INTRODUCTION

Earth's history is riddled with bones. They are found all over the world
in different locations. Some on the ground, some just below the surface,
and some at various levels deep within earth's crust. The description of
these bones and their different locations is called the fossil record.

When studied, the fossil record turns out to be a time sequence of bones
that appear in "spurts". By this I mean three things:

1. Different life forms occur abruptly in time;
2. Their bones belong to different kinds of life;
3. Time periods between life forms have no bones.

Geologists have used the life kinds as markers to divide up the past into
time zones called "geologic periods". It is remarkable that the time
sequence uncovered is the same as that found in Chapter One of the Book
of Genesis. Since Moses is commonly understood to have written the first
five Books of the Bible thousands of years ago, how could he have known
the sequence of life's appearance on earth? The Bible's answer is that
the divine Intellect that authored its content is not the human
instrument that penned the manuscript. Stated differently if God authored
Scripture, the mystery disappears.
 

FOSSIL RECORD

When we look at the sequence in which the life kinds initially appeared,
at least six periods are distinguished. These are listed below in terms
of Verse and Creation Day number in Genesis One, the Geological Age (in
millions of years), and the Life Kind found:

VERSE DAY AGE LIFE KIND
===== === ==== =========
11 3 3000 PLANT LIFE (algae, bacteria)

20 5 570 INVERTEBRATE (coral, trilobite, jelly fish)

20 5 400 FLYING CREATURES (up to 2.5 ft wing span)

24 6 345 REPTILES

24 6 135 MODERN INSECTS

26 6 .035 MODERN MAN (Cro-Magnon)

The ages given are ball-park estimates generally accepted throughout the
scientific community. Modern Man is the least certain of those listed due
to conflicting views as to what constitutes "modern man". If you believe
our advent goes back to Neanderthal, the age could increase to 200,000
years (.200) or even a million years for Homo Erectus. The latter view
is, however, without merit because despite reductionist efforts to assign
Erectus a human-like name, its cranial index discloses that the creature
was an ape.
 

NEANDERTHAL

Neanderthal is another matter. Anthropological data suggests that in some
respects this vertebrate was similar to modern humans. But humans differ
in their near vertical forehead. This is where language centers are
found. Conversely, Neanderthal's head was egg shaped, had little or no
forehead, and very likely lacked language ability. Some have interpreted
recently unearthed Neanderthal artifacts to teach they used flowers to
bury their children at grave sites. The idea is romantic, but without
substantive evidence.
 

FOSSIL FACTS

However we can make three observations regarding the fossil record itself:

1. The fossil record reveals separate and distinct life kinds;

2. Each life kind is more complex than the preceding life form;

3. The sequence of life's advent is that found in Genesis One.

The latter point is repeated because it's worth repeating. The Bible
identifies life kinds (not species), and groups them into six categories:

Plant - Sea - Air - Land - Soil - Man

These six life kinds are found in the fossil record, and in the time
sequence shown. Thus each life kind on earth appeared at different times,
and did so after the preceding life form occurred. This is WHAT happened.
 

HOW DID IT HAPPEN?

But HOW did it happen? The Bible's answer, simply put, is: "God created".
But there is another world view. Its answer is: "Evolution" which, in and
of itself, means "change". Some Christians believe that the two answers
are in conflict. Others do not; they contend, this is "how" God created.

Regardless of one's belief, it is crucial to realize that the question of
"how" is one of mechanism-- and not origin. If you are a materialist, you
will appeal to physical matter, and its motion as the origin of all that
we see and are. The reason is, nothing else exists within your world view
except physical matter and its motion. Conversely, if you are a theist,
you will look to God, and what God holds in being. The reason is that, in
your world view, nothing exists except God and what God holds in being.

The central point however, is that at least in principle, a materialist
and a theist could answer the question, "HOW did it happen?" by appealing
to the same mechanism (not true for all mechanisms but true for some).
For example, as far as is known, the principal difference between an ant
and an elephant is the DNA blueprint in each of their cells that instructs
enzymes to assemble protein in one pattern (the ant) versus the other
pattern (the elephant). The same is true say, of a bacterium (one cell
plant), and a monkey.
 

MECHANISMS FOR CHANGE

Suppose in the future we learn that the earliest plant cells (bacteria)
contained genetic means of some kind to eventually reshuffle the genes to
assemble a monkey i.e., to alter the DNA instructions so enzymes
assembled protein in the pattern of a monkey. Whereas the materialists
would view this as originating entirely from physical matter, the theist
would say that ALL of the instructions were put into the bacterium at the
beginning by God. In other words, they would disagree on Who or what
originated the machinery, but at least in principle could agree on the
mechanism by which the changes in life form occurred.

