Unification Though

1. Chapter1 Beyond Darwinism: A Proposal of a New
Chapter1
Creation Theory
One hundred and fifty years have passed since Darwin advocated the theory of
evolution by publishing On the Origin of Species. During this period, evolutionism has
spread around the world, overwhelming the traditional Christian view of Creation.
While evolutionism seems to have achieved a complete victory in the sciences, many
criticisms have accumulated in this time negating the simplistic and materialistic view
of evolution. It is in this context of the polarizing debate of “Creation or Evolution” has
developed, becoming particularly intense in the United States of America, the
representative Christian nation in God’s Providence.
According to a November 2004 Gallup survey, over 33% of the American public
believe that the Bible is the actual Word of God and that it should be taken literally
while 80% believe that God was involved in creation in some way. The poll showed that
while only 10% supported materialistic evolutionism, the majority of these being
intellectuals. It is this 10% of the population that includes the biologists who proclaim
that only materialistic evolution can be scientific and reject any trace of God’s role.
Their rallying cry is “Don’t bring religion into the academic world.”
Reflecting this imbalance of views, the majority of high-school and middle-school
teachers of biology are evolutionists resulting in court battles between teachers who
want to teach the theory of evolution and the parents who oppose it. There seems to be
no solution to this debate because evolutionists insist that the theory of evolution is
scientifically correct, while creationists insist on God’s role based on religious
revelation, mainly that recorded in the Bible.
Since the theory of evolution fundamentally denies God’s role of creation, creation
theory and evolution theory are incompatible with each other. Then, how the problem
will be solved? Which is correct?
The question is which of the two views—God or no-God—accords more with
scientific facts. Traditional Christian theories of creation dogmatically advocated
creation theory, neglecting scientific facts, by interpreting the Bible literally. On the
other hand, the theory of evolution developed based on observation and the
accumulation of facts in the fields of biology, archeology, etc. Accordingly, the
materialistic view has been more successful and accepted as scientific truth.
While the theory of evolution has many problems, it has continued to survive
1

2. because there has been no valid alternative to it. The only counterproposal has been that
of ‘special creation’ presented from the Christian perspective that interprets the Bible
literally. This view is acceptable only to fundamentalists; all others find it totally
unacceptable. This is why it is necessary to present a new creation theory which is truly
scientific and not ignore the facts established by modern science, as a counterproposal.
To meet this need, a new creation theory based on Unification Thought is presented
here.
In this work, each topic will deal with Darwin’s evolution theory, Christian
fundamental creationism and the new creationism of Unification Thought. It will be
shown that the new creation theory removes the basis for controversy between
evolutionism and creationism. I take up here as the Christian creation theory the
fundamentalist’s special creation which interprets the Bible literally. It is because the
confrontation between the theory of evolution and creation theory can be shown clearly
by taking up special creation, and because it is the typical creation theory of
Christianity.
I. Is There Purpose in Living Beings?
Theory of Evolution
The principle of the natural world is the survival of the fittest, and the stronger prey
on the weaker. Therefore, the ones fit for survival—the ones with strong fertility and
strength—have survived. Therefore, living beings do not exist with purpose.
Creation Theory
God is complete by Himself, a self-fulfilling Being; therefore it was not necessary
for Him to create human beings and all things. However, God unilaterally created
human beings and poured love into them. He created all things for human beings,
ordering them to “have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air
and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen. 1:28). That is, human
beings were created as masters of all things. However, the purpose of existence for all
things is not made clear in this theory.
New Creation Theory
In order to be joyful, God created human beings as His object partners of love. And
God created all things as object partners of love for human beings in order for human
beings to be joyful. Every created being has the purpose of creation: the purpose for the
2

3. individual and the purpose for the whole. The purpose for the individual is to “maintain
its existence,” and the purpose for the whole is to “live for others.” Therefore, lower
beings exist for higher beings, and ultimately, every being exists for human beings, as
well as being fit to survive.
According to Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest, those living beings
which had stronger power to live and those which were more suitable to exist were
allegedly able to survive, multiply and evolve. Note that if it were so, this world would
be ruled by the insects and weeds that have such a robust drive to thrive and multiply.
When we observe living beings, however, we see that they do not exist with the purpose
of survival alone. Whether they are fit to survive or not is just one of the conditions for
living beings to exist.
Let’s consider a watermelon, for example. Watermelons absorb plenty of water in
the hot summer. They develop color and taste, and bear large fruits. What do these
additions mean for the sake of the existence of a watermelon? For the purpose of
existence and multiplication, all it needs is the ability to make seeds. After seeds fall to
the ground, they bud and grow in the spring when it rains and temperatures rise. There
is no need to keep a large quantity of water within the fruit. It is not necessary to add
color and taste. Evolutionists would say that a watermelon accumulates water, adds
color and taste as a tactic: to be eaten by humans and animals so that its seeds get
widely scattered around. However, it is clear that a watermelon is incapable of planning
such a tactic.
We ought to think that watermelons have been created to be enjoyed by animals,
and more so by human beings. In other words, watermelons exist not only because they
are fit to survive (the individual purpose) but also for the sake of other beings (the
whole purpose). In other words, each living being has dual purposes of creation:
purpose for the individual and the purpose for the whole; particularly the purpose for
the whole.
Let’s look at butterflies. Their beautiful wings are attractive. In discussing the role
of the markings on butterfly wings, scientists say such things as “in order to avoid
enemies” and “in order for males and females to attract one another.” To “avoid
enemies” means that they are fit to survive; for “males and females to attract one
another” makes them fit to multiply. However, to that we must add that butterflies exist
to fascinate and delight us humans: many people are crazy about collecting beautiful
butterflies. In fact, butterflies are flying as if they were stars in a fashion show even at
the risk of being noticed by their natural predators.
3

4. What about the mimicry exhibited by some insects? Certain insects mimic a plant
or other insect. Evolutionists claim that mimicry is explained by natural selection: those
insects that look like leaves, twigs, flower petals, poisonous insects and the like could
have survived because birds could not find them or were afraid of them. However, can
an insect transform itself while running about trying to escape being eaten by birds? In
fact, there are a lot of entomologists who thinks that essence of mimicry has not yet
been grasped. This question was raised in an article in The Yomiuri Shinbun:
To whom do they want to show their mimicry? Biologist Kiyohiko Ikeda says that
mimicry by insects is a problem with four aspects: model, insect, bird, and human
beings who observe it. To what extent should an insect mimic a plant or other insect
in order to surprise or impress us? The problem of mimicry becomes naturally the
problem of human recognition.1
The answer to his question: “To what extent should an insect mimic a plant or other
insect in order to surprise or impress us?” is that the mimicry by insects was created by
God in order to surprise, impress, and delight us.
II. Are Living Beings Designed?
Theory of Evolution
According to Darwin, living beings constantly undergo variations; the struggle for
existence takes place among various individual beings, and those most fit to exist
survive as a result of natural selection. Living beings have evolved through the
repetition of such processes for a long time. Here, variations are caused purely by
chance. They did not take place according to a certain purpose or plan. Those variations
are the same thing as “fluctuations.” However, the variations that Darwin mentioned
were fluctuating variations that are not inherited. Later, Hugo De Vries found variations
that were fixed and inherited; such variations were given the name “mutations.” As the
variation is random in Darwinism, the conclusion is that living beings are not designed.
Creation Theory
God is the Creator of everything. As David spoke to God, “Thy eyes beheld my
unformed substance” (Psalms 139:16), God had already the plan of created beings
before He began to create them. The central point is that living beings are designed by
God.
4

5. New Creation Theory
Everything was created by God’s Logos (Word). Logos is a plan, a blueprint of the
created being—living beings are designed by God.
Then, let’s examine whether design exists or not, citing some examples.
A. The Neck of the Giraffe
Why is giraffe’s neck long? Evolutionists explain it as follows: Necks of the giraffe
ancestors were not so long, but they did vary in length. They are fighting each other to
eat leaves of tree. Among them, those giraffes with longer necks had advantages for
survival because they were able to eat leaves both on higher and lower parts of trees,
while those with shorter necks were in a disadvantage. Accordingly, those with longer
necks have survived; namely, they were selected by nature. As a result of such random
change followed by the struggle for existence—the essence of the theory of natural
selection—the neck of the giraffe gradually became longer.
However, fossils indicating that necks gradually became longer have not been
discovered. The position of evolution is rejected. In addition, as a science writer,
Ryuichi Kaneko, points out there is an essential aspect of the giraffe neck called the
“wonder net.” 2
Since the neck of the giraffe is long, the pressure needed to get the blood up to the
head has to be high. When the giraffe lowers its head in order to drink, blood in the neck
would flood into the head, causing cerebral hemorrhage in the giraffe. In order to
prevent this from happening, blood vessels form protective webs, called wonder net, in
front of the brain so that blood from the neck may scatter and the blood pressure not get
too high. The giraffe cannot survive if only its neck becomes longer. In order to survive,
it must be equipped with a wonder-net. However, it is implausible that among the
giraffe's ancestors, nature would select from giraffes with various neck lengths both the
longer necked giraffe and the wonder net at the same time.
Surprisingly, the brain of the okapi, which is supposed to be the ancestor of the
giraffe, already had the wonder net although there is no need for it as their necks were
not long. Why is it that okapis have the unnecessary wonder nets? The theory of natural
selection cannot explain it.
The giraffe eats the leaves of the acacia tree in the meadows of Africa. According to
the theory of evolution, the ones with the shorter neck are sure to be defeated in the
struggle for existence. In fact, however, there exist not only the giraffe with longest
5

