken or the egg, the answers will pour in as a torrent as everyone gives his/her opinion as the "correct" answer. Most likely, few stopped to think about the issue before speaking. And most, without a doubt, spoke without any real knowledge about the subject at hand.

The same is true with both the Creation and Evolution theorists. Should they be asked which theory is correct, they will respond with the same passion - before even looking at the very flawed facts they wield as proofs.


DETAILS

Let us look at the scientific facts utilized by the Big Bang proponents, using language accessible to all:


Let us look at the Biblical facts utilized by the Creationist proponents using accessible language:



With their Scientific basis - Evolutionists proceed to "create" living things from chemical elements that came from nowhere (as scientifically proven). This is a problem that man cannot begin to even fathom - "nowhere" is a term defined by a Created environment, an environment which did not exist before creation. Thus, this "nowhere" cannot even be grasped by the very feeble human mind.

With their Biblical basis - Creationists proceed to "create" living things from the literal interpretation of Genesis. The problem is that their version starts falling apart at the seams before even getting to Chapter Three of the Book of Genesis. We read in Genesis two different stories about the Creation of man: (a) the simultaneous creation of Adam and Eve [Genesis 1: 26-28], and (b) the Adam first and Eve from Adam's rib [Genesis 2: 7-24]. [Note, we are not questioning that if God, for example, said "There it be light," light came into being. We are just highlighting two different Biblical versions of a single reality which cannot be sustained by literalism.]

Now, this difference could possibly be smoothed over by a fast talking fundamentalist preacher. The real problem comes when we read:


By whom is Cain afraid of being killed? According to our literal population census there are only three individuals in the world so far: Adam, Eve and Cain. As if this situation were not enough, we must ask: Where did Cain get that wife? etc.

By this time the Creationists and Evolutionists are most likely engaged in a bitter debate ignoring the very fact that Evolutionists have scientifically proven that the core of the Creationist Theory is really true:


Now, what one wants to call that Creator is up to the individual, the language spoken and the individual cultural traditions.


CONCLUSION

We do not mean that we should not take some parts of the Holy Scriptures literally; some of it must be taken exactly as written. Some of the Holy Scriptures is written in an allegorical fashion to express to the man of that time something that he could not possibly comprehend otherwise.

Imagine someone reading in the Holy Scriptures the following passage one hundred years ago:


Followed by:


However, even the earliest man could understand "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery". Furthermore, after Jesus resurrected the decomposing corpse of His friend Lazarus, people could then comprehend the concept of His own resurrection by the same power He invoked upon Lazarus - the Power of God, The Father.

We have expanded the discussion about of Biblical Literalism in a two part document (1).


EPILOGUE

There is a Site (2) which claims to have a considerable amount of valid scientific information regarding the true age of our planet Earth. In a nutshell, the data they present indicate that our planet is not as old as it is believed to be; a few thousands of years as opposed to millions of years.

We cannot even entertain such conclusion as you will see in Part 2 of this document and in the seventh document of this series, yet to be published, and to which we have chosen to give the title of: The Greatest Story Ever Told: The Creation - From Its Beginning to Its End