2. Contents
Introduction
I. The Path to the Contemporary Theory of Evolution
1. Aristotle's View of Nature and the Christian Theory of Creation Species are
eternally unchangeable
2. The Classification of the Living Beings by Linne God allowed him to look into the
secret shelves of specimens
3. Lamarck's Theory of Evolution Living beings develop from lower to higher stages
4. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection The struggle for existence in nature selects
the species
5. Mendel's Discovery of the Laws of Heredity His experimentation with peas
eventually gave rise to genetics
6. De Vries' Mutation Theory New species have appeared suddenly
7. The Discovery of DNA The remarkable molecule of heredity
8. The Emergence of the Synthetic Theory Darwin + De Vries = Synthetic Theory
II. The Contemporary Theory of Evolution (Neo - Darwinism) Is Wrong
1. The Nonexistence of the Fossils of Intermediates The archaeopteryx has turned out
not to be an intermediate
2. A Difficulty in Explaining the Spontaneous Generation of Life: Why was the
elaborate chemical factory within the cell generated?
3. The Character of Mutation Even though mutation took place, fruit flies remained
fruit flies.
4. Can Natural Selection Create a New Species? Did the front legs of a mouse evolve
into the wings of a bat?
5. The Rise of Neo-Lamarckism The Theory of Differentiation in Inhabitation denies
the struggle for existence.
6. The Mystery of the Genetic Code Genes can make a frog out of a frog's egg
7. Gradualism under Question New species emerge suddenly
III. A New Theory of Creation Based on Unification Thought
1. The Purpose of Creation and Dual Purposes Living beings are fit for existence, but
at the same time they exist for human beings

3. 2. Creation through Logos The genetic code of DNA represents the Logos of God.
3. Creation by Stages Abrupt changes have occurred through the action of God's
power
4. Creation in Likeness All living beings were created taking the human being as a
model
5. The Two-Stage Structure of Creation Within the concept of God, the human being
was created first
6. The Creation of Human Beings Based on All Things as Material The creation of all
things was aimed toward the creation of human beings
7. On the Theistic Theory of Evolution Everything came about through God's creation,
not through evolution.
8. The Creation of Adam and Eve God's Love is realized through Adam and Eve
Introduction
At about the same time when Marx advocated communism, Charles Darwin
advocated the theory of evolution. In 1859 Marx made public the formulas of the
materialist conception of history in A Contribution to the Critique of Political
Economy, systematically stating the Marxist theory of economics for the first time. In
that same year, Darwin published On the Origin of Species, establishing the general
thought of the evolution of living beings.
In the first half of the nineteenth century, the theory of evolution had been fairly well
accepted, but Darwin's theory was fundamentally different from other evolution
theories. Prior to Darwin, the cause of evolution had been ascribed to a life force or to
history as directed by God ; spirit was regarded as essentially irreducible to matter. In
contrast, Darwin advocated nondirectional mutation and natural selection. This
advocacy was definitely rooted in materialism. Darwin wrote in one of his notebooks
Love of the deity effect of organization, oh you, materialist! - Why is thought being a
secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity a property of matter? It is our
arrogance, our admiration of ourselves. (could 1977, 25)
However, Darwin refrained from disclosing the fact that his theory of evolution was
based on materialism. To remind himself to be careful about unwise disclosure, he
wrote in his notebook
To avoid stating how far, I believe, in Materialism, say only that emotions, instincts,
degrees of talent, which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent
stock. (could 1977, 26)

4. Marx was quick to perceive the implications of Darwin's theory of evolution and
accepted it as a strong ally. As Frederick Engels said, "Just as Darwin discovered the
law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of
human history" (Engels 1970, 162). Marxism and Darwin's theory of evolution shared
the direction in which to advance.
Darwin's theory of evolution, which was based on materialism, had a destructive
effect upon Christianity and traditional Western thought, even though that theory was
not as destructive as Marxism. Darwin's theory of evolution was not merely a view of
nature; more than that, it guided people toward the direction of denying God. In a
manner of speaking, the theory of evolution prepared a favorable soil or climate for
Marxism to grow, and to this day Marxism and the theory of evolution have been
working hand in hand to further alienate people from God. Therefore, the way a
person deals with the theory of evolution can strongly sway his/her view of life.
About this, Homer Duncan says,
The battle between creation and evolution is not a neat little game. It is not merely a
matter of proving that the other side is wrong. The conflict between creation and
evolution is a major part of the gigantic battle between God and Satan. It is a battle for
the minds and souls of men. (Duncan 1978, 59)
Today the ideals of communism have been discarded, and people have come to realize
that communism is wrong. Yet, the theory of evolution continues to be adopted by
textbooks of biology in every nation, whether free or communist, and is accepted as
scientific truth. Unless the theory of evolution is overcome, people will continue to
accept atheism and materialism and will be prevented from approaching God.
Humankind today is entering an era when the ideal world can come to be realized; but
what's posing the greatest obstacle on our path is precisely the theory of evolution.
I. The Path to the Contemporary Theory of Evolution
1. Aristotle's View of Nature and the Christian Theory of Creation
Species are eternally unchangeable.
Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.), a philosopher of ancient Greece, was the first ever to create
systematic biology. He regarded nature as purposive, stating in The Physics,
If, then, artificial processes are purposeful, so are natural processes too; ... we find that
plants too produce organs subservient to their perfect development-leaves, for
instance, to shelter the fruit ... Hence, if it is by nature and also for a purpose ... that
plants make leaves for the sake of the fruit and strike down (and not up) with their
roots in order to get their nourishment, it is clear that causality of the kind we have

5. described is at work in things that come about or exist in the course of Nature.
(Aristotle, The Physics, 173 -75)
Aristotle considered that nature is ordered from the lower to the higher, ranging from
nonliving beings, to plants and animals, all the way to humans. For him, the order of
nature is the following; nonliving beings- lower plants-higher plants sponges, jellyfish
shellfish - insects -- crustacea cephalopoda -- ovipara - whales • ovoviviparous
quadrupeds -- humankind. These are the "steps of nature," or the "hierarchy of nature"
(see Figure 1).
It is said that this classification of nature became the model for later thinking on
evolution. However, Aristotle regarded the classes of nature as unchangeable, just as,
for him, the universe was unchangeable; therefore, the idea of evolution of living
beings-that is, the idea that one species of living beings gradually changed into
another-did not come to his mind at all.
Eventually Aristotle's view of the universe and nature combined with Christianity.
The hierarchy of living beings was regarded as coming from God and as something
absolutely fixed. In the Christian view, God, when creating the universe, created every
living being "according to its kind," and all the species created by God were eternally
unchangeable from the very beginning of the universe. The combination of the
Aristotelian view of nature with Christian theory ruled the Western world until the
modern period.