6. neck but the gerenuk, the impala, and the Kirk’s dikdik with shorter and shorter necks.
They share eating leaves of the acacia according to their height. Therefore, the giraffe's
neck did not become long by natural selection but we should think that the giraffe was
created as an animal with long neck from the beginning.
Also, the neck of giraffe is strong enough and it doesn't break when male giraffes
fight each other using their necks. It is not that the neck has gradually become longer
while the giraffe is trying to eat the leaves of higher and higher branches. The long neck
will be likely to break easily if it is only lengthened. A plan is also necessary for a long
and strong neck that can endure such impacts.
B. The Issue of Eyes
Next, let me discuss the topic of the eye, an object that has often been central in the
debate of evolution versus creation. It is impossible to explain how an organ with such a
complicated function and structure as the eyes of vertebrate animals has been able to
develop through the natural selection from among the random variations of the animal
body.
Darwin himself frankly confessed, “To suppose that the eye (which is an organ of
extreme perfection and complication), could have been formed by natural selection,
seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”3 Yet, he insisted that the
eye came into being through evolution from a simple spot of light-sensitive cells to the
sophisticated camera-eye of man. He supported this view by describing the stages in the
history of evolutionary development. While descriptive, note that if many different
types of automobiles were displayed chronologically, no one would think that the
automobiles evolved by themselves through competition of speed and strength. They
were developed as a result of constant input of creativity by engineers. By the same
token, the development from a simple spot sensitive to light to the highly developed eye
does not prove evolution. In fact, each stage of development is a great leap and does not
prove random evolution. A science journalist, Richard Milton also says as follows:
Modern Darwinists seem to have a profoundly optimistic belief that the occurrence
at an early stage in evolution of such a fundamental innovation— cells which are
sensitive to light—makes cumulative selection of vision somehow less improbable.
But the existence of light-sensitive tissue has no effect whatever on the probability
of the mutation of a lens, or an iris mechanism or an eyelid or anything else.4
Furthermore, a biochemist Michael J. Behe points out that Darwin did not explain
6

7. where the simple light-sensitive spot had come from, and thus did not deal with the
question of the ultimate origin of the eye. As a matter of fact, the light-sensitive spot
itself is not simple. It may have been merely a black box to Darwin, but it turns out to
be far more complex than a TV set as elucidated by the researchers who have explored
the biochemical structure of vision.5
Rev. Sun Myung Moon says that the eye is a system created carefully by the Being
who knew how the natural world was like. If we observe the eye, he states, we cannot
deny the existence of God:
In the process of birth in the animal world, the eye came into being first. The eye
itself is a material being. Prior to its birth, did the eye know or did not know that
the sun exists? The eye itself, which is a matter, came into being without knowing
anything. Yet, the fact that it came into being in such a way as to be able to see the
sunlight means that, before the eye came into existence, there existed a Being who
knew that the sun exists. In other words, the eye came into being with the
knowledge of the existence of the sun. Even though the eye itself did not know that
there is air, that there are dusts in the air, and that there is radiant heat which
vaporizes water, there existed a Being which knew all those things and designed
the eye so that it might be protected by an eyelid and a lachrymal gland.6
C. The Beautiful Feathers of a Peacock
Another difficult problem for Darwin and his theory was why a peacock has such
beautiful tail feathers which, while magnificent, are large and heavy yet do not seem
necessary for living. A peahen lives perfectly well without such feathers. Darwin
allegedly complained, “Every time I see the feathers of a peacock, I feel bad.” In order
to solve this conundrum, he advocated the theory of “sexual selection”—the struggle
between males for mates and selective choice by females in their choice of mated.
However, how is it possible for the beautiful feathers of a peacock—so like a dress with
the patterns of eyeballs—to evolve by males struggling with other males to win females,
or females choosing their mates? Even if peahens are attracted by the beautiful feathers
of peacocks, peahens are not artists but merely appreciate the patterns. Also, when
peacocks struggle with each other the feathers fall off, dimming the patters and fading
the colors. No creative action is involved in the theory of “sex selection.”
Mariko Hasegawa, a Japanese scholar who studies sexual selection, says that it is
very difficult to find an answer to the question as to why selection by female would
promote evolution of such artistry. She states: “But, from the position of modern
7

8. evolutionary biology, it is not easy, but very difficult, to answer the question of why
these selections (such as the length of tail feathers, the number of patterns of eyeballs,
the size of the food brought about by males, the decoration of nest, etc.) evolve. . . . As a
matter of fact, a scenario where the selection of mates has driven a step in evolution has
not yet been established.” 7
D. The Character of Natural Selection
Evolutionists consider natural selection identical to creation. Darwin said, “Natural
selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even
the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good;
silently and insensibly working . . . at the improvement of each organic being.”8 As for
scientists: Dobzhansky compared natural selection to a composer; Simpson, to a poet;
Mayr, to a sculptor; and Huxley, to Shakespeare. Stephen Jay Gould said, “The essence
of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit.”9 Evolutionists raised
natural selection to the position of the Creator.
In Darwin’s original proposal, natural selection was the action of judging which,
out of many variations, was fit to survive. While natural selection can select an
improved design, it is quite a different thing to claim that natural selection can create or
improve designs. Ignoring this obvious fact, evolutionists have promoted natural
selection from the simple act of selecting to the role of creating and improving designs.
This is a big leap in the logic proposed by Darwinism.
Yoshihiko Makino, a medical scholar, suggests that a “structure of
self-organization” is deeply involved in the evolution of living beings. He criticizes the
theory of hereditary mutation and the theory of evolution through natural selection
saying “natural selection has nothing to do with creation. It is merely a negative
mechanism for removing things which do not fit.”10
Richard Milton adds, “Because natural selection offers only death or glory it cannot
provide the microscopic adjustments that the individual needs. Yet we are asked to
believe that a mechanism of such crudity can creatively supervise a program of gene
mutation.”11
As science writers, Ryuichi Kaneko and Mika Nakano insist, “Now the time has
come when we should thoroughly clarify the identity of what is called natural
selection.”12
E. Logos as the Blueprint of Created Beings
Modern biology has established that the shape and quality of living beings are
8

9. determined by the genetic information stored in the nuclei of cells. It is well established
that the long neck of a giraffe, the sophisticated eyes of a human being, the beautiful
feathers of a peacock etc. all exist because of the blueprints stored in the genetic codes
in their DNA.
Scientists have established the existence of genetic codes although their content and
workings are still being explored by medical doctors, chemists, physicists, and
biologists. It is unscientific and illogical to think that the intricate contents stored in
these codes came into being by accident. It would be much more scientific and logical
to think that the Word (Logos) of the Creator, the Being who surpasses human
intelligence, was the source of these blueprints and designs. As geneticist Kazuo
Murakami comments on the genetic codes:
Who and how, on earth, wrote the elaborate blueprint of life? It is beyond human
work, and I cannot help saying that it is a miracle exactly. We are made alive by this
great power "Something Great" of nature.13
The “Something Great” that Murakami invokes is nothing other than God. Recently,
in the United States, the promoters of the Intelligent Design theory are drawing
attention. Intelligent Design is a theory criticizing simplistic Darwinism by showing that
the design of living beings cannot be explained by accidental mutation, and that it is
necessary to include the concept of a Designer of the natural world as a scientific
concept. This theory opens the way to accept the Creation by God.
III. Gradual Evolution, Instant Creation, or Creation by
Stages?
Theory of Evolution
Neo-Darwinism claims that mutations provide the raw material for evolution, and
the natural selection determines the direction of evolution. However, mutations can only
cause fragmentary and partial transformations of the species and cannot bring about
macroevolution in a geologically-brief period of time. Accordingly, Neo-Darwinism
claims that living beings have evolved continuously and gradually by piling the
mutations for a long time. This position is called gradualism.
Creation Theory
The heaven and the earth were created in six days about 6,000 years ago. Living
9

10. beings were created, each according to its kind. Then came the flood at the time of Noah
with his family and a pair of each land animal being preserved in the ark. This position
is that living beings were created almost simultaneously and instantly, and have not
changed since the creation of the world.
New Creation Theory
Living beings were created stage by stage, taking a long period of time. At certain
times, a new being was created based on existing beings through the engagement of
God’s creative force (cosmic force). After a certain time has passed, the process was
repeated and a newer and higher being was created through the engagement of God’s
creative force.
The characteristics of the theory of evolution, creation theory, and the new creation
theory are shown in figure 1.1. Christian creationism, which asserts that all living
beings were created within six days 6,000 years ago and have been unchanging ever
since, is difficult to reconcile with the accumulated evidence. This theory cannot be
accepted in the age of science today.
We will now examine whether living beings have evolved gradually and
continuously or were created stage by stage—both theories accepting that a long period
of time was involved.
A. Character of Mutation
Through mating, many offspring different from their parents are born. However,
breeding merely recombines the genes which originally existed. New genes cannot be
made through sex. It is only through mutation that new genes are made. Therefore,
mutation is the one and only thing that makes possible the inheritable variation above
the species level. Accordingly, as Milton says, “It is pretty clear that the whole theory
rests finally upon the phenomenon of spontaneous genetic mutation.”14
However, observed mutation does not bring about change beyond species. It creates
only minute changes within a species. The alleged new species of primrose that the
advocates of the theory of mutation of Hugo De Vries observed, were not new species
but rather mere varieties in terms of the shape of leaves, the way their branches spread,
their height, their petal shape, etc.
Geneticists have tried to cause mutation in fruit flies by irradiating them with x-rays;
however, the changes that occurred as a result were only changes in eye color, their
wing shape, making of new spots on the belly, etc. Fruit flies remained fruit flies.
10

