We are embarking on a series which will address the issue of Creation vs. Evolution.

Now isn’t it amazing that if one focuses on creationism and/or teaches it in their schools, it is regarded as being against liberty of thought and freedom of speech, intellectual inquiry and even the truth! Of course, if schools ban creationism (which the great overall preponderance do) it isn’t considered to be against liberty of thought, freedom of speech, intellectual inquiry and truth.

One man posted this comment: "It is not a matter of academic freedom, its a matter of teaching the facts. Religious creation myths belong in the classroom of Comparative Religions 101 and not in the science department. There is a vast distance between the academic and the religious. Schools and universities are not churches."

Again, he posted, "Intelligent design" (if that means "evolution is correct but God did it"), is not provable. The elements of biological evolution ARE provable. There is no such thing as "data" or "basic understanding" of "creation" and "creation" is NOT a scientific theory. It has nothing to do with the interests of science since it is NOT science. Despite the futile attempts of the ICR to present information couched in the language of science, creationism is a religious belief system based on bronze age myths. There is no "data" to give science students about non-existent global floods or talking snakes in fruit trees in a legitimate educational institution other than to say "the bible says so."

"At the end of the day, however, "creationism" is a religious principle that has no role in publicly funded education and will never get past the Supreme Court unless the political right is successful in its long battle to deconstruct the Constitution or at least unravel the 1st amendment."

Here is what this man posted concerning the word "theory": "Let me explain that the scientific definition of a THEORY is not the same as the colloquial use of the word that most people think is "guesswork." A THEORY in science is an explanation that fits ALL of the known proven, verified, tested and testable FACTS of an issue. ALL of the elements of the Theory of Evolution are FACTS that have been proven just as ALL of the elements of the Theory of Relativity are proven FACTS...just ask anyone who was in Hiroshima 56 years ago."

The word "theory" means contemplation or a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done. When one looks up the word "speculative" he finds out that it means "uncertain, risky." This would be the colloquial use of the word to the general population.

However, as JK (we’ll call him this for identification purposes only. We will leave his true name out of the picture.) says, the word "theory" implies considerable evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining the operation of certain phenomena. This would be the meaning of the word "theory" as applied to science."

Now, I must admit that I don’t get into the in-depth scientific research and books as this man does. While I do love (true) science and much of its data, I simply don’t read the supposed intricate detailed works of the world’s science books. I’m probably more like everyone else, I read a lot of my science out of Time Magazine or some other journalistic publication.

But the articles are still quite revealing in their nature concerning the words of the scientists and the attempts of the scientific and journalistic world to pawn off their "theory" to the general population.

For instance, Time Magazine ran an article in the July 23, 2001 edition entitled "One Giant Step for Mankind" and the caption under the title read "Meet your newfound ancestor, a chimplike forest creature that stood up and walked 5.8 million years ago." When I saw the magazine on display, I knew that I had to have it because the magazine cover depicted the face of an ape (named Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba) with huge captioned letters "HOW APES BECAME HUMAN."

When one reads the article, he learns that it is presented as factual. Science has definitely found a missing link to the evolutionary staircase. There is no other conclusion. Science has the facts and the facts support the "Theory of Evolution."

But reading the article closely, one finds the first statement of the second paragraph, "And it was here too that nature indulged in what was perhaps her greatest evolutionary experiment." PERHAPS?!!! NATURE DID IT?!!!

Here are the last two sentences of that same paragraph, "But while it wouldn’t happen until millions of years in the future, this new primate’s evolutionary descendants would eventually develop a large, complex brain. And from that would spring all of civilization, from Mesopotamia to Mozart to Who Wants to be a Millionaire."

What a great leap! No wonder the caption under the title spoke of "One Giant Step for Mankind!" In one paragraph composed of five sentences the author goes from "perhaps" to a definite, emphatic statement. Isn’t this what our scientists do?

After reading the article several times with a highlighter and a pen for underlining purposes, I discovered the truth concerning the emphasis that scientists put on their scientific "facts" and their use of the word "theory." The word "probably" was utilized five times, "almost certainly" once, "what appears to be" once, "may well have been" once, "somehow" once, "suspects" once, "mystery" once, "presumably" once, and "maybe" twice. Doesn’t this show that the scientific use of the word "Theory" is really and truly the same as the colloquial use, but they are just too blind and arrogant to admit it?

The article says, "Haile-Selassie and his colleagues haven’t collected enough bones yet to reconstruct with great precision what kadabba looked like." Yet, the artistic depictions of this supposed ape-like, hominid creature make it look like a very stately, tall creature that has the characteristics of both ape and human.