7. Fig. 1: Aristotle's Steps of Nature
2. The Classification of the Living Beings by Linne: God allowed him to
look into the secret shelves of specimens.
The Swedish Carl von Linne (1707-1778), the founder of natural history, inherited the
combination of Aristotelian and Christian traditions and believed that the God-created
fundamental species of living beings were unchangeable. He said he was grateful that
God had allowed him to look into the secret shelves of specimens, and dedicated his
life to the task of describing and classifying all the species. He expressed the results of
his research in The System of Nature (1735), a small booklet which, over the period of
several decades, developed into a work consisting of several volumes.
Linne considered species to be a group of individuals with mutual resemblances, just
as children resemble their parents, and that there were as many species as God had
created in the beginning. He recognized, however, that even in a particular species of
plants some flowers had different colors, or had double flowering, and that slight
differences occurred depending on such conditions as climate, land, and nutrition; he
termed such species "varieties" (hybrids). Linne's view was that God has indeed
created all the species but, having done so, does not interfere with the details of nature,
and that varieties are formed through hybridization.
Linne roughly classified living beings into "classes," each class into "orders," each
order into "genera," and each genus into "species." He also established a "binomial
nomenclature," whereby each living being was given a double name, that is, its genus
and species. With further development in science, Linne's artificial classification
evolved into a natural classification.
3. Lamarck's Theory of Evolution
Living beings develop from lower to higher stages.
In the seventeenth century, with the rise of the philosophy of the Enlightenment,
which emphasized the concept of progress, there arose the idea of the evolution of
living beings. In the eighteenth century, that idea expanded with inputs from the
French thinkers G. Comte de Buffon, P. M. de Maupertuis, and D. Diderot. A clear
statement of the theory of evolution of living beings was put forward when Jean
Baptiste de Lamarck (1744 -1829) published his Philosophy of Animals in 1809.
Lamarck explained, on the basis of facts, that living beings evolve from lower to
higher stages. For Lamarck, the life force inherent in living beings is the element that
brings about evolution; through that life force, living beings develop from simple to
complex, which brings about irregularity (variety) among them. Further, he said,

8. living beings have the ability to give rise to organs in accordance with, and in
conformity to, environmental conditions. Thus he set forth two principles of evolution,
as follows (see Fig. 2)
i) Theory of Use and Disuse
In an animal that has not yet reached its final stage of development, the more
frequently and constantly an organ is used, the more it strengthens itself, develops,
increases in size, and gains power, in proportion to the period of its use. On the other
hand, if an organ is not used on a regular basis, it will treacherously weaken, decline,
decrease in function, and finally disappear.
ii) Theory of the Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics
Any character that an individual has acquired through preferential use or has lost
through continuous disuse of an organ due to the effect of circumstances to which the
individual has been exposed for a long time, will be transmitted through inheritance to
the new individuals born from it, provided the change is common to both male and
female.
The ancestors of giraffes had a short neck, but they had the habit of eating leaves high
up on the trees.
As they reached for high leaves their necks become longer.
The character of longer neck was passed on to their descendants, making a long-
necked giraffe.

10. Fig. 2: Explanation of the Long Neck of Giraffes Based on the Theory of Use and
Disuse
The above-mentioned assertion by Lamarck could be summarized as follows: Living
beings originally develop in a progressive manner from simple to complex; and by
doing so, they have become diversified as we see them today, according to the theory
of use and disuse and the theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
4. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
The struggle for existence in nature selects the species.

11. Fig. 3: Location of the Galapagos Islands
The English natural historian Charles Darwin (1809-1882), who in his youth studied
in a theological seminary at Cambridge University, became interested in natural
history, and upon graduation, went on board of the British Navy's survey ship H.M.S.
Beagle. Darwin conducted intense observations on geological features, plants, and
animals and became convinced that living beings evolve. His observations at the
Galapagos Islands (see Fig. 3) are especially credited with providing him with clear
evidence for his views on evolution.
Darwin, who grappled with the issue of "species undergoing change," contrasted how
animals and plants would change in a situation where they were growing naturally and
in a situation where they were being raised by people. He examined the way plant
breeders did their work, and concluded that the key element lay in selection. Breeders
artificially selected species for several generations, saving those they considered
appropriate and discarding the one they considered inappropriate for their purpose.
Darwin took notice of this "artificial selection."
In nature, however, there is no such a thing as a breeder engaging in selection-and that
was a problem for Darwin. But T. R. Malthus (1766 -1834) gave him a clue on how to
solve that problem. Malthus said that, if it were not for the influence of wars,
starvation, and disease, this world would now be overflowing with people; thus, he
described the reality of struggle in human society. This view suggested to Darwin the
idea that it is the "struggle for existence" that causes the selection of species in nature.
That idea developed into what later became Darwin's "theory of natural selection."
The points of that theory can be summarized as follows (see Fig 4)
i) There are individual variations among living beings; even among siblings born of
the same parents, there are some variations.
ii) Individuals transmit their variations to their descendants.
iii) The number of living beings increases in geometric progression; the supply of
food and shelter is limited; therefore, there occurs a struggle for existence between
individuals of the same species.

13. Fig. 4: Explanation of Why Giraffes have Long Necks, according to the Theory of
Natural Selection
iv) As a result of struggle for existence, "natural selection" is at work in nature,
allowing to survive only those individuals that are suitably adapted to the environment
This is called "survival of the fittest."
Darwin disclosed the results of his research in On The Origin of Species, published in
1859. His basic position was that, it is not some kind of "inherent ability" in living
beings that allows them to evolve, as Lamarck had said; but rather, it is the natural
environment itself that causes them to evolve. As a result, there was no room at all left
for any kind of involvement on the part of God in the development of living beings.
Darwin's idea was that, since natural selection works gradually, through a slow
accumulation of profitable variations, there is never a huge leap in the evolutionary
process of living beings, but rather, living beings evolve slowly and gradually. That
idea was in keeping with the old saying that "natura non facit saltum" ("Nature does
not do leaps").
As a supplement to his theory of natural selection, Darwin also included "sexual
selection," whereby those characteristics that are charming to the opposite sex are
selected and preserved. Manes in lions, horns in deer, beautiful feathers in birds were
cited as examples of the working of sexual selection.
On the other hand, Darwin accepted Lamarck's view that living beings adapt
themselves to changes in the environment, and in doing so, change themselves.
Considering that profitable variations in individuals that have survived by natural
selection were hereditary, Darwin also accepted what Lamarck called "inheritance of
acquired characteristics."
Later, the German biologist August Weismann (1834-1914) published the results of
an experiment in which he consistently cut the tails of mice one generation after
another, for 22 generations. He observed that the offspring of those mice were not at
all born with shortened tails. Based on that, he totally denied Lamarck's "inheritance
of acquired characteristics" and advocated, instead, evolution based only on natural
selection alone. His position came to be known as "Neo-Darwinism."
5. Mendel's Discovery of the Laws of Heredity
His experimentation with peas eventually gave rise to genetics.