11. Moreover, mutation is generally harmful and destructive to living beings. It brings
about deformation and malformation within species. The question is: How can mutation
make living beings evolve from a lower level to a higher one? As Milton says, “Of all
the difficulties facing Neo-Darwinism, the improbability of spontaneous genetic
mutation leading to beneficial novelties in form ought to be the major source of
concern.”15
B. Gradual Evolution
According to Darwin, small variations occurred consecutively, and living beings
evolved gradually through natural selection. If that is the case, consecutive fossils of
living beings should be discovered that would show the steps of gradual evolution from
one species to another. However, no fossils of intermediates have been found. This lack
of fossils serving as evidence of intermediate living beings is called a “missing link.”
Darwin said that fossils of intermediates would be found sooner or later, but missing
links have not been filled as of today, 150 years later.
Another problem is that certain living beings during the process of evolution may
not be fit to survive. For example, the bat is considered to have evolved from a
mouse-like animal. But, during the process of evolution, that animal would have been in
an intermediate state in which legs could not be distinguished from wings, and in that
state that animal must have been unable to fly or to run. Therefore, such a stage would
have been detrimental for the animal’s existence.
Viewed from the evidence of fossils, it is known that some living beings remained
unchanged over a long period of time and that at a certain point new living beings
appeared. That process has been repeated. In consideration of these findings, a theory
denying gradualism in evolution emerged.
In 1972 American paleontologists, Stephen. J. Gould (1941-2002) and Niles
Eldredge presented the “theory of punctuated equilibrium.” This theory asserts that a
species usually passes a long period of equilibrium during which the species remains
unchanged; and then it undergoes an abrupt change away from equilibrium. The theory
of punctuated evolution rather than the theory of gradual evolution is now accepted as
being in accord with the evidence.
C. The Cambrian Explosion
For the first two billion years, life on Earth was unicellular; it consisted of
single-cell plants and animals. Approximately 640 million years ago large-sized
multi-cell living beings appeared on the earth for the first time. These life forms are
11

12. called the “Ediacaran fauna” as their fossilized remains were discovered in the Ediacara
Hill of South Australia. They were invertebrates with no exoskeletons with soft bodies
and, probably, with limited capability of moving about. They do not seem to have left
any direct descendants.
During the Cambrian Era (545 to 500 million years ago), many marine
invertebrates such as trilobites, snails, coral, and brittle stars appeared. About 535
million years ago, the variety of invertebrates in the seas increased explosively. This is
called the “Cambrian Era Explosion.” The remains of many of these mysteriously
shaped life forms were discovered in the Rocky Mountains of Western Canada—the
“Burgess Shale faunas” of 515 million years ago. Those animals had exoskeletons.
Some of them with body plans quite different to any organism existing today.
Simon Conway Morris at Cambridge University, an expert in this field, says,
“There must have been some kind of enormous evolutionary mechanism.”16 However,
evolutionists are unable to explain how and why it occurred using the theory of
accumulated mutations.
Living beings in the Cambrian Era were rich in diversity, ingenious in adaptations,
and wondrous in their beauty. It has been stated that all possible body plans for living
beings came into being at that time and they became the basic designs for all animals
thereafter. This explosive development is currently a great mystery.
D. Neutral Mutations
In 1966, a geneticist Motoo Kimura (1924-94) advocated the theory of “neutral
mutation.” According to this theory, when the variations of living beings are observed
on a molecular level, most mutations are neutral, neither profitable nor unprofitable to
individual beings. In other words, they are neither selected nor abandoned by natural
selection. These neutral mutations accumulate within species through “random genetic
drift.”
These neutral mutations are activated later in history, appearing as useful characters
that are established by natural selection. In this theory, natural selection is not at work
while the organisms are undergoing mutations on a molecular level over long periods of
time. Natural selection works later only when the mutation in the genotype is expressed
in the phenotype.
This theory of neutral mutation has almost replaced natural selection on the
molecular level. According to this theory, only those organisms that happen to have a
useful quality in a given environment can survive through natural selection. Kimura
called this as the “survival of the fortunate,” not the “survival of the fittest.”
12

13. The importance of neutral mutation is now recognized around the world. According
to Kaneko and Nakano, the bottom line is that natural selection works only when
characters that have accumulated by chance through neutral mutations appear in the
phenotype. 17
E. Subjective Evolution
Anthropologist Kinji Imanishi (1902-92), who has criticized Neo-Darwinism for 40
years, advocated “evolutionism of subjectivity” which states that living beings have
purpose and subjectivity. According to Imanishi, a species does not evolve gradually as
the better adapted are selected and thrive; rather, the species changes as it is destined to
do when it encounters a certain crisis, in a relatively short period of time. “A species
changes into a new species by constantly remaking itself in order to adapt itself to the
environment.” He says that living beings evolve through “directional mutations.” As to
the question as to why the giraffe’s neck became long, his position is that “the necks of
the giraffe became long all at once at a certain time because of necessity.”18
Imanishi discovered that the larvae of four kinds of mayflies differentially choose
their habitats according to the difference in speed of river currents. Based on that he
advocated the “theory of differentiation in inhabitation.” This theory asserts that species
that are close to one another differentiate their habits so as to live in co-existence. This
is quite a different perspective to the Darwinian view that individuals engage in a
struggle for existence and only those that are fit for existence survive.
Imanishi’s theory of evolution that species change all at once when the time to
change emerges accords with the concept of punctuated equilibrium in its conclusion.
These aforementioned theories of punctuated equilibrium, neutral mutation, of
subjective evolution, etc., all suggest that Neo-Darwinism is incorrect—that life forms
do not evolve gradually and continuously as a result of accumulated accidental small
mutations.
F. Evolution Involving Viruses
A recent finding in recent molecular biology is that viruses carry genes between
cells, individual organisms, and species. Based on this, geneticist Hideomi Nakahara
and theoretical physicist Takashi Sagawa have discussed the manipulation of the genetic
code by viruses. Current techniques of genetic engineering often use viruses, a modern
form of the artificial selection. These thinkers suggest something similar occurs in the
natural world, advocating the “virus theory of evolution.” They suggest that the original
function of viruses lies, not in causing illness, but in transporting and mixing genes in
13

14. ways transcending the boundaries of species.
Their answer to the question of how the neck of a giraffe became long, according to
the virus theory of evolution, it is because “the giraffe was infected by virus which
causes the neck to become long.”
G. Life Has Come from Space
British astronomer Fred Hoyle and his research co-worker Chandra
Wickramasinghe developed a bold theory that “life has come from space.” They assert
that fragments of genes in great quantities fell from space, and that, by taking in these
fragments, living beings have reformed their bodily form.
It is true that the nucleotide subunits of DNA, along with the amino acid subunits of
proteins, have been found in the analysis of meteorites that have landed on earth and in
the spectroscopic observation of comets. There is no denying the possibility that comets,
meteorites and dust particles floating through the universe have contributed some of the
components for life to the earth. Yet, the question of how they assembled into living
systems remains as much a riddle as it is for those components created by abiotic
processes on the earth.
H. Special Genes
After the neutral theory of molecular evolution was developed, its importance was
recognized. There are other seemingly silent codes in the DNA, genes that resemble
active genes but are idle, as if retired or not yet activated.
It has been found that DNA has many blank parts called “introns” having no known
coding functions. There are also “pseudogenes” which are copies of certain genes but
which have totally lost their functions. It is an open question as to such things as introns
and pseudogenes exist. In answer to this question, Kaneko and Nakano state:
It can be said that DNA in living beings, while awaiting the opportunity for a next
great leap, may be adopting a strategy of positively taking mutations into introns
and pseudogenes. . . . In other words, the genes of living beings are setting traps in
order to store various mutations necessary for a future great leap.19
Additionally, there are the recently discovered genes called “homeotic genes.”
Alteration in these can cause a great abnormality, called homeosis, in the structure of
insects such as a fly’s feelers becoming its legs. It has been discovered that among
various homeotic genes there are linear arrangements of such genes called collectively
14

15. the “homeobox.” Homeoboxes are now thought to be the gene-complexes that control
the growth patterns of living beings during growth. Evolutionists suggest that mutation
of the homeobox would cause great change in the character of living beings and be the
cause of macroevolution.
I. An Alternate View of Evolution
According to science journalist Richard Milton, there seem to be three key aspects
that do not support the neo-Darwinian view of evolution.20
They are: (1) the unerring accuracy in the development of living systems without
trial and error; (2) the presence of a systematic program above the cellular level,
controlling somatic development; and (3) the overwhelming probability that
environmental factors can in some unknown way directly affect the genetic structure of
the individual.
The first aspect arises based on the non-existence of intermediate fossils. In other
words, nature goes unerringly to its target. For example, the human eyelid is made in
such a way as to exactly cover the human eye. No creature has an imperfection such as
too large or too small an eyelid.
With regard to the second aspect, the presence of a systematic program, the
question is where this program exists and how it is accessed and carried out. We must
admit the presence of a systematic program which integrates genes. But, where it comes
from remains a riddle.
With regard to the third observation of environmental factors affecting genetic
structure, Milton says that psychological states as well as physical behavior affect the
genes of somatic cells and that viruses can transmit the genetic mutations to sexual
cells.21 For example, epidemiologists believe that they have identified a “cancer
personality,” which means that there is a possibility that psychological factors (for
example excessive anxiety) could be translated into both somatic and genetic factors.
Geneticist Kazuo Murakami also thinks that psychological factors can affect genes
as shown in the case in which a person’s hair turns white over night when he or she
receives a strong psychological shock. He says that the mechanism of the influence of
psychological factors upon genes will be clarified in the near future. 22
J. Creation by Stages
Next, let us examine the contents mentioned above from the perspective of a new
theory of creation based on Unification Thought.
Mutation of homeobox genes, neutral mutation, transport by viruses, and genes
15

16. falling from space are all accidental or destructive. They bring about deformation,
sickness, or monstrous forms—they bring about change but cannot make living beings
evolve from lower to higher levels. In order to evolve to higher forms, creative forces,
not accidental forces, must be involved.
If dynamite is made to explode at random, it will cause destruction. On the other
hand, if it is used in accordance with a plan, it can serve a role in creative civil
engineering. The same thing can be said of living beings: random change in the genome
would merely harm living beings while change according to a plan can lift living beings
to higher levels. Therefore, we can say that God created living beings, from lower to
higher, by generating change in the genome according to His plan. It can be seen that
this perspective allows for the possibility that God used such things as viruses, cosmic
rays, and the raw material of life coming from comets in actualizing His plan: God is
the greatest genetic engineer.
The new theory of creation does not agree with Christian fundamentalist special
creation, which says that the universe and living beings were created by God instantly in
six days just six thousand years ago. Creation took place stage by stage, taking a long
time. At a certain points in time, the creative force from God had a new input. As a
result of this input, a new species was created. Following this, a period of time passed
preparing things for the next step. When all was ready, God’s creative force was input
again, creating a next new species. Figuratively speaking in terms of computer software,
when God’s creative force is input to the existing species, information is upgraded,
bringing forth a new species. In this way, according to this theory based on Unification
Thought, living beings were created stage by stage.
Concerning the roles played by introns and pseudogenes, we can rephrase the
“mutation was accumulated in preparation for the next great leap” of Kaneko and
Nakano as “new genes were prepared for the next step in creation.”
As listed above, Milton presents three key observations that must be included in an
alternative view of evolution. The new theory of creation embraces these three aspects:
First, it is quite natural that nature goes unerringly to its target because nature was
created by God through Logos, namely, according to His plan.
Second is the presence of a systematic program above the cellular level. According
to Unification Thought, all beings and phenomena consist of sungsang aspects (mental
factors, functions) and hyungsang aspects (structure). Therefore, behind cellular
structures (particularly behind genes), life itself acts like a kind of electromagnetic wave.
All of space is permeated with such life field containing the blueprints to organize
genes.
16

17. The third observation is the possibility that spiritual factors affect material genetic
codes. According to Unification Thought, in order for living beings to be elevated from
lower to higher level of existence, the third force, or the cosmic force must be put in
from outside. This force refers to God’s creative force, a spiritual force, which affects all
living beings. Milton’s position that spiritual factors can change genetic codes leads to
the scientific recognition of God’s work of creation.
Imanishi’s theory of subjective evolution is externally very similar to the theory of
punctuated evolution proposed by Gould and Eldredge. Both theories are of one accord
in saying that the living beings evolved by repeating the sequence of a short period of
time when the leap occurs followed by a long period of no change which maintains the
status quo. There is an external similarity between these theories and the Unification
Thought theory of creation by stages. All that is necessary is to change the words
“evolution in a leap” to “creation in a leap” and to change the words “the period of no
change” to “the period of perfection of a stage” or “the period of preparation for the
next creation.”
As for the explosive appearance of marine invertebrates during the Cambrian Era,
we can say that they were created as the raw material for what was created later —the
fishes, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Here, the expression “as the raw material”
means that the genes necessary for the emergence of future living beings were prepared.
Today, genetic engineers are performing gene recombination, the process by which
a strand of DNA is broken and then joined to a different DNA. As a recent remarkable
example, a brewing company “Suntory Limited” of Japan has succeeded in the
development of a “blue rose,” previously thought impossible. The development of a
variety such as “blue rose” through the recombination of genes by scientists means that
they are learning and imitating, though partially, what God did in the creation of all
living beings through recombination of genes. However, what scientists can do is to
create variations within the same species, while God, the greatest genetic engineer, can
create new species.
IV. The Second Law of Thermodynamics
According to the second law of thermodynamics—the inevitable increase in entropy or
disorder—all things in the natural world will tend to proceed to the direction of
increasing entropy; namely, in the direction of increasing disorder. For example, an
abandoned house in which nobody lives will collapse, while the dead body of a human
or animal will decompose and return to the soil. The direction of evolution is opposite to
17

18. this; living beings have developed in the direction of increasing order and complexity.
Thus, evolution seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Theory of Evolution
Evolutionists explain this by stating that the law of entropy applies only to isolated
systems and that entropy can decrease on the earth because it is an open system. They
say that the sun emits an enormous amount of energy with an associated immense
increase in entropy; the earth receives a part of this energy from the sun that nurtures
living beings on earth with its decrease in entropy. The second law of thermodynamics
is still in effect as the overall entropy of the sun plus earth is always increasing.
Concerning this point, the prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins makes a flat
rejection to the claim that evolution violates the law of entropy, saying that such claim is
frequently made by the lay or amateur opponents of evolution.23
Creation Theory
Every living being is not brought about by random natural forces but is made by
God’s creative fiat. Accordingly, in this view of creation an instantaneous decrease in
entropy occurs.
New Creation Theory
As British scientific writer Francis Hitching points out, the evolutionists’
explanation that the solar energy made the entropy of the earth decrease is not an
enough answer. According to Hitching, “there is still the problem: how does the Sun’s
energy sustain the evolutionary process? How does order come from disorder? As
creationist literature points out, the Sun shines on living and nonliving things alike, on
human beings and statues of human beings. . . . The sun’s energy may bathe the site of
an automobile junk yard for a million years, but it will never cause the rusted, broken
parts to grow together again into a functioning automobile.”24
When a house is deserted, it will collapse. If, however, a handyman repairs and
reconstructs the house, it will be maintained and become a home of higher value. By the
same token, living being will deteriorate when they are exposed to the random natural
forces such as cosmic rays, ultraviolet rays, thunder, submarine volcano eruptions,
whereby genetic damages are brought about. If, however, a genetic engineer repairs,
reconstructs, or brings new gene fragments into the DNA, it is possible for a living
being to maintain itself or develop into new species. In other words, if the creative force
― the third force, or the cosmic force ― is at work guiding the physical forces, living
18

19. beings can develop from simple to complex, from lower to higher beings.
Astronomer and philosopher, Arne A. Wyller has proposed that there is a planetary
mind that pervades the entire earth. The planetary mind is a giant intelligence that writes
the blueprint of evolution and manipulates DNA. Harold Saxton Burr (1889-1973), who
was a professor of anatomy at the Yale University School of Medicine, proposed the life
field, the invisible field of electric force, which covers the entire earth and enables every
living being to grow according to its design. Such proposals as Wyller and Burr testify
to the Unification Thought new creation theory
V. Is Likeness Evidence for Evolution or for Creation?
Theory of Evolution
Evolutionists claim that homologous organs, vestigial organs, and the recapitulation
of history in embryology are proof of evolution. All these factors are included in
textbooks of biology around the world as evidence of evolution.
Creation Theory
God created man and woman in His image. He created all things, and blessed man
and woman, saying, “have dominion over all things” making humans the master of all
things. However, the exact relationship between human life and other life forms is not
explicit.
New Creation Theory
In the formation of Logos, man and woman were conceived in God’s image, and all
things were conceived in the image of man and woman. This process is called “creation
in likeness.” In the creation of the phenomenal world, all things were created first, from
lower to higher beings, and when this environment had been prepared, man and woman
were created.
The organs of different organisms that exhibit similarity in structure due to
evolutionary differentiation from the corresponding part of a remote ancestor are called
“homologous organs.” Homologous organs are the same in their basic structure, though
their shapes and functions may differ. For example, a human being’s hands, a dog’s
front legs, a whale’s flippers, and a bird’s wing are all homologous. On the other hand,
organs that have different origins and yet have come to have the same external shape
19

20. and function because of their adaptation to the environment are called “analogous
organs.” The wings of a bird—derived from the front legs—and the wings of an
insect—derived from flaps of skin—are an example of analogous organs. Finally, an
organ that was functional in an ancestor but has lost its original function during the
evolutionary process is called a “vestigial organ.” A vestigial organ is the result of a
degeneration in function and is considered a process in evolution.
According to Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), when the embryos of vertebrates are
compared with one another, all of them resemble one another in their early stages of
development: All of them have gill slits and a tail, and all have a fishlike heart with a
single atrium and ventricle. Based on that, he claimed that embryos, in the course of
development, repeat the evolutionary history of their ancestors in some abbreviated
form. This is the theory of recapitulation, advocated by Haeckel, according to which
“ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”
According to Unification Thought, a human being is an image-like substantial
object of God, and all things are symbolic substantial objects of God. While a human
being has been created to express God’s nature and image completely, all other beings
have been created to express this nature symbolically. To put it another way, a human
being has been created in the likeness of God, while the rest of creation has been created
in the likeness of the human being. God created human beings as His object partners of
love and created all other things to be the object partners of love to humans; to serve as
the environment and the material for human life, in order to bring joy to people.
In the beginning, God conceived in His own image the first pair of humans, Adam
and Eve. This image is the design and form of a human being. Then, taking that image
as the model, God conceived all other things by abstracting, simplifying and
transforming the human image.
From the Unification Thought viewpoint of creation in likeness, it is clear that
homologous and analogous organs are not actually evidence of evolution. In the theory
of evolution, a human hand has evolved from the common ancestor of the bird’s wings.
But that is not the case. Taking the human hand as the model, God conceived the bird’s
wings in the likeness of the human hand by simplifying and transforming it (see fig. 1.2).
The same thing can be said of a dog’s front legs and a whale’s flippers. As for the
analogous organs, it is natural that there should be resemblance among living beings
since they were created in the likeness of a human being.
It is also holds for the vestigial organs. Evolutionists say that human coccyx is a
result of the degeneration of a monkey’s tail. This is not the case; rather the monkey’s
tail was designed by prolonging the image of the human spinal column.
20

21. The likeness in the growth of the embryos of living beings does not prove the
validity of the theory of evolution. Since living beings were created in the likeness of a
human being, the process of growth of the embryo of other living beings is also
modeled after the process of growth of the human embryo. Therefore, this case also
indicates creation in likeness to a human being (see fig. 1.3).
VI. The Origin of Humans
Theory of Evolution
In this view, about 6 million years ago, cousins of the chimpanzees came out of the
forest onto the open savanna and a random sequence of mutations allowed them to walk
upright on two legs. Following this, a random sequence of mutations allowed their
hands to develop so that they could use tools. A further sequence of random mutations
drove the development of a large brain, allowing the quality of tools to improve; for the
capacity for language to emerge; and for the basics of human culture to emerge.
Creation Theory
In this perspective, animals on land were created from the soil, according to their
kinds, on the Sixth Day of Creation about 6,000 years ago. A man (Adam) was made of
dust from the ground. God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became
alive. Then God made Adam fall asleep, and God took one of his ribs and He made it
into a woman (Eve).
New Creation Theory
In this new view, God created all living beings through the Logos (plan) and His
creative force, starting with lower beings and progressing, stage by stage, to higher
beings. In this process, God created beings that looked externally human as far as the
physical body was concerned from hominid precursors. Finally, He chose a couple from
these and gave spirit selves to the children who were born from them: in this way, Adam
and Eve were created.
According to the fundamentalist creation theory, God created living beings and
human beings from the soil as if He was a magician—a viewpoint hardly acceptable to
the scientific mind. On the other hand, according to anthropologists, who are mostly
evolutionists, the outline of human evolution is as follows:
The divergence between the human and great ape lineage happened about 6 million
21

22. years ago. The first bipedal ape at the start of the human line is called Australopithecus.
Then Homo habilis, characterized by the use of primitive stone tools, appeared about
2.5 million years ago. Later, more refined stone tools and hand axes were used by Homo
erectus roughly 1.7–1.5 million years ago. Approximately 500,000 years ago, the size of
the human brain rapidly expanded and they began to use fire and invented tools. They
are “archaic Homo sapiens.”
In 1978, Rebecca Cann of the University of Hawaii, together with Alan Wilson and
Mark Stoneking of the University of California, investigated mitochondrial DNA and its
variation in women’s placenta donated by African, European, Middle Eastern and Asian
pregnant women. Unlike the DNA contained in the nucleus, which is a mixture of both
parents’ genes, mitochondrial DNA is transmitted only through the maternal lineage,
and is changed only by mutation with no sexual mixing. As the result of their research,
they concluded that all mitochondrial DNA extant today originated from the
mitochondrial DNA of one woman who lived in Africa some 200,000 years ago. She
was named the “Mitochondrial Eve.”
Complementing this, the Y chromosome is inherited only through the male line.
Analysis of the Y chromosome lineage resulted in a man called the “African Adam”
who existed in Africa sometime between 200,000 and 50,000 years ago.25 Therefore, it
can be said that humans (Homo sapiens), who had the same physical bodies as today’s
human beings, appeared between 200,000 and 50,000 years ago.
Finally, there occurred the “dawn of human culture”, a “creative explosion”, “a
great leap forward”, and the “sociocultural big bang” about 50,000 years ago.26 For
example, the wall paintings in the Chauvet cave in France are splendid, they are as if
drawn by an artist like Leonardo da Vinci.27 According to the Randall White of New
York University, “Cro-Magnons were perfectly capable of going to the moon
neurologically.”28 However, there are questions about the aforementioned scenario that
defy explanation by anthropologists using the theory of evolution:
A. How Did Apes Start to Walk Upright?
What started forest apes walking about on two legs is a current mystery.
Anthropologists R.G. Klein and B. Edgar admit:
As to the advantages that bipedalism would have offered a ground-dwelling ape,
the first and perhaps most obvious is that the arms and hands could now be used to
carry food to widely scattered trees or to other group members. . . . Novel
explanations of bipedalism are thus still welcome. . . . The initial advantages of
22

23. bipedalism may always remain a matter for speculation, but they must have been
significant. 29
Comparing a chimpanzee’s frame to the human frame reveals that they are greatly
different. Even if apes had come out of the forest, they would have walked in a manner
called “knuckle walking,” leaning forward. It is inconceivable that, carrying things or
stretching their backs, would allow their frame to change in such an extent as to become
suitable for bipedalism. Without the blueprint of a human frame, a stable and upright
bipedalism is impossible.
B. Why Did an Apelike Brain Rapidly Grow?
The rapid enlargement of the brain was a major step in human evolution as
emphasized by R.G. Klein and B. Edgar:
Between 1.8 million and 600,000 years ago, brain size remained remarkably stable
at roughly sixty-five percent of the modern average, but not long afterwards it
increased to about ninety percent of the modern value. . . . Its emergence 600,000
years ago would signal a punctuational event.30
However, the reason why the brain underwent this rapid enlargement, a
punctuational event in the history of human evolution, is unanswered. Nobel Prize
laureate biologist Gerald M. Edelman, when discussing this problem, admitted that:
“These are profound and largely unanswered problems in paleontology, anthropology
and archeology.”31
Not only the brain size but also its structure is largely different between Homo
sapiens and its precursors. Therefore, a simple enlargement of the brain is not sufficient
to explain the emergence of a brain with all the human capacities. It is notable that the
size of an elephant’s brain and that of the blue whale dwarfs that of the human, but the
intellectual level of these animals is far inferior to that of the human.
C. What Caused the “Dawn of Human Culture” 50,000 Years Ago?
ulture”
The cause of the cultural Big Bang that occurred 50,000 years ago is also a mystery.
Commenting on this, R.G. Kleine and B. Edgar note that: “Archeology demonstrates the
radical nature and consequences of the last event [which occurred about 50,000 years
ago], but it says nothing about what prompted it, and it is here that we face a
conundrum.” 32 Later they point out that: “We must now proceed to the most difficult
23

24. question of all: what accounts for the ‘dawn.’ The answer as we shall see is contentious
and it may always be that way.”33 R. G. Klein concludes that, “Something happened
about 50,000 years ago. . . . Researchers can only speculate for now about what brought
the shift about.”34
What does it imply when an artist as talented as Leonard da Vinci appeared as a
result of the cultural dawn; and that at that time there was the intellectual ability to go to
the moon?
We can compare the human brain to a computer. Just as a computer is designed by
scientists, the brain, the high quality computer, should have been designed by a great
intellect. Also, in order for a computer to demonstrate its sophisticated abilities, high
quality software has to be installed on the computer. As a matter of fact, the human
brain is equipped with high quality software such as the grammar and syntax of
language. However, as anthropologist Ian Tattersall points out: “Neither do we know
why, at the end of this process, the human brain had become so beautifully exapted for
language and symbolic reasoning”35 There is no other way but to think that such high
quality software has also been designed by a great intellect.
In addition, just as an intellectual human operator is necessary to operate a
computer, so an intellectual and spiritual being as operator is necessary to operate the
high quality computer, the human brain. Thus, the Homo sapiens who drove the cultural
big bang 50,000 years ago cannot be an animal-like being with only a physical body.
The brain of an animal has not been equipped with either high quality software or a
highly intellectual operator.
We conclude that, from the viewpoint of Unification Thought, the physical body
plan of the human emerged 200,000-50,000 years ago; then about 50,000 years ago the
first man and woman, Adam and Eve, with human spirits (spirit selves) were created.
Their spirits, or spirit selves, are the intellectual operators that direct the high-quality
software of the physical brain.
It is written in the Bible that Adam was made from the dust of the earth. This is
symbolic; the dust is not literal soil but all the things of the earth in its broadest sense.
God first made apes on the billion-year foundation of living systems. On this foundation,
God created such beings as were externally human. Then, choosing a pair of male and
female from them, God gave spirits to children born to them. In this way, Adam and Eve
were created. Eve was not made literally from Adam’s rib; the rib refers symbolically to
the blueprint, it indicates that Eve was created using the same, if complementary,
blueprint involved in the emergence of Adam.
24

25. VII. Why Sex?
Theory of Evolution
Why did living things change from the asexual reproduction used by the first living
systems to the sexual process so common in later life (stamen and pistil; male and
female; man and woman)? The challenge is that asexual reproduction is so much more
efficient than the sexual process in creating large numbers of descendants. The
definitive reason for this change is an open question although a variety of answers have
been proposed.
Creation Theory
God created humans in His image—man and woman. Likewise, living things were
created in pairs: as male and female.
New Creation Theory
God is the united being of the dual characteristics of Yang and Yin. By separating
those dual characteristics, God created man and woman, male and female, and stamen
and pistil as “yang substantial beings” and “yin substantial beings.” This is called the
pair system of the created world. God created the world using the pair system for the
purpose of generating love and beauty in the created world.
Why did reproduction by sex emerge in living systems? This is still a puzzle in
modern biology as asexual reproduction is a much more efficient way of making as
many offspring as possible.
The most influential theory in answer to this conundrum is the “Red Queen
hypothesis.” This is named after the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in
Wonderland,” who must run constantly just to stay in one place; she cannot just stand
still. The hypothesis is that living beings must also keep on changing to cope with
parasites like viruses.
In asexually reproducing organisms, descendents are a clone of the parent so they
are all identical. Accordingly, if one can be destroyed by an efficient parasite, all of
them can be and the lineage will perish. In the case of sexually reproducing organisms,
they can cope with parasites because the genes are being constantly mixed into new
combinations in their descendants. This is the assertion that “sex exists to create
diversity.”
A similar view is the assertion that “sex exists to preserve genes.” Evolutionary
25

26. biologist Richard E. Michod explains why having two copies of genes is advantageous:
Sex overcomes the many genetic errors—damage and mutations—that threaten life,
and in so doing the DNA molecule becomes whole. Sex maintains the well-being
of genes, and through their immortality, sex provides for the continuation and
immortality of life.36
These are thus advantages to sexual reproduction. Such advantages do not explain
why sex appeared, however, as noted by science writer Hisako Nishimura:
Why do men and women exist in this world? ——This is “the first mystery of sex.”
This is a question that humans have thought about ever since the beginning of
history. . . . Various theories have been presented about the origin of sex. However,
they only explain the significance of sex that has already emerged. The question of
why and how male and female came to exist on the earth still remains.37
In the Unification Thought viewpoint, sex exists for the sake of love. Man and
woman were created to realize love. In other words, God wanted to perfect love through
man and woman. Male and female in animals, stamen and pistil in plants, and cation
and anion in minerals were also created in order to express love, although of a lower
dimension. God’s creation was accomplished through the pair system, elevating the
dimension of love by stages. The process of creation was therefore a “progress of love.”
Love and beauty are connected; the creation of love is simultaneously the creation of
beauty. Therefore, God created the world gradually to be more lovely and more
beautifully.
All living beings are created in pairs for love. Only a pair of male and female
within the same species can mate. Even if an offspring is born as a result of mating
between different species, that offspring is unable to reproduce. It is impossible for
different species to mate with one another. This implies the existence of “gates of love”
in living beings. Accordingly, even if a single individual being evolves into a higher
being, it cannot multiply into a new species. It is impossible for evolution to proceed
through mating by a male and a female of different species going beyond the “gate of
love.” Both male and female must be elevated to a new stage together. In other words,
new species appear through the creation of new pairs not new individuals.
VIII. The Origin of Love
26

27. Theory of Evolution
The theory of evolution discusses the origin of the physical body. It hardly
discusses such issues as how love came into existence and how it was elevated to
human love.
Creation Theory
God’s essence is love. God is the perfect and self-sufficient being. Yet, He
unilaterally created human beings and poured His love into them. Love between human
beings came from God.
New Creation Theory
Love came from God. Yet, love of human beings and love of animals are different
in terms of quality and dimension. God created all things to make an environment of
love for human beings, to build bridges of love among human beings, and to make
ornaments of love for human beings. Therefore, human beings are the central players of
love, in the starring role; all other things are in the role of supporting players and the
stage setting for the love drama.
Origin of love by Sydney Mellen is one of the few treatises that discuss the origin
of love and its development from an evolutionist’s viewpoint. In his view, the basic
bonds of mother and offspring as found in mammals evolved into the various types of
human love:
The capacities for love which natural selection developed in mammals, especially
in the higher primates, have developed in humans far beyond the primordial
mother-infant bond, and have spread in several new directions. Preceding chapters
have suggested ways in which the basic mammalian resource of emotion may have
been channeled into varieties of love between a woman and a man, of love between
a man and the children surrounding him, and even, paradoxically, of homosexual
love. But biological evolution and cultural evolution have not stopped there.38
With regard to the conjugal love between man and woman, in particular, he says,
“The propensities for love between males and females proved so advantageous, and
were developed by natural selection.”39 With regard to the agape love taught in
Christianity, he says, “The love inherent in the Christian faith had its origins in
27

28. biological evolution just as surely as other varieties of human love. In fact it was the
same thing. The sublime love which was evoked by Jesus and his early followers, and
which illuminated the Western world for so many centuries, was essentially a
summation or apotheosis of several different varieties of earthly human love”40 His
conclusion is that the origin of love is ultimately to be found in biological evolution.
In contrast to this view based on evolution, Unification Thought asserts, as
Christianity does, that love comes from God. With regard to the love of human beings
and that of animals, Unification Thought explains that, just as bodies of living beings
were designed with the human body as the model, so animal love was symbolically
expressed with human love as the model. This is because we are created to feel joy by
feeling our own original nature (love) through all things. Human love is manifested on
the foundation of the family as children’s love, siblings’ love, conjugal love, and
parental love: these loves are God’s love being manifested diversely through members
of a family.
In terms of hyungsang (physical body), God created all things step by step from
lower beings to higher beings with human beings as the ultimate goal. Likewise, in
terms of sungsang (mind, heart), God created the animal kingdom by elevating love
from lower dimension to higher dimension with human love as the goal. This is the
progress of love.
God aimed at perfecting love through Adam and Eve. However, due to the fall of
Adam and Eve, love remained incomplete. As a result, the created world became the
world without the central role of true lovers. The world of creation, the stage of love,
has remained without the starring roles of true love, and all things have been keenly
longing for their appearance.
The love between man and woman and the love between male and female of
animals are closely related to sexual reproduction. In biology, a species is generally
considered a group of organisms that can generate offspring through sexual mating. In
this view, the interbreeding between different species is impossible.
However, the gradualism inherent in evolutionary thought does not allow for a
distinct boundary between species. In particular, Richard Dawkins, one of the
representative evolutionists in the contemporary age, insists that the gap between human
beings and apes is not an absolute:
What if a clutch of intermediate types had survived, enough to link us to modern
chimpanzees by a chain, not just of hand-holders, but of interbreeders? . . . It is
sheer luck that this handful of intermediates no longer exists. . . . We need only
28

29. discover a single survivor, say a relic Australopithecus in the Budongo Forest, and
our precious system of norms and ethics would come crashing about our ears. . . .
So what if, in the continuum of all apes that have lived in Africa, the survivors
happen to leave a convenient gap between Homo and Pan? Surely we should, in
any case, not base our treatment of animals on whether or not we can interbreed
with them.41
From the Unification Thought perspective, there is what can be called “the gate of
love” between species. Accordingly, different species cannot interbreed with each other.
God created the world of living beings according to species so that each species can
manifest its unique individuality. Therefore, each species is created to manifest a unique
loveliness as well as a unique external appearance. In that sense, as creationists assert,
the species maintain their unchanging nature and boundaries. There cannot be an
interbreeding between human beings and apes. This is because, if interbreeding occurs
between the two, the perfection of love between man and woman, the purpose of God’s
creation, collapses.
IX. Process of Evolution, or of Creation
Theory of evolution
According to the modern evolutionary synthesis (Neo-Darwinism), the process of
evolution is as follows:
(1) Mutation gives rise to the raw material of evolution.
(2) Natural selection decides the direction of evolution.
Mutation refers to accidental and random change caused by cosmic rays, ultraviolet
rays, lightning, DNA copying mistakes, etc. Occasionally, an organism has a useful
mutation which thrives and, in this way, evolution progresses.
Creation Theory
As the Bible states: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God. . . . All things were made through him.” (John 1:1-2) The Word was first formed
by God. Then, through the Word, all living beings were created.
New Creation Theory
As in Christian creationism, the Word (Logos) was formed first; then, living beings
were created according to the Word. Logos is not the verbal word uttered by God but is
29

30. God’s idea and blueprint for the universe. The formation of logos was from top to
bottom, starting with human beings and descending gradually toward lower living
beings then to molecules and atoms etc. The creation of the physical world, however,
was from bottom to top, from atoms to simple cells to higher-level beings, and finally to
human beings. This is called the “two-stage structure of creation.”
In the Bible it is written, “Every house is built by someone, but the builder of all
things is God” (Hebrews 3:4). Actually, nobody would think that a house, no matter
how simple a hut, could be built by trees and branches being blown about by a storm.
The mutations embraced by evolutionists are a result of random actions such as
cosmic rays coming from the explosion of stars, ultraviolet rays coming from the
nuclear fusion reactions in the sun (basically a giant H-bomb), and lightning, all of
which are as random as typhoons and hurricanes. It is inherently impossible for
organisms to come into possession of more sophisticated structures and qualities as a
result of such randomizing actions.
Such evolutionary development and increase in sophistication is a consequence of
the “two stage structure of creation” advocated by Unification Thought.
Prior to creation, the image of a human being as God’s direct object of love was
conceived within His mind. As it is written in the Bible: “So God created man in his
own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”
(Gen. 1:27), a human couple, Adam and Eve, was conceived in God’s image as the
perfect beings they would become when mature. Taking the human image as a model,
and by abstracting and transforming it, God conceived the images of animals; by further
abstracting and transforming them, He conceived the images of plants. Even among
animals, He first conceived the images of higher animals, which are closer to humans,
and by abstracting and transforming them, He gradually conceived the images of lower
animals. Among the images of plants, He also conceived the images of higher plants
first, and then gradually the images of lower plants. At the extreme end of the process of
abstracting and transforming the images of animals and plants, God conceived the
image of a cell. The cell was conceived as the smallest unit of all living beings.
Next, by abstracting and transforming the images of animals and plants, God
conceived the images of the heavenly bodies: God conceived the earth as the dwelling
place for humans and other living beings, and the universe to sustain the earth. He also
conceived the images of minerals as the materials with which to build the heavenly
bodies. Through further abstraction and transformation, God conceived the images of
molecules, atoms, and elementary particles. These were conceived as the basic material
30

31. with which to make the heavenly bodies, plants, animals, and human beings. Finally, He
conceived the image of light (electromagnetic wave) as the most basic material.
Thus, in God the ideas were formed in the following order: human being � higher
animals � lower animals � higher plants � lower plants � heavenly bodies �
minerals � molecules � atoms � elementary particles � light. Conceiving the idea
means forming the Logos, the design and blueprint for each stage.
The creation of the phenomenal world occurred, however, in exactly the reverse
order. From the explosion of energy called the Big Bang emerged elementary particles,
atoms, and molecules. Those atoms and molecules coalesced into the heavenly bodies,
including the earth, a special planet among the heavenly bodies.
On the earth, first, plants emerged, then, animals, and finally, humans. This does
not imply that animals were created after all the plants had been created. The plant
world was created just slightly ahead of the animal world, so that both worlds were
created almost simultaneously, and in such a way that creation proceeded from lower to
higher stage beings. This is because plants and animals have a relationship of
co-existence and co-prosperity.
The sequence of creation was, first the formation of ideas (that is, the creation of
Logos), which took place within God’s mind; and then the creation of the phenomenal
world, which took place according to Logos. This is the “two-stage structure of
creation” (see fig.1.4).
When we look at the organisms that appeared on the earth in the second stage —the
part encircled by a frame in figure 1.4—they seem to have evolved from simpler and
lower beings to more complicated and higher beings. In other words, in the plant world
creation proceeded in the following order: algae � mosses � ferns � gymnosperms �
angiosperms, and in the animal world: amoebas � invertebrates � fishes �
amphibians � reptiles � mammals � apes � hominids � early men. This, however,
was not due to random evolution but rather the plan of creation carried out
systematically as guided by the Logos.
In the formation of the Logos, there was abstraction and transformation in the plan.
By abstracting the image of human being, God designed the image of animal. Next, God
transformed the abstract image of animal, and designed concrete images of various
individual animals. For example, God created animals with long noses (elephants),
those with long necks (giraffes), those with much hair (sheep), those which are strong
(lions), etc. In the same way, He transformed the abstract image of plant and designed
various specific plants, such as those that emphasize flowers (rose), those that
emphasize fruits (watermelon and apple), those that emphasize seeds (wheat), etc.
31

32. The same process went into the design of the heavenly bodies. God transformed the
abstract image of heavenly body into the design for the planet of water (Earth), the
planet that protects the Earth from the collision of comets and asteroids (Jupiter), the
beautiful planet with rings (Saturn), and the star as the source of light and heat (Sun),
etc. Transforming the abstract image of an atom, He designed specific atoms such as
hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, etc. Transforming the abstract image of an
elementary particle, He designed specific such particles as electrons, protons, neutrons,
neutrinos, etc. The process of abstraction and transformation in the formation of the
Logos is illustrated in figure 1.5.
The classical Greek philosopher Anaximander thought that human beings came into
existence as a result of the transformation of fish. On the other hand, Plato thought that
fishes and birds were the products of the degeneration of human beings. Plato saw the
world of idea centered on human beings; Anaximander saw the phenomenal world from
the viewpoint of evolution. They both caught a part of the whole picture: Plato dealt
with the formation of Logos, the first stage of the Unification Thought two-stage
structure of creation; while Anaximander dealt with the creation of the physical world,
the second stage of the two-stage structure of creation.
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844), a French natural historian, thought that all
animals could be created from one pattern or a prototype; and that all animals came into
existence by transforming this prototype. It is said that Geoffroy believed in a kind of
divine order. Goethe, his contemporary, also thought of the “proto-plant” and the
“proto-animal.” He thought that all plants had come from the proto-plant and that all
animals from the proto-animal. Both the views of Geoffroy and Goethe are embraced by
the Unification Thought theory of the “processes of abstraction and transformation in
the formation of Logos.” In Unification Thought, however, proto-plant includes the
stages of proto-algae, proto-moss, proto-fern, proto-gymnosperm and proto-angiosperm;
similarly, the concept of proto-animal embraces the stages of proto-amoeba,
proto-invertebrate, proto-fish, proto-amphibian, proto-reptile, proto-mammal and
proto-ape.
In that same period, Cuvier (1769-1832), a French authority in comparative
anatomy, asserted that there were four basic types of animals, which are not convertible
to each other because of the absence of any resemblance. Thus, he rejected Geoffroy’s
theory. However, as the structure of God’s creation has now been clarified, the insights
of Geoffroy and Goethe can be seen to have their merits.
As pointed out earlier, one of the problems confounding the theory of natural
selection is the puzzle presented by the wonder net of the okapi. Commenting on this,
32

33. Ryuichi Kaneko concludes that: “The only reasonable interpretation with regard to this
is that the ancestors of giraffes determined to prolong their necks and, with an eye to the
future, prepared the wonder net. In other words, we come to the extraordinary
conclusion that the giraffe evolved with a purpose. Such an example as this one is being
discovered in the world of living beings one after another. A theory of evolution which
can answer this question will become the most correct theory of evolution.”42
While this is a problem for Darwinian evolution, the Unification Thought new
creation theory deals with this in the following way: In the process of forming images,
God first conceived the images of higher beings then, and simplifying and transforming
them, He conceived the images of lower beings. In the actual process of creation, the
lower beings appear before the higher beings. Accordingly, as the okapi is the ancestor
of the giraffe, the image of the okapi was conceived by God using the giraffe as the
starting point. In other words, the image of the okapi was created on the basis of the
image of giraffe. Thus, the okapi was created as the preparation for the giraffe. Thinking
in this way, we can understand why the okapi has the wonder net.
X. What Is the Driving Force of Creation, or of Evolution?
Theory of evolution
Natural selection is the driving force of evolution. Therefore, natural selection
stands in the position of the Creator in place of God.
Creation Theory
God is omniscient and omnipotent. He is the Creator. All beings were created by
God according to His will.
New Creation Theory
God has 100% creativity. Yet, He does not manifest all His creativity but has given
a part of it to human beings. This is for the purpose of making human beings creators
and the lords of dominion over all things. Figuratively speaking, God manifests 97% out
of 100% of His creativity and entrusts the remaining 3% to human beings.
If God created all things 100% and complete, human beings would have nothing to
do but just appreciate their beauty and consume them for nourishment. If that were the
case, human beings would be no different from all things and would not be qualified to
be lords of dominion over, and co-creators of all things. That is why God deliberately
33

34. entrusted one part of His creativity to human beings.
For example, God created the wild orchids. Later, people bred and improved on the
wild orchids and made them blossom with a variety of beautiful flowers. The person
who bred the beautiful orchid can be regarded as its creator. The same reasoning can be
applied to apples and grapes. God created wild apples and grapes. Then, human beings
improved them, creating beautiful apples such as the crisp ‘Fuji’ and the delicious
‘Kyoho’ grapes. Those who developed these varieties are considered as their creators.
The same thing can be said about the development of science and technology. God
determined the laws of nature and prepared the necessary energy and material.
Moreover, He made various models of all things. (For instance, a bird is a model of an
airplane.) On the foundation of God preparation, scientists added their creativity and
developed science and technology.
Animals also have creativity. The creativity of animals has the following qualities:
(1) Instinctive creativity. Birds making a nest, bees making a comb to store honey,
beavers constructing a dam, etc.
(2) Ability to adjust to environment.
(3) Ability to learn: Animals can learn to some extent if trained by humans.
Humans can develop new plans and develop new techniques. However, animals do
not have the kind of developmental creativity as humans have. As a matter of fact, there
is no ape that sees a mirror and applies makeup, or an ape that cooks, writes a novel, or
composes music.
Random forces in the natural world, left to themselves, do not have creativity even
at the level of animals. Yet, Dobzhansky compares natural selection to a composer;
Simpson, to a poet; Meyer, to a sculptor; and Huxley, to Shakespeare. Evolutionists try
to expel God and to place natural selection in the role of the Creator.
Ⅺ. Both Evolutionism and Creationism Can Be Invigorated
.
by Unification Thought
From the perspective of Unification Thought, the theory of evolution is not totally
wrong. Looking at external sequence of phenomena, living beings seem to have evolved.
So it was, in a sense, natural that evolutionism should come into existence and the steps
described by evolutionists recognized. Evolutionists, however, assert that mutations
were brought about at random by disorderly forces such as cosmic rays, ultraviolet rays
and lightning, and that progress occurred by the natural selection of these random
34

35. mutations. Such randomness is not acceptable as a means of progress. Living beings
were created stage by stage from lower to higher beings by a creative force rather than
random forces.
In creation, we can consider that the creative force directed cosmic rays, ultraviolet
rays, and used vectors (virus, plasmid, phage) in the manipulation of genes. Also, we
can consider that nucleotides and amino acids were formed on comets and they were
carried to the earth where they were used to synthesize nucleic acids and proteins.
Therefore, the new creationism advocated by Unification Thought can embrace
evolutionism, while correcting its errors.
On the other hand, Christian creationism asserts that six thousand years ago the
omniscient and almighty God created the universe and all living things in six days as if
He were a magician. However, this is a poetic description using symbols and was never
intended to be taken literally. In reality, it took God a long time to realize the plan,
investing His energy in accordance with the plan.
If we think of the Biblical description in this way, it is quite in accord with the
discoveries of science. We should reconsider God not as a magician but as the greatest
and highest scientist and artist. The new creationism of Unification Thought takes the
core of Christian creationism and supplements with aspects of time, plan, and the
investment of energy. Furthermore, it clarifies God’s purpose of creation and the
relationship between human beings and all things. Then, Christian creationism will
revive in today’s age of science fulfilling St. Paul’s prophecy in 1 Corinthians 13:9-12
For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophesy is imperfect; but when the perfect
comes, imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought
like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I
shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.
Taking all this into account, we can reinterpret the description of “creation in six
days” written in the Bible, and explain the process of creation by God from the
viewpoint of modern science.
1. The First Day: The creation of the universe through “light”
light”
The Bible records that on the first day God said, “Let there be light”; and there was
light. From the standpoint of modern science, this corresponds to the fact that the
universe was formed through the inflation and Big Bang. As a result of the Big Bang,
35

36. which happened about 13.7 billion years ago, the expanding universe was filled with
intense high-energy electromagnetic radiation (“light”) and a relatively small amount of
hydrogen and helium. As time passed and the universe expanded, the radiation
cooled—eventually becoming the ‘cosmic microwave background’ radiation of the
current day—and the atoms coalesced into tendrils of vast gossamer gas clouds. The
clouds slowly spun, making a hundred billion shining points. These vast spinning gas
clouds developed to become clusters of galaxies. That was how the universe was
formed.
2. The Second Day: The birth of the planet of “water”
water”
The Bible records that on the second day God made the firmament and separated
the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the
firmament. From the standpoint of modern science, this stage corresponds to the state
just after the formation of the earth some 4.6 billion years ago. The earth was covered
by a thick atmosphere, consisting mainly of hot steam (the waters above), carbon
dioxide and ammonia. As the earth cooled, the water in the atmosphere condensed
creating the ocean (the waters under). This is how the earth, the planet of “water,” was
born.
3. The Third Day: The formation of seas and land (“earth”)
earth”
The Bible says that, on the third day, “land” and “seas” were created. According to
modern science, the early earth was covered with water until tectonic movements
uplifted the first dry land and gradually formed the continents. Land rose from under the
seas. While just how this land formed has not been fully clarified, it is safe to say that
there were continents—though not in the configuration we see them today—by 3.5 to 2
billion years ago. About 4 billion years ago, the first simple living beings, the bacteria,
were born in the oceans. About 3.5 billion years ago, algae were born and started
generating oxygen through photosynthesis. The atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolved in
the sea becoming calcium carbonate, depositing as limestone while the ammonia was
oxidized to nitrogen. Nitrogen became the main ingredient of the atmosphere.
4. The Fourth Day: The formation of “air” of oxygen
air”
According to the Bible, God created “the greater light” (the sun), “the lesser light”
(the moon), and stars on the fourth day. As a matter of fact, however, the sun, the moon
and stars already existed at that time. Therefore, the description should be interpreted to
mean that the sun, the moon and stars became clearly visible from the earth after the
36

37. atmosphere covering the earth cleared up. The oxygen, which was generated in the sea
by photosynthetic algae, was at first absorbed by the large amounts of dissolved ferrous
ions, depositing and accumulating as ferric oxide—the iron ore beds which are mined in
this age. About 2 billion years ago, the accumulation of iron oxide ended and free
oxygen was increasingly discharged into the atmosphere.
The primordial atmosphere on the earth consisted of grey, thick, foggy layers. As
the oxygen accumulated, there was a slow change in the atmosphere, and the sky
became blue and clear. The earth began to become blue about 2 billion years ago,
becoming the “blue planet.”
About 600 million years ago, multicellular animals appeared in the oceans. Then,
about 535 million years ago, a massive development of marine invertebrates called “the
Cambrian explosion” occurred. Corals and other living beings which produce calcium
carbonate shells converted carbon dioxide into limestone, reducing further the amount
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
decreased to only 0.03 %, which is the same level as it is at present. On land, simple
plants and then animals emerged, among them insects and the simple earthworms that
created soil by their activity. Thus, about 400 million years ago, the environment on
land was prepared where high-level living beings were able to live. At that time, the
density of oxygen in the atmosphere reached 21%, the same as today. This is how the
earth with ‘light,’ ‘water,’ ‘soil,’ and ‘air,’ —all so eminently suited for human life—
was created.
5. The Fifth Day: The age of great forests and dinosaurs
The Bible says that God created living creatures of the water (fishes) and winged
birds on the fifth day. According to modern science, what flourished in this fifth stage
were: the ferns and gymnosperms; fishes in the seas; and the first amphibians colonizing
the edges of the continents. About 400 million years ago, fish multiplied in great
numbers in the seas—the Devonian period often called the Age of Fishes. The plant
kingdom on land started with the simple mosses, followed by the Age of Ferns. Ferns
developed the ability to make sturdy trunks and giant trees emerged, forming the Great
Forest of the Carboniferous period whose fossilized remains are the great coal beds of
today. It was a world of green silence with no flowers, flying insects or birds.
Then on land the gymnosperms (conifers) appeared— trees without flower petals
and with seeds unprotected by fruits that scattered their pollen in the air. On land, the
amphibians developed hard-shelled eggs, which opened the Age of Reptiles. With the
37

38. Mesozoic era, there came the age of dinosaurs, the giant reptiles. One lineage of the
dinosaurs developed into the birds and began to fill the sky.
This era corresponds to preparing the general environment in the scheme of God’s
creation. This was the era prior to creating the world of love and beauty that
followed—the world of mammals and angiosperms (flowering plants) as the home for
human beings. For that reason, both the giant ferns and giant reptiles disappeared when
this period was over. Many of the gymnosperms of the Mesozoic Era also disappeared
and were replaced by angiosperms, plants with fruits and flowers.
6. The Sixth Day: The completion of the purpose of creation
The Bible says that God created cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth,
and finally human beings on the sixth day. According to modern science, the Cenozoic
era started about 65 million years ago when the plant kingdom opened the age of
angiosperms (fruits and flowers) and the animal kingdom the age of mammals. Algae,
mosses, ferns and gymnosperms still exist today, but they are no longer the main players.
In the animal world, invertebrates, fishes, reptiles, and birds have supporting, not central
roles.
Finally, Adam and Eve were born as the first ancestors of humankind. The world
centering on human beings was complete. It was supposed to become the world where
God’s ideal of love would be fulfilled. In the animal world, males and females play out
the drama of love. In the plant world, stamens and pistils have give and receive actions
creating the flowers and fruits of love. Into this environment of love prepared by all
things, Adam and Eve were supposed to actualize the highest love as the central players
in the drama of love. This did not take place, however, because of the Fall and the ideal
is yet to be fulfilled.
The unified description of the creation of heaven and earth according to the Bible
and from the standpoint of modern science is illustrated in figure 1.6.
By describing the process of creation as outlined above, we can understand that
God did not instantly create the universe as if He were a magician waving a magic wand.
Rather, He created the universe scientifically, taking His time, according to His plan,
first creating the environment to sustain life. Then it took Him a long time to create
living beings, stage by stage from lower to higher beings, culminating in human beings.
He created living beings by stages using the pair systems, elevating the level of love
toward the perfection of love that was possible for Adam and Eve.
The argument between evolutionism and creationism is an intense and polarized
debate. Left as it is, there is no way of finding a solution as both sides will continue
38

39. their disagreements with no meeting of minds. It is hoped that the new creationism
advocated by Unification Thought will provide a perspective that both sides can agree
upon.
39

40. Fig. 1.1. Gradual Evolution, or Instant Creation, or Creation by Stages?
Fig. 1.2. Homologous Organs Showing Creation in Likeness Centered on a
Human Being
40

41. Fig. 1.3. Ontogeny Indicating Creation in Likeness Centered on a Human
Being
Source: Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, 95. Modification is added.
41

42. Fig. 1.4. The Two-Stage Structure of Creation
Fig. 1.5. The Process of Abstraction and Transformation in the Formation of
Logos
42

43. Fig. 1.6. Contrast between the Description in the Bible and Modern Science
43