While stating that the creature was more chimplike in stature and size, they state, "But unlike the chimp or any of the other modern apes that amble along on four limbs, kadabba almost certainly walked upright much of the time." Then in the next paragraph they say, "Exactly how this hominid walked is still something of a mystery, though with a different skeletal structure, its gait would have been unlike ours."

Does "almost certainly" convey fact or does it only speculate? If how they walked is still "something of a mystery" does that convey fact or does it only speculate?

Interestingly, this statement is made, "But armed with knowledge about our ancestor’s physical attributes and the environment that surrounded them, scientists have come up with several theories." SEVERAL THEORIES?!!! My, my, my it sounds as if there PROBABLY are about as many theories about this creature as there are scientists. It sounds like several scientists have taken the same basic "FACTS" and have interpreted them differently.

One Paleontologist presented this scenario, "If you’re moving into more open country with grasslands and bushes and things like this, and eating a lot of fruits and berries coming off low bushes, there is a hell of an advantage to be able to reach higher. That’s why the gerenuk [a type of antelope] evolved its long neck and stands on its hind legs, and why the giraffe evolved its long neck. There’s strong pressure to be able to reach a wider range of levels."

A giraffe needs a long neck to eat off of low bushes? A gerenuk needs a long neck and to be able to stand on two legs to eat off of low bushes? Just how low were those bushes? And why didn’t man evolve to be much taller and stronger with a longer neck and arms and legs so he could compete with creatures like the giraffe and the gerenuk? Besides, why didn’t the giraffe or the gerenuk just evolve into apes and monkeys and then they could climb up to the higher places if they needed to stretch for their food? The statement made by this certain paleontologist wasn’t the brightest of statements, but then she is the scientist and scientists can get away with silliness because, after all, they are the higher educated. They are the ones who are able to take all of the facts and make brilliant conjectures, speculations and theories based on those facts, and no matter if they all disagree with each other and they all have their own idea or theory, different from the other scientists, but based on the same facts; it just isn’t kosher to allow someone who hasn’t been taught at the feet of the world’s college and university professors to have any say in the matter. Especially if we lesser species of the human race believe in something as mythical as the Holy Scriptures.

Other scientists disagree with the deductions of Mr. Selassie concerning his supposed important find. It is stated, "But not everyone buys the story. Indeed, the French and Kenyan team that presented a 6 million-year-old fossil last December insists that theirs, known as Orrorin tugenesis (or, more familiarly, Millennium Man because it was announced in 2000), is the true human ancestor and that Ardipithecus is nothing more than a monkey’s uncle—or a chimp’s great-great-grandfather, anyway. They even dismiss Lucy and her close kin, about as firmly entrenched in the human lineage as you can get, as evolutionary dead ends that left no living descendants."

Of course, once again, only scientists are allowed to disagree and denounce the veracity of the findings and even reveal the real truth of the matter. It is taboo to allow a non-scientist to look at the various statements concerning the evolutionist’s pet ideas and speak ill of it.

What the scientists are struggling for, but, of course, don’t want this truth to come out, is they are competing for the distinctive honor of making some great discovery in order to be awarded a Nobel Prize. Therefore, there will be, and has been, a lot of in-fighting as has been revealed here. But this in-fighting between them will help to reveal the real truth. There will be charge and counter charge, each desiring to exalt his own personal find and idea over the other and if the public will just learn to read between the lines and pay heed to the statements made, they will learn the truth of the matter.

Evolution teaches that everything evolved through "natural selection." but let’s look at some statements made about this subject creature, "And while the ability to walk on two legs probably started out as an increasingly frequent behavior, evolution demands an explanation for why it persisted. On first blush, bipedalism just doesn’t make much sense. For our earliest ancestors, it would have been slower than walking on all fours, while requiring the same amount of energy. Says Lovejoy bluntly: ‘It’s unnatural. It’s bizarre.’"

UNNATURAL?!!! BIZARRE?!!! But I thought that evolution comes about through NATURAL SELECTION, not something that is UNNATURAL and BIZARRE! Isn’t it interesting that the scientists can step out of their own realm of natural selection and declare something to be unnatural once in awhile, and still teach the idea of NATURAL SELECTION?!

The article goes on to say, "Yet the advantages of walking upright were somehow so great that the behavior endured through thousands of generations. Indeed, the anatomy of our ancestors underwent all sorts of basic changes to accommodate this new way of moving. Many of the changes help the body stay balanced by stabilizing the weight-bearing leg and keeping the upper torso centered over the feet. Lovejoy, who studies the anatomy and biomechanics of locomotion, thinks the changes may have improved coordination as well. ‘To walk upright in a habitual way, you have to do so in synchrony,’ he says, ‘If the ligaments and muscles are out of synch, that leads to injuries. And then you’d be cheetah meat.’"