This is NOT to say that such changes occurred. In point of fact, there is
virtually no evidence that such changes did occur. All we know is that
different kinds of life appear at different times, and with increasing
complexity with the passage of time. However we do NOT know that one life
form derives from another. If they did descend from one another, modern
thermophysics imposes severe constraints on how the systematic increase
in complexity seen in the fossil record could have originated.
 

WHO VERSUS WHAT

Now let's go one step farther. Suppose it were one day shown that life
originated as the cause and effect consequence of the particular values
of the gravitational constant, Planck's constant, and electrical charge
on an electron. Would this create irreconcilable differences between the
theist and materialist? The answer is no.

The theist could say, God designed it this way. He created these precise
values knowing that their collective future consequences would produce
all that we see. With respect to "mechanism," the materialist would agree
saying, "I told you all along that physical matter did it."

Nonetheless, disagreement between the two as to "Who or What created?"
would remain. The materialist would look to quantum fluctuations or dust
or some other physical means as the prime initiator, whereas the theist
would look to God. However, both beliefs are grounded in faith.

Although materialists like to view themselves as non-religious, when it
comes to Creation they genuflect to physical matter in the way that the
theist genuflects to God. However, both the theist and materialist could,
at least in principle, agree with respect to the MECHANISM of the
creation (the unfolding of structure as a consequence of the properties
of physical matter).
 

WHAT DOES GOD SAY?

Some Christians may disagree even with this, arguing that the Bible
reveals "How" God created when it states, "He spoke". But when it comes
to a description of the creation of life, God seems to only speak in
Genesis Chapter One, where He says:

Description Verse
=========== =====
"Let the earth bring forth vegetation" .................. 11
"Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures .. 20
"Let the earth bring forth living creatures" ............ 24
"Let us make man in our image" .......................... 26

With the exception of man, whom the Bible describes as a special creation
(more about that in Part 8), the Bible highlights the earth and sea as
playing a principal role in life's creation. The Bible reads, "Let the
earth bring forth ... ", and "Let the waters bring forth ... ". It is
noteworthy to understand what the text does not say viz., let life be
found in the land, or in the waters. The Bible does not describe the land
and waters as containers of life, but rather as agents of its advent.

Thus when Christians cite these verses as revealing "How" God created, it
means that they are accepting both sea and land as active in the
MECHANISM responsible for life's appearance. Since evolutionists believe
that life "evolved" from both sea and land, we have come full circle to
our earlier premise that the MECHANISM of creation can, at least in
principle, be agreed upon by a materialist, and by a theist.

My main point is that the "mechanism" behind life's advent (HOW it
happened), needs to be distinguished from the "origin" of life's advent
(WHO or WHAT created it). The question: "Who or What originated life?"
and, "How did it occur" are different questions. The failure of both
the theists and materialists to separate the two has spawned incalculable
mischief that has all but destroyed rational debate on the topic.
 

WHAT SCIENTISTS SAY AND MEAN

Setting aside (for now) the question of WHO or WHAT caused life to come
into being, we turn instead to the various possible means that have been
discussed by scientists as viable options for life's appearance on earth.
We will look at four possible mechanisms, and in this order:

1. Biomorphical Evolution
2. Biochemical Evolution
3. Biolineal Evolution
4. Biological Evolution

Biomorphical evolution is the observation that new life kinds occur at
different times in the fossil record. The word: "biomorphical" speaks to
the form or shape of fossilized life found in the earth's crust.
Biomorphical evolution is a term used to describe the change in form or
kind of life that is observed to occur over time. It is important to
understand that Biomorphical evolution is a fact i.e., new life kinds
arose at different times in earth's history.
 

WHAT IS EVOLUTION?

When we hear scientists saying, "evolution is a fact," what they mean by
this (assuming they're informed and not speaking beyond their knowledge)
is that we KNOW that life evolved (changed) with time. We see this in the
fossil record. It's a fact. That's what happened.

But another question needs to be asked: "Do we KNOW that each life form
arose from its predecessor i.e. is it a fact that changes in one life
kind produced the next? The answer is no. All we know is that they appear
at different times in the fossil record. Generally speaking, the word
"evolution" is commonly understood not in the sense of Biomorphical
evolution i.e., that change occurred, but instead in a way that imports
the hypothesis that one life kind AROSE from its earlier predecessor.
 

CONCEPT VS. THEORY

Properly understood, this hypothesis is the widely accepted "Concept of
Evolution". Some go further, and elevate it to the status of a theory.
But theories have predictive power, and they are established through
measurements-- a feature that is not prominent in ideas about evolution.
In Part 2 I cite published literature in peer reviewed journals showing
that although the "concept" of evolution may be viable logically, the
"theory of evolution" is no longer a logically viable option.