14. Darwin established the idea of the evolution of living beings; but, with regard to such
issues as how the characteristic features of living beings are transmitted from parents
to descendants and how a change in a living being occurs, he did not have very clear
ideas. However, while Darwin was writing On The Origin of Species, a monk named
Gregor Johann Mendel (1822-1884) was experimenting with plant crossings in his
monastery in Austria, in search of the laws of heredity.
Mendel's experiment consisted in crossing various kinds of peas. After gathering
results for eight years, he established three basic laws of heredity, namely, the "law of
dominance," the "law of segregation," and the "law of independence" (see Fig. 5).
i) The Law of Dominance
Mendel first crossed wrinkled peas with round peas. The peas grew, and when he
opened the shells of the crossed peas, he found only round peas, neatly lined up side
by side; there were no wrinkled peas. Thus, in the first generation of crossing, one of
the characters became dominant (the round peas), and the other becamerecessive (the
wrinkled peas) -and only the dominant character appeared. In this way, he discovered
that, among opposing characters, only the dominant one will appear in the first
generation of crossing. This is the law of dominance.
ii) The Law of Segregation
Next, through self-pollination of the first generation of the crosses, the second
generation of the crosses was made. When the shells were opened, both round and
wrinkled peas were found. When they were counted, the ratio was three round ones to
one wrinkled.

16. Fig. 5: Mendel's Laws of Heredity
If we express the dominant character as A and the recessive character as a, then the
only combination made in the first generation of the cross is Aa; but in the second
generation (the result of combining Aa with Aa), there are three combinations, namely,
AA, Aa, and aa, in the ratio of 1: 2: 1. But since A is dominant in Aa, the ratio
between A and a turns out to be 3 to 1. This is the law of segregation.
iii) The Law of Independence
In crossing, when two or more pairs of opposing characters are involved (for example,
round or wrinkled shape, and green or yellow color in peas), each pair of the opposing
characters behaves and is transmitted independently. That is the law of independence.
Mendel quickly comprehended the meaning of those results. He considered that the
factor responsible for the manifestation of a character is inherent in the body of a
living being; he called it an "element." Mendel's discovery of the laws of heredity
gave rise to the science of genetics, and Darwin's theory of evolution came to be
explained in combination with genetics.
6. De Vries' Mutation Theory: New species have appeared suddenly.
The Dutch botanist Hugo De Vries (1843-1935) asked the following question: If
natural selection is concerned only with small individual variations, then why is there
such big differences between one species and another ?
One day, while observing evening primroses in the suburbs of Amsterdam, De Vries
noticed a few oddly shaped hybrids mixed among them. He brought them to his
university, grew them, and for eight years he observed them. He found that some of
them came to blossom normal flowers, while others never lost the characters of
hybrids, even after many generations. Thus, De Vries considered that a new variation
appears all at once without passing through intermediate stages and attains stability
right away; it is hereditary. He named it "mutation" (mutation theory, 1901).
De Vries considered the evolution of living beings as follows: A new species is
formed, not gradually under the effect of natural selection, but suddenly through
hereditary change.
With regard to new plant hybrids, De Vries noticed that not everything in their shape
was changed, as many biologists had expected. Not all was changed, but only one or a
few points. Thus he considered that "the characters of living beings consist of clearly
distinguishable, independent units." In 1900, De Vries became acquainted with

17. Mendel's work and learned that not he but Mendel had discovered the secrets of
heredity.
About the same time, Wilhelm Johannsen (1857-1927), a Danish botanist, advocated
the theory of "pure line" (1903), clarifying that individual variations (i.e., continual,
small variations among the individuals of the same species), which Darwin considered
to be the cause of evolution, are "fluctuations" (i.e., normal, nonheredity variations
that arises through the influence of the environment and habit), and are not hereditary.
That raised a difficult problem for Darwin's theory of natural selection, which De
Vries' mutation theory later solved.
De Vries mutation theory gained the support of many biologists. Later, however,
disagreements began to occur between those who supported De Vries' position
(mutation theory) and those who supported Darwin's position (evolution through
natural selection working on minute, consecutive variations).
7. The Discovery of DNA: The Remarkable molecule of heredity
The element that Mendel and De Vries considered to be inherent within the body of a
living being and responsible for the manifestation of its characters was named "gene"
by Johannsen.
The American Zoologist Thomas Morgan (1866-1945) conducted research on fruit
flies on the basis of Mendel's laws of heredity and De Vries' theory of mutation.
Morgan established the "gene theory" (1926), or the view that the characters of an
individual are transmitted through arrangements of genes within a cell's chromosomes.
In 1953, the American molecular biologist James Watson (1928- ) and the English
physicist Francis Crick (1916- ) clarified that the gene is a molecule of a double helix
structure, called DNA. DNA consists of two twisted threads, each made of sugar and
phosphoric acid alternately combined, which are mutually bridged by pairs of bases at
their parts of sugar. The bases are classified into four kinds: adenine (A), thymine (T),
guanine (G) and cytosine (C). Yet, always paired are adenine and thymine, and
guanine and cytosine (see Fig. 6).
DNA is indeed the genetic matter directly responsible for heredity in living beings.
After the discovery of DNA, issues concerning evolution came to be discussed in
relation to DNA.

19. Fig. 6: The Double Helix of DNA
8. The Emergence of the Synthetic Theory
Darwin + De Vries = Synthetic Theory
As a result of research on the mutation of fruit flies conducted by Morgan and his
group, it became clear that mutation through genetic change does not necessarily
bring about a great leap, or a radical change (see Fig. 7). Therefore, mutation theory
and Darwin's theory of natural selection came be seen as not mutually incompatible.
The English statistician Ronald A. Fisher (1890-1962), the British geneticist John B. S.
Haldane (1892-1964), and the American geneticist Seawell Wright (1889-1988)
analyzed genetic problems by using mathematical models. As a result, they claimed to
have found that mutation is not the primary cause of evolution and that the direction
and speed of evolution is determined almost completely by natural selection.
Accordingly, a new way of explaining evolution appeared, which combined Darwin's
theory of natural selection with De Vries' theory of mutation. The new theory was
called "synthetic theory," which is also called "Neo-Darwinism," as was the position
of Weismann. But today, the term "New-Darwinism" is used almost exclusively to
refer to synthetic theory; "NeoDarwinism" and "synthetic theory" have become
virtually synonymous.
Representatives of synthetic theory are the British biologist Julian Huxley (1887-
1975), the Russian-born American geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975),
the German-born American animal taxonomist Ernst Mayr, and the American
paleontologist George Simpson (1902- ). According to Huxley, who is regarded as the
godfather of synthetic theory, evolution can be summarized as follows (Huxley 1963,
44)
i) Mutation provides the raw material for evolution.
ii) Natural selection determines the direction of evolution.

21. Fig. 7: An Experiment with Mutation in Fruit Flies
Huxley asserted that mutation proceeds in all directions, accidentally and at random,
and merely provides the raw material for evolution. Most mutations are harmful to
living beings, but a very small number of living beings with an advantageous mutation
survive in the struggle for existence, that is, they are selected by nature. As a result,
mutations favorable to living beings develop gradually.
Today it is an established theory that the cause of mutation is disorder in the
arrangement of the bases of DNA. The French molecular biologist Jacque Monod
(1910-1976) suggested the following as the causes of mutation (Monod 1971, 112)
i) The substitution of a single pair of nucleotides for another pair; of nucleotides for
another pair (A nucleotide is a unit that composes DNA and consists of base, sugar
and phosphoric acid (see fig. 6); a pair of nucleotides is a rung in the ladder of a
double helix structure.)
ii) The deletion or addition of one or several pairs of nucleotides; and
iii) Various kinds of "scrambling" of the genetic text by inversion, duplication,
displacement, or fusion of more or less extended segments.
The path of evolution theory culminating with the establishment of synthetic theory of
the contemporary period can be summarized as in Fig. 8.

23. Fig. 8: Summary of the Contemporary Theory of Evolution
II. The Contemporary Theory of Evolution (NeoDarwinism) Is Wrong
As soon as Darwin published On The Origin of Species, he suffered a fierce attack
from the Christian world. Yet, Darwinism gradually prevailed as a scientific theory,
coming to be accepted by the general public. As time went on, Darwinism seemed to
have established an unassailable position, especially with the development of
synthetic theory in the 1940's. In 1980's, however, there arose an atmosphere of
reexamination of Darwinism. Thus, let us deal with some of the representative points
singled out as problems in Darwinism.
1. The Nonexistence of the Fossils of Intermediates: The archaeopteryx
has turned out not to be an intermediate.
A big mutation is known to be harmful and often fatal to living beings. Therefore, it is
considered that small mutations occurred consecutively, and that living beings
gradually evolved by natural selection. Accordingly, consecutive fossils of living
beings should be discovered that would show the footsteps of evolution from one
species to another. However, in reality hardly any fossils of intermediates have been
found. The lack of fossils to serve as evidence for the existence of such intermediate
living beings is expressed by the expression "missing link."
In the theory of evolution, it is believed that in the process whereby invertebrates
evolved into vertebrates, the former passed through primitive stages of vertebrates,
but no evidence for such a view is recorded in fossils.
There is a gap of about one hundred million years between the early Cambrian era,
from which numerous fossils of sponges, coelenterates (coral), echinoderms (brittle
stars), mollusks (snails), and arthropods (trilobites) are found, and the later Ordovician
period, from which the fossils of the first animal that really possessed the features of a
fish as a vertebrate appeared. No fossils of an intermediate type have been found
(Ommaney 1964, 60) (see Fig. 9). No matter how skillfully one might devise
hypotheses, it remains extremely difficult to account for this big gap through the
theory of evolution.

25. Fig. 9: An Example of Missing Links
As for the archaeopteryx, which has been mentioned as an example of fossils of
intermediates just on the verge of changing from reptiles to birds, recently it is
considered that the archaeopteryx possibly is not an intermediate but simply a kind of
unusual bird existing in those days (Hitching 1982, 21-23).
It was reported in 1986 (Takei 1987, 16) that the fossil of a bird was found in Texas
that is considered to have lived 150 million years ago-or 75 million years prior to the
archaeopteryx. Thus, it is now becoming impossible to assert decisively that the
archaeopteryx was an intermediate species changing from reptile to bird.
The nonexistence of fossils of intermediates is the fundamental problem of the theory
of evolution.
2. A Difficulty in Explaining the Spontaneous Generation of Life:
How was the elaborate chemical factory within the cell generated?
Evolutionists explain the process of the generation of life as follows:
The primitive atmosphere covering the primitive earth consisted of methane (CH,),
ammonia (NH,), steam (HZO), hydrogen (HZ), nitrogen (NZ), and so on. When
ultraviolet rays from the sun, natural electric discharge (lightning), and other
phenomena worked on the primitive atmosphere, amino acids, sugar, nucleic acid
bases, organic acids, and so on, were generated. These materials dissolved in
rainwater, and rainwater containing them fell on the primitive sea, and those materials
were accumulated to form a "soup of organic materials." In this soup, amino acids
combined to form protein; nucleic acids combined with sugar and phosphoric acids to
form nucleotides; and nucleotides combined to nucleic acids-ribonucleic acid (RNA)
and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Eventually a primitive cell membrane was
generated, and a primitive cell, consisting of nucleic acids, protein, and membrane,
was formed. Then evolution took place from the prokaryotic cell to the eukaryotic
cell; and finally, when the cell performed cell division, it evolved into a multicellular
being.
Through experiments conducted by S. L. Miller (1930- ) in 1953, it has been
confirmed that amino acid can be generated through a discharge of electricity into a
gas mixture of steam, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane; furthermore, we now know
that other chemical compounds also can be synthesized the same way. Nevertheless,
the process leading up to that stage is relatively simple, resulting in the formation of
organic matter, which is the material of living beings. However, the formation of

26. organic matter is not directly connected with the generation of life. In order for
organic matter to be connected with the generation of life, nucleic acids (RNA and
DNA) and protein (enzymes) need to be formed-and it is precisely the process leading
up to that stage that is the problem (see Fig. 10).
There is an incredible leap in saying that nucleic acids and protein can be formed from
the soup of organic matter. As is widely pointed out, can any particular protein and
nucleic acids be accidentally generated ? No; they absolutely cannot. Concerning the
probability of protein being obtained accidentally, D. T. Gish explains the following
The amino acid sequence of a protein containing only 12 different kinds of amino
acids, with a molecular weight of 34,000 (roughly about 340 amino acids, a relatively
simple protein) could be arranged in 103'" different ways! In other words, there could
have arisen on the primitive earth 103°° different protein molecules of molecular
weight 34,000 composed of the same 12 amino acids. If we had only one each of these
molecules, the total weight would be about lOzfl" grams, but the total weight of the
earth is only lOz' grams! If the whole universe was solid with protein of this kind, one
would be unable to find even one each of these molecules ! (Gish 1972, 24)

28. Fig. 10: Mysteries in the Process of the Spontaneous Generation of Life
In addition, there is the following problem. Nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) and
protein can be synthesized in the cell ; however, this is an extremely complex process.
Furthermore, within a cell, there is such a relationship that, while protein can be
formed under the direction of nucleic acids, it so happens that nucleic acids cannot be
formed unless protein (enzymes) exists. Yet, in the primitive ocean, protein had to be
formed without nucleic acids, and nucleic acids had to be formed without protein.
Evolutionists assert that these things occurred by accident, but actually, it is totally
impossible for that to happen (Hitching 1982, 47-49).
Boris Mikhaylovich Myednykov (1932- ), a Soviet biologist and evolutionist,
definitely states that "within the cell, nucleic acids and protein are . . . synthesized
through an extremely complex process. The probability of such products coming into
being by chance is practically zero" (Myednykov 1982, 41). Nevertheless, in order to
hold fast to his evolutionist position, he said, "Possibly life may have originated in
this way by stages, with each stage enhancing the probability of the next stage. I
would basically accept this position, because, after all, there is no other solution"
(Myednykov 1982, 42). He reasoned that, no matter how impossible that may have
been in terms of probability, once the process for forming a nucleic acid and protein
had been attained, the probability of the next process would become higher. Thus, he
concluded that probability may have been gradually enhanced. However, that was just
a desperate attempt to escape from the plight in which he found himself.
Next, in order for a cell (or a living being), which contains protein and nucleic acids,
to be made, there has to be an even greater leap. Inside the cell there is an elaborate
chemical factory the likes of which can hardly be found in human society. How such a
factory was made is a complete mystery. Consider, for example, the following
problems
i) How did the system of synthesizing protein originate? (This systems consists of
DNA, RNA, ribosome, and so on.)
ii) How did the mechanism of photosynthesis, which is the source of energy for living
beings, and the mechanism of oxygen respiration originate?
iii) How did about 2,000 kinds of main enzymes, which are necessary for a living
being, originate?
iv) How did the mechanism of cell division originate? v) How did sexual reproduction
originate?
None of these can be considered to have been generated spontaneously. As to the
question of how sexual reproduction originated in living beings, no valid explanation
has been given in the theory of evolution. Seen merely from the viewpoint of

29. multiplication, sexual reproduction is actually much less advantageous and efficient
than asexual reproduction. The only advantage of sexual reproduction is that it
enables better adaptation to a changing environment because, since the genes of
different sexes are mixed, a wider variety can be produced than if reproduction were
asexual. In summary, "among the most intriguing and difficult problems in
evolutionary theory are those of the origin and maintenance of recombination and
sexual reproduction" (Futuyma 1986, 279).
3. The Character of Mutation
Even though mutation took place, fruit flies remained fruit flies.
Mutation, which is regarded as the cause of evolution, does not bring about a new
shape or a new function all at once but it is only a minute, random, directionless
change. But in order for a living being to evolve, "a directional mutation, rather than a
random, directionless mutation, must occur accumulatively and in a rather short
period of time, considering the nature of the history of evolution," as Kinji Imanishi, a
Japanese anthropologist, states (Imanishi 1976, 24). The reason is that an intermediate,
incomplete, inefficient state prior to a new structure or function must quickly be
traversed. It is utterly unthinkable that the forms and functions of living beings would
undergo changes through "a slow, easygoing process in which mutation starts with a
certain individual within a species, is transmitted hereditarily to the next generation
through sexual reproductive action, and gradually spreads within the species through
differential reproduction," as evolutionists assert (Imanishi 1976, 25).
The next point is that mutation is generally harmful and destructive to living beings.
Dobzhansky said, "Mutation is a destructive, not a creative, force. Some mutations
occur naturally, and those are probably the result of cosmic radiation" (Dobzhansky
1960, 39). Mayr also said, "It can hardly be questioned that most visible mutations are
deleterious" (Mayr 1963, 174).
How could one explain the formation of a new species through mutation, which has
such features as mentioned above ? 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 loss of wings, different color of eyes, and so on-which are nothing but
changes in shape, or deformities, within the confines of the species. Even though x-
rays or gamma rays have been applied to fruit flies for several decades, even until
today, in the end those fruit flies have remained fruit flies. Up to the present time,
there has not been a single case of a change of species confirmed through
experimentation or observation.

30. The alleged new species of primrose that De Vries thought he had "discovered" were
not new species at all but rather mere variations of the same species.
What Darwin observed in the Galapagos Islands was only the changes in the bills and
wings of the birds. From that observation, he drew the conclusion "these species are
changing," and finally came to the conclusion that humankind evolved from the ape.
This is nothing but extrapolation and magnification of his observations. It is similar to
what Karl Marx did: He observed the conflict between capitalists and laborers in
capitalist society, extrapolated his observation to the whole of human history, and
concluded that "human history is the history of class struggle."
4. Can Natural Selection Create a New Species?
Did the front legs of a mouse evolve into the wings of a bat?
The theory of natural selection explains that, out of a wide range of variations of
living beings, the advantageous ones, that is, those better adapted to exist, will be
selected, and the less advantageous ones will perish. It has now been made clear that
the variation with which evolution is connected must be "mutation." Yet, as has been
seen, mutation is random, directionless, and mostly harmful and destructive. How can
a complex and high-level new species be formed through natural selection based on
mutation, which has the features described above?
Concerning the character of natural selection, Darwin said the following: "Natural
selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small
inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved beings" (Darwin 1968, 142).
A big change occurs through this accumulation of very small changes, he asserts. And
he stated, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could
not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my
theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin 1968, 219).
Yet, when we consider that living beings evolved by gradual stages, there are too
many leaps that cannot be explained by natural selection. For example, the leap from
the asexually reproductive living beings to the sexually reproductive living beings ;
the leap through which the eye and the ear came to be formed ; and the leap through
which the nest-making instinct emerged in bees and spiders.
Darwin was acutely aware of the difficulty derived from such problems: "To suppose
that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different
distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical
and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely
confess, absurd in the highest possible degree" (Darwin 1968, 21'x. Nevertheless,

31. holding fast to the theory of natural selection, he said that, if the stages up to the
perfect eye existed-each of the stages being profitable to the living being-then a
perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection.
This question remained, however, unresolved even after Darwin. Dobzhansky admits
this point as well.
Perhaps the most troublesome problem in the theory of evolution today is how the
haphazard process of chance mutations and natural selection could have produced
some of the wonderfully complicated adaptations in nature. Consider for instance, the
structure of the human eye-a most intricate system composed of a great number of
exquisitely adjusted and coordinated parts. Could such a system have arisen merely by
the gradual accumulation of hundreds or thousands of lucky, independent mutations ?
(Dobzhansky 1963, 40)
Darwin claimed that the theory of natural selection should be regarded as valid
provided the intermediate stages proceeding toward a new complex organ were useful
for the living being itself. However, as widely pointed out, the processes through
which a new organ was to be formed, namely, the incomplete stage in which the new
organ is partly formed, is no more than a disadvantageous stage for that living being's
life. For example, a bat is considered to have evolved from a mouse-like animal. But
when the front legs of the mouse-like animal were changing into wings, that animal
was in an intermediate state in which legs could not be distinguished from wings-and
in that state that animal must have been unable either to fly or to run. Therefore, such
a state would have been unfit for the animal's existence (see Fig. 11). In that
intermediate stage, the animal would not have been selected by nature to survive but
would simply have been weeded out. This is a fundamental difficulty in the theory of
natural selection.

32. Fig. 11: The Imagined Evolutionary Path of the Bat
To deal with this problem, Stephen J. Gould, a representative American evolutionist,
suggested the concept of "preadaptation." He said that, in the stage where a structure
of a living being, useful for its existence, was still imperfect, that structure performed
a different function. For example, fishes did not have jaws in the beginning; but the
bones that had another purposethe bones that supported a gill arch located just behind
the mouth-happened to be fit to become jaws. Therefore, those bones became jaws.
Gould explains it: "The bones were admirably preadapted to become jaws" (Gould
1977, 108). Therefore, even in the stage where jaws were being formed, fishes did not

33. have any trouble in their use, he says. We cannot but question the validity of such a
view. As could himself admits, his concept of preadaptation cannot explain the
formation of all the different complex organs.
I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it
permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may
only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no. (Gould 1980, 189)
Nobody has succeeded in reasonably explaining, by the theory of natural selection, the
gradual stages up to the formation of exquisitely perfected and sophisticated organs.
Now, let us touch on the "theory of neutral mutation," advocated in 1968 by Sukeo
Kimura, a Japanese geneticist. According to this theory, when the variations of a
living being are seen on a molecular level, the majority of mutations are neither
profitable nor unprofitable but neutral to living beings. In other words, mutations can
be neither selected nor rejected by natural section-but are accumulated accidentally in
the species through "random genetic drift." Such a neutral mutation becomes activated
at some time to appear suddenly as a useful character.
The theory of neutral mutation is attracting world attention today, obtaining world
acceptance, and has come to threaten the authority of Neo-Darwinism, which regards
natural selection as almighty.
5. The Rise of Neo-Lamarckism
The Theory of Differentiation in Inhabitation denies the struggle for existence.
Darwin's theory of natural selection has something in common with Marx's
materialism in its assertion that living beings are produced by the natural environment
(which is material). Lamarckism, once denied by Darwinism (which advocates the
theory of natural selection) is again being reconsidered.
The Japanese pathologist Isamu Usubuchi conducted an experiment in order to clarify
the well-known fact that, in the chemical treatment of cancer, the cancerous cells
become tolerant to the medicine used, and it becomes difficult to continue to use the
same medicine for a long time. As a result, he said that it became proved that, "when
cancerous cells come into contact with a medicine, a change in character occurs in
adaptation to the medicine, and furthermore, it becomes hereditary" (Usubuchi 1985,
83). Based on the results of his experiment and on the results of an experiment by
Kozo Okamoto (who artificially induced diabetes in a rabbit and a rat), Usubuchi
concluded that the "inheritance of acquired characteristics" had been proved.

34. The points asserted by Usubuchi are the following
i) Living beings autonomously undergo change in their habits so as to adapt in such a
way that they become adapted to change in the environment;
ii) A change in character occurs in correspondence with the change in habit;
iii) The change in character becomes hereditary.
Isinji Imanishi, who has been criticizing Neo-Darwinism for the past forty years,
advocates "evolutionism of subjectivity," saying that living beings have a purpose and
subjectivity. According to Imanishi, a species does not change in such a way that the
better adapted will be selected and will remain; rather, the species will change as it is
destined to do, in a relatively short period of time and as a whole, when it encounters
a certain crisis. "A species changes into a new species by constantly remaking itself in
order to adapt itself to the environment" (Imanishi 1976, 25), and living beings evolve
through "directional mutation."
Imanishi has also discovered that the larvae of four kinds of mayflies differentially
choose their inhabitation spots according to the difference in speed in river currents;
based on that view, he advocated the "theory of differentiation in inhabitation." This
theory asserts that the species that are close to one another differentiate their living
fields and live in coexistence-which is different from the view that individuals engage
in the struggle for existence and only those that are fit for existence survive, as
Darwin had stated (see Fig. 12). Imanishi's theory of evolution, which attaches
importance to the subjectivity of living beings, can be regarded as belonging to the
school of Lamarckism.
Molecular biology now considers that individual species have a pool of potentialities
within themselves, received hereditarily from the beginning, which enables them to
change in various ways: As living beings experience various kinds of needs, their
pooled characters (or potentials) come to appear. This can be understood to mean that
living beings are endowed in advance with the ability to adapt themselves to various
environments.
6. The Mystery of the Genetic Code
Genes can make a frog out of a frog's egg.
It is the function of the genes (DNA) that makes the eggs of a frog grow into frogs,
and the eggs of a chicken, into chickens. The function of the gene is controlled by the
information inscribed in the genes, namely, the genetic code. And it has been made
clear that the genetic code is nothing but a pattern of arrangement in the DNA bases.

36. Fig. 12: Differentiation in Inhabitation of Mayfly Larvae
But nobody knows what gave origin to the genetic code, which has such an amazing
content. The French molecular biologist Jacque Monod said, "But the major problem
is the origin of the genetic code and of its translation mechanism. Indeed, instead of a
problem, it ought rather to be called a riddle" (Monod 1971, 143). F. Hitching also
said, "Biologists, it seems fair to conclude, are unanimously ignorant about the origin
of the genetic code" (Hitching 1982, 55). Moreover, he also said that they are "amid
doubts as to how it [the genetic code] was elaborated" (Hitching 1982, 61).
However, evolutionists claim that DNA, which possesses the genetic code, was
generated spontaneously (by chance) and has been improved.
7. Gradualism under Question: New Species Emerge Suddenly.
Darwin's theory of evolution rests on gradualism, according to which an accumulation
of minute variations leads to the formation of a new species. This means that living
beings evolve smoothly and slowly.
But this gradualness of evolution is being questioned. In 1972, the American
paleontologist Niles Eldredge and S. J. Could divulged 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 a
sudden change in such a way as to break the equilibrium. They reached that
conclusion because they found the history of fossilized living beings to be quite
incompatible with gradualism. Could suggests the following two features of fossilized
living beings, which in effect deny gradualism:
i) Stasis: Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They
appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear ;
morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
ii) Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the
steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed" (Gould
1980, 182).
What the theory of punctuated equilibrium explains is this:
Evolution occurs chiefly in a small group in an isolated, peripheral area because of
topographical or climatic obstacles. Yet, the evolution of living beings in the
peripheral area proceeds speedily ; therefore, seldom are living beings of an
intermediate stage found in the form of fossils; generally speaking, only a group of
individuals in the central area that is hard to evolve remains in the record of fossils.

37. Therefore, the record of fossils tends to be static. And after a certain period of time
has passed (in which evolution occurs), the descendants that have evolved move from
the peripheral area to the central area and multiply. As a result, the fossils of a new
species appear, all of a sudden.
The theory that, in order for a new species to be formed, a group with a new character
has to be isolated was advocated by Moritz Friedrich Wagner (1813-1887). Mayr
developed this theory and devised the mechanism of the species differentiation in an
isolated group of the peripheral area. A group of individuals in the central area is
stable and has great power to homogenize. Therefore, even if a new useful mutation
may occur, that influence will be weakened-that is, the new character becomes
weakened by crossing or hybridization. However, in a small, geographically isolated
group at the peripheral area, natural selection works effectively, and thus there is a
greater opportunity for the new character to be preserved. Therefore, the small group
in the peripheral area tends to become different from the group in the central area.
A comparison between Darwinism and the theory of punctuated equilibrium is shown
in Fig. 13.
As mentioned above, so many problems have been pointed out with regard to Neo-
Darwinism. In spite of that, Darwinism is still alive. F. Hitching explains in his
book The Neck of the Giraffe that Darwinism is now at an impasse; nevertheless, he
warns that "those who see in this turmoil the death throes of Darwinism may be
underestimating the monster's capacity for survival" (Hitching 1982, 225).
The reason why Darwinism survives is that people cannot accept the theory of
creation in place of Darwinism. For example, Sir Arthur Keith said, "Evolution is
unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special
creation, and that is unthinkable" (Criswell 1980, 75). Prof. D.M.S. Watson, of the
University of London, also said, "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not
because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence
to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible"
(Criswell 1980, 75).
According to fundamentalist Christian doctrine, creation took place in the period of
six days, six thousand years ago; and it happened instantaneously. And Adam and Eve
were created from the dust of the ground, instantaneously, as adults without a navel
(Whitcomb 1972, 21-38).
Such a theory of creation is hard to be accepted by the common people today, when
science has been so highly developed. And this difficulty comes from their attitude of
interpreting the Bible literally. The Bible is not a direct and complete expression of

38. the truth, but rather a textbook that teaches the truth. That is why the Bible was
expressed in such terms that could be understood by the people of that time.

40. Fig. 13: A Comparison between Darwinism and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium
Accordingly, today it is necessary to interpret the Bible in such terms as to be
understood by contemporary people, with their high-level scientific knowledge. From
such a viewpoint, in the next chapter we will introduce a new theory of creation,
based on Unification Thought, which is the thought advocated by the Reverend Sun
Myung Moon.
III. A New Theory of Creation Based on Unification Thought
1. The Purpose of Creation and Dual Purposes: Living beings are fit for
existence, but at the same time they exist for human beings.
Darwin advocated the theory of natural selection; but do living beings indeed exist
solely on the basis of fitness for existence? If so, do we now have, as a result of that,
the kind of natural world in which only weeds and insects with a strong power of
survival and multiplication abound? No ;that is not at all the case. In reality, beautiful
flowers bloom, sweet fruits ripen, and birds are singing sweetly. How can these facts
be explained?
God created human beings and all things in order to love them and be pleased. Seen
from the side of the creatures, the purpose of human beings is to please God, and the
purpose of the existence of "all things" is to please the human being. The purpose of
"all things" will be fulfilled by accomplishing the purpose for the individual and the
purpose for the whole.
The purpose for the individual refers to seeking one's own existence, multiplication,
and maintenance; and the purpose for the whole refers to existing for the beings that
are higher than oneself. In other words, the "purpose for the whole" of all things is to
exist for the higher living beings, especially the human being. For this reason, all
living beings exist as beings with dual purposes, which are the purpose for the
individual and the purpose for the whole (see Fig. 14).
Consider the marvelous tail feathers of a peacock. According to evolutionists, the
purpose of the peacock's tail feathers is to enable it to engage in the courtship of the
peahen. However, from the viewpoint of Unification Thought, the peacock's tail
feathers do not exist only for courtship behavior: Courtship behavior is the peacock's
purpose for the individual, but more essentially, the beautiful tail feathers exist in
order to please human beings (the peacock's purpose for the whole). Apples and
oranges have a fleshy, succulent part; watermelons contain sweet juice, especially in
hot, mid-summer days ;coconuts in the tropical zone store nutritious water within. For
what purpose do they exist? Evolutionists would say that these fruits are fit for being

41. eaten by animals and people for pleasure, so that their seeds may be sown around the
ground and they may multiply. Of course, that is true in one respect ;but if they were
intended for the plants' multiplication alone, then, why not have only seeds without
flesh, which can be easily blown away and spread around by the wind? Essentially,
these fruits exist for the sake of human beings.
Colorful flowers, lovely bird songs, beautiful patterns on a butterfly's wings, and other
lovely things in nature surely have an aspect profitable for their own existence and
multiplication; more fundamentally, however, they are intended to please human
beings.

42. Fig. 14: The Dual Purposes of Created Beings

43. Neo-Darwinism discusses living beings by looking at them from the viewpoint of the
purpose for the individual. Neo-Lamarckism focuses on how a species adapts itself to
the environment; there, too, the viewpoint is still the purpose for the individual.
Unification Thought does not deny the survival of the fittest, which is advocated by
evolutionists. However, that is only one aspect of the existence of living beings. When
we understand that living beings not only are fit for existence but essentially exist for
the sake of human beings, only then can we have a correct view of nature.
2. Creation through Logos: The genetic code of DNA represents the
Logos of God.
Each of the living beings is created according to a certain design; yet, evolutionists
claim that it was natural selection that created that design. According to Darwin, "it
may be said that 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" (Darwin 1968, 133). Dobzhansky compared natural selection to a
composer; Simpson, to a poet; Mayr, to a sculptor; and Huxley, to Shakespeare. For
Gould, natural selection has taken the place of the Creator: "The essence of
Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit" (Gould 1977, 44)
In 1802, Archdeacon Paley [the English theologian and philosopher, William Paley]
set out to glorify God by illustrating the exquisite adaptation of organisms to their
own appointed roles .... Modern evolutionists cite the same plays and players ;only the
rules have changed. We are now told, with equal wonder and admiration, that natural
selection is the agent of exquisite design. (Gould 1977, 103)
The essence of Darwinism is this: It has denied God, the Creator, and has replaced
Him with natural selection. This reminds one of Marxism, which also denies God,
claiming that the human being is determined by material relations of production. The
conclusion of both of these systems is that it was the material environment, rather than
God, that created human beings.
In contrast to the evolutionists' claim, Unification Thought asserts that God designed
living beings. God's design refers to Logos. God made Logos dwell within the cell, so
that the cell might grow according to Logos. The Logos that dwells within the cell is
nothing but the genetic code of DNA (see Fig. 15).
Then, which of the two is a more reasonable and natural way of thinking: (1) the
interpretation that natural selection designed living beings, or (2) the interpretation

44. that behind nature there is an artist-like being, or a scientist-like being (namely, God),
who designed them?
Natural selection, originally, was the action of judging which one, out of many
variations, was fit for existence. Therefore, natural selection can select an improved
design; but that is quite different from claiming that natural selection can create or
improve or designs. Nevertheless, evolutionists have given natural selection, which is
only the action of selecting, even the role of creating or improving designs.
The beautiful feathers of a peacock would be explained by the evolutionists as
follows: "The selection of charming peacocks by peahens made peacocks the most
wonderful birds at present." However, peahens are not artists ;not is it possible for
peahens to continue to select peacocks until beautiful feathers are formed.

45. Fig. 15: God's Logos dwells in DNA
All that the peahens can do is be attracted to the beautiful feathers of the peacocks.
Thus, there is a logical leap or switch in the theory of natural selection. Therefore, it is
much more natural to consider that it was God who created the designs of living
beings. Sakyo Komatsu, a Japanese science-fiction writer who wrote essays on
biology, frankly said that he could not but think of creation by God when he saw the
colorful patterns of butterflies