Isn’t it amazing! There had to be changes in the skeletal structure, especially the spine, pelvis, leg bones, foot bones, etc. On top of all that there had to be muscular changes and the balance of the body had to be changed. Then, to finish it all off, it all had to be properly synchronized. It really does sound UNNATURAL and BIZARRE doesn’t it?

Now the question is, Without the knowledge to make and utilize complex tools, without the ability to even begin to gather, recognize and utilize the knowledge that man has available today, how did some unintelligent creature, some animal, decide to redesign itself in order to fulfill different needs? And these creatures had to be able do this without even knowing what they were doing to begin with.

With all of the knowledge and ability that man has today, why can’t we just decide to redesign ourselves to fit the needs that we face on a daily basis? After all, some of the modern day evolutionist are beginning to speculate that many of the supposed changes that took place in the distant past did so much more quickly than the much slower rate of change over millions of years taught in earlier years.

Remember that this statement was made, "...evolution demands an explanation for why it persisted. So why don’t evolutionists demand the explanation? Why don’t evolutionists demand an explanation for something UNNATURAL to have taken place through a process they call NATURAL SELECTION?

One of the most important paragraphs of the whole article states, "...if you’re going to bring home the bacon, or the Miocene equivalent, it helps to have your hands free to carry it. Over time, female apes would choose to mate only with those males who brought them food—presumably the ones who were best adapted for upright walking. Is that the way it actually happened? Maybe, but we may never know for sure. Leakey, for one, is unconvinced. ‘There are all sorts of hypotheses,’ she says, ‘and they are all fairy tales really because you can’t prove anything.’"

Now here is an honest statement, the proof of the pudding, and the real truth of the matter. As we have seen, there are many so-called theories, which are deducted by different scientists who have their so-called facts before them. We have already seen that in reality, their Theories of Evolution really fit the colloquial use of the term "Theory" rather than the declared scientific version. To review, the colloquial version of "Theory" means to contemplate, speculate, uncertain, risky, etc. The scientific version of "Theory" means a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree.

In reality, their "theories" are "hypotheses" as Leakey stated, which imply an inadequacy of evidence in support of an explanation that is tentatively inferred, often as a basis for further experimentation.

Isn’t it amazing that these scientists accuse creationists of believing in some Bronze Age myths, and yet, they will admit that they can’t prove anything, so what they are believing in is nothing more than FAIRY TALES?!!

The Time article quotes, "In the case of Ardipithecus, days Donald Johanson, professor of anthropology and director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University (and the man who discovered Lucy back in 1974), ‘when you put 5.5 million-year-old fossils together with 4.4 million-year-old ones as members of the same species, you’re not taking into consideration that these could be twigs on a tree. Everything’s been forced into a straight line.? (pp. 60-61)

Once again, a very revealing statement! The truth of the matter is that scientists are FORCING this blasphemous evolutionary on themselves and the unsuspecting, uneducated public when they themselves don’t even know how it fits into the scheme of things.

As JK said, they have all the FACTS, but then he says that they don’t have ALL THE FACTS. I understand what he means by making this paradoxical statement. He means that, while they don’t have all the facts, all the facts that they do have points to evolution. However, his own colleagues admit that there are all sorts of hypotheses, which are really fairy tales, because they can’t prove anything. Then another colleague admits that they are taking the facts and FORCING them into whatever suits their fancy without taking other realities into consideration. Such is the science (falsely so-called) of evolution.

The article continues, "Beyond that, he’s dubious about categorizing the 5.2 million-year-old toe bone with the rest of the fossils: not only is it separated in time by several hundred thousand years, but it was also found some 10 miles away from the rest.

If Orrorin turns out to be a hominid, the same skepticism will apply to any claims about its pivotal position on the family tree. According to University of Tokyo paleontologist Gen Suwa, a co-discoverer of the 4.4 million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus, Orrorin could well be ancestral to the new Ardipithecus remains, rather than the other way around. ‘There is nothing in the fossils, he says, ‘that would preclude such a position. But which side of the chimp-homonid split Orrorin occupies can be determined only by further analyses and new finds.’ Indeed, suggests Haile-Selassie, while Orrorin may be one of the earliest chimps or an ape that became extinct, it could also turn out to be the last common ancestor of humans and chimps—a creature paleontologists have been dreaming of finding for decades. (p. 61)

Notice that! They are dreaming finding the last common ancestor of humans and chimps. They have been dreaming of this for decades and still haven’t found it. As a matter of fact, science has been dreaming up this theory of evolution for decades and that’s exactly what it is, A DREAM! By their own admissions, they have found no proof and all they can do is speculate, theorize (the colloquial use) and dream.