46. The splendid, intricate, and diversified patterns of colors of Lepidoptera, of tens of
thousands of kinds, displaying innumerable variations of colors and patterns, seem
beyond the human power of imagination and creation. In the end, I am drawn back to
the "greatness of the Creator" and to the "providence of God." Am I the only one to
feel that way? (Komatsu 1982, 79)
3. Creation by Stages: Abrupt changes have occurred through the action
of God's power.
As we have seen, there are serious difficulties in Neo-Darwinism's view that species
are changed by natural selection. On the other hand, Neo-Lamarckism asserts that
species are changed in correspondence with changes in the environment. However,
Neo-Lamarckism seeks to clarify only such things as the acquisition of tolerance or
immunity to medicines, which are low-level changes, hardly of the kind that can lead
to change to a different species.
From the viewpoint of Unification Thought, everything has both identity-
maintaining and developmental aspects. In other words, a living being maintains its
self-identity as a species, and at the same time changes and develops in
correspondence with changes in the environment. In other words, a species can
change, yet it still remains the same species. In the end, both Neo-Darwinism and
Neo-Lamarckism have magnified their interpretation of variations within a species
(which are naturally to be expected) to cover even changes of species, concluding that
the species itself undergoes change.
One has to recognize, however, that, in order for a species to undergo change in shape
and function to such an extent that it becomes an altogether different species, some
creative input must be applies to it. According to Unification Thought, when a new
species is created, God's power works to bring about an abrupt change. In such an
occasion, God causes an abrupt change according to Logos (blueprint). How is that
carried out? In biological terms, this matter relates to the rearrangement of the genetic
code, or to a change in the program of the genetic code.
From molecular biology it is now known that viruses carry genes among cells,
individual bodies, or species. The Japanese geneticist Hideomi Nakahara and the
Japanese theoretical physicist Takashi Sagawa consider that manipulation of the
genetic code by viruses, which can be called artificial selection of the contemporary
period, actually occurred in the natural world, advocating the "virus theory of
evolution." They say that the original function of a virus lies, not in causing illnesses,
but in transporting or mixing genes, transcending the confines of species (Nakahara
and Sagawa 1968, 158-60).

47. The famous British astronomer Fred Hoyle and his research coworker Chandra
Wickramasinghe have developed the unique theory that life has come from space.
They assert that great quantities of fragments of genes fell from space, and that, by
taking in these fragments, living beings have reconstructed their own bodies. At that
point, viruses also served in the role of spreading the reconstructed programs to the
entire group of individuals (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe 1981, 99-116).
Nakahara's and Sagawa's theory, which asserts that viruses manipulate genes, and
Hoyle's and Wickramasinghe's theory, which asserts that fragments of genes have
come down from space and that living beings have taken them in, have some content
that scientifically backs up the Unification Thought theory of creation. The reason is
that one could think that God changed the programs of organisms through such means.
But the "virus theory of evolution" has not been fully verified yet, and the theory that
"life came from space" is nothing but a hypothesis.
Let us cite another example. I hear that the diseases that are controlled by genes, such
as Brocq's disease -- which "is characterized by the malfunction of the sebaceous and
sweat glands, resulting in excessive growth of the epidermis (the outer layer of the
skin) so that a dark, horny covering develops like the scales of a primitive fish"-and
congenital pachyonychia ("an almost hoof-like enlargement of the nails and feet")
were cured by hypnotic treatment. Lyall Watson, introducing these cases, said, "There
has been direct and external influence brought to bear on strictly genetic mechanisms.
Mind stalks, it seems, even the sacred hunting grounds of molecular biology" (Watson
1979, 187-88). This may be another example indicating that God could work on genes.
At any rate, a clarification of how God has rearranged genes and changed programs in
organisms is a problem to be solved in the future-but the day will come when this
question will be clarified through the results of scientific research.
The view of Unification Thought is this: God's power worked, whereby the programs
of the genes were changed, and a new species was created. In this case, the old species
did not necessarily perish. After a new species appeared, still many of the old species
remained as they had been before. (Only the organisms required in the process of
creating the new species perished as the new species appeared; this will be further
explained below.)
Unification Thought holds also that creation took place, not in a continuous way, but
by stages. Creation took place in the following way: God's power worked, whereby a
certain species was created ;after that, a certain period of time passed-which could be
called a growth period, or a preparation period-and again God's power worked,
whereby a new species was created. We call this process "creation by stages" (see Fig.
16).

48. The theory of "creation by stages" advocated by Unification Thought may
superficially look like Gould's "theory of punctuated equilibrium." But the theory of
punctuated equilibrium claims that species evolve by mutation and natural selection in
a small, isolated group ;therefore, Gould's theory is essentially the same as Darwinism
and fundamentally different from Unification Thought's theory of creation.
Fig. 16: Creation by Stages according to Unification Thought

49. 4. Creation in Likeness: All living beings were created taking the human
being as a model.
a. On the Evidence for Evolution in Morphology and Embryology
Authors of biology textbooks, when presenting what they regard as evidence for
evolution, often include homologous organs, analogous organs, and vestigial organs in
morphology as well as the theory of recapitulation in embryology. The organs of
different organisms exhibiting likeness in structure due to evolutionary differentiation
from the same or a 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, and a
whale's fins are homologous organs. The anatomical parts (organs) of different
structure and origin showing correspondence in function are called analogous organs.
(They came to have the same external shape and function as a result of their
adaptation to the environment.) The wings (frontal legs) of the bird and the wings of
the insect are examples of analogous organs. The organs of living beings that are
considered to have functioned in their ancestral period but later to have lost their
original functions in the evolutionary process are called vestigial (or rudimentary)
organs.
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,
evolutionists claim 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 E. Haeckel (1834-1919), according to which "ontogeny
recapitulates phylogeny."
Concerning this alleged evidence for evolution, many questions and refutations have
been raised. Concerning homologous organs, Hitching raises the following question:
This latter [the tetrapod limb in vertebrates] is a classic textbook example of nature
persuading one structure to do several jobs. Why should the legs of a horse, the wing
of a bird, the arm of a man, and the flipper of a whale all be built the same way when
serving quite different purposes? If the fittest adaptation were chosen by a gradual
accumulation of mutations, you would have expected an organ used for flying and a
organ used for running to have finished up-or even begun-looking totally dissimilar.
(Hitching 1982, 149 -50)

50. Concerning analogous organs, the origin of their resemblance is still unknown. About
this point, Komatsu says,
In the world of organisms, likeness often can be found in form and behavior among
very remote species ... The inquiry into the cause of the likeness seen among remote
species seems to be left far behind, partly because it is an extremely ambiguous matter,
in a sense. (Komatsu 1982, 61-62)
Concerning homologous and analogous organs, B. C. Nelson said, from the Christian
creationist position, that the likeness of these organs can serve as evidence for creation
as much as it can serve as evidence for evolution.
Similarity in itself proves evolution no more than it proves creation. To the believer in
the Bible the similarity of structure in living organisms merely establishes the fact that
there was one Great Architect, or Creator, who, when He was about to build many of
His species, had in mind one plan or pattern, and this He used for as many creatures as
possible with such modifications of the general plan as were necessary for different
conditions of existence. (Nelson 1967, 20)
Nelson also said that there are no such things as vestigial organs.
It is certainly not reasonable that the Creator would put into any one of His creatures
parts that are absolutely of no use to it. Certainly He would not put in detrimental
parts ... If a part serves any function whatever, whether it is only in the embryonic
period, in the years of childhood growth, or later, that part is useful and cannot
reasonably be considered a proof of evolution. (Nelson 1967, 42)
Nelson also mentioned that there are certain organs, the reason for whose existence
was formerly unknown. Yet, with the progress of medical science, the functions of
these organs have come to be known, and therefore, he said, they can no longer be
called vestigial organs.
The theory of recapitulation has also been questioned. Often cited as evidence for the
theory of recapitulation are the embryonic gill slits in human embryos, supposedly
showing the fish stage of our