Continuing with the article, "One of the most intriguing questions the new discoveries raise, says Bernard Wood, a professor of human origins at George Washington University, is whether bipedalism should still be considered the defining characteristic of being human. After all, all birds have wings, but not all creatures with wings are birds. It’s already clear that eastern Africa was bubbling with evolutionary experiments 6 million years ago. Maybe two-legged walking evolved independently in several branches of the primate family. Says Wood: ‘This might be the first example of a creature it’s not possible to label as hominid ancestor or chimp ancestor. But that doesn’t make it the last common ancestor of both. I think it’s going to be very hard to pin the tail on that donkey." (p. 61)

Six million years ago eastern Africa was bubbling with evolutionary experiments? How does he know that these were evolutionary experiments? What about all of the animals that are lower than man? Are they still experimenting to become equivalent or superior to man?

Notice his statement that all birds have wings. How true, but some of the birds with wings can’t fly. Why do they still have wings? According to the Evolutionary Theory, if something is needed, then the creature can create whatever is necessary to fulfill that need. When something is no longer needed, then it eliminates it. Why is it that when man finds ancient apelike bones he always tries to fit the creature into a relative of man’s past? There is a surprising answer to this which you will find out if you continue to read this article.

Doesn’t man exist as male and female? If man descended from a lowly amoeba or some other so-called simple single celled creature, how did he evolve into the male and female sex, and why do that since it would be much more convenient to just multiply by dividing like those cells do.

We always hear the statement, "There is no such thing as a FREE LUNCH," even though there may be some in our society who believe that there is, because they are on the receiving end. But those on the giving end understand the truth of the matter, don’t they?

Well, if we understand that there is really no such thing as a free lunch, then how can we also believe that something (the creation as it exists) comes from NOTHING? And if what we see today, did come from something (and it did), then how did it get here and develop into the organized world that we are living in?

Science postulates that everything came forth from some kind of "BIG BANG" billions upon billions of years ago, but the problem is that by their own calculations, if everything we see in the heavens and earth were all collected into one huge body, the gravitational pulls would be so great that it wouldn’t be able to escape, but it would rather collapse in upon itself.

Again, it says, "Thou sendest forth THY spirit, they are created: and THOU renewest the face of the earth," Psa. 104:30.

Now, the scientists can charge that these statements are nothing more than Bronze Age myths and have nothing to do with science, but if they are true (and they are) then they are TRUE SCIENCE! And the scientists are all wet behind the ears.

Man truly lives in a state of frustration and confusion in today’s world. Yes, there is confusion, much confusion in religion. There is disagreement and confusion concerning what the Scriptures mean and say. But we also have confusion and disagreement in the scientific world. The article that we just dealt with reveals the disagreement and confusion in the scientific world.

The word "ashamed" is translated from the Hebrew word "buwsh." It is defined as, a primitive root; properly, to pale, i.e. by implication to be ashamed; also (by implication) to be disappointed or delayed, but this same word has also been translated as "confound (-ed), confuse (-sion)."

Therefore, verse 25 could also be translated as, "They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not confounded (or confused)."

Does this apply? Well, after the man and his wife took of the forbidden fruit, what was the first thing that they did? They covered themselves (Gen. 3:7). This would mean that they were ashamed and now wanted to be covered so that their nakedness might not appear.

But didn’t they also become confused? How can I say that? Because they sewed FIG LEAVES together making aprons for themselves. How does this show that they were confused? Try picking figs off of a fig tree. The leaves will irritate tender and delicate skin and Adam and Eve covered their most delicate areas of the body with these leaves. Besides, how long will fig leaves remain in their natural fresh green state after being plucked from their source of life? Not very long at all.

Man’s religion, government, education, science, etc. is in a state of confusion!

Accoring to one interpretation of the Sages, these seven vanities refer to seven periods, or seven ‘worlds,’ through which one passes in life. In each world one is likened to a different creature. First, when born and placed in a crib, one is like a king, to whome all come to bow down and give homage. At the age of two, one crawls the floor sticking his fingers into filth like a pig. Later, at the age of ten, one jumps and plays like a goat. At eighteen one combs his hair and runs after a mate like a horse. After marriege one bears the burden of earning a livelihood as a donkey. Later, with a large family to support, one barks after livelihood with insolence, like a dog. Finally comes the difference: if, through one’s first six worlds of vanity, one remained close and devoted to Torah, one ends his life on earth as a king, this time a real king (though, the Torah of this world, before the coming of Mashiach, is itself considered ‘vanity’ relative to the inner truth of the Torah, the inner essence of malchut [kingdom] inherent in Torah to be revealed by Mashiach). If, however, one strayed from Torah, one ends his life like a monkey. Thus, the monkey symbolizes the epitome of the vanity of this world." (The Alef-Beit [Jewish Thought Revealed through the Hebrew Letters] by Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, p. 286)

Let us pray that these misguided souls will soon see the true light.

By Jerry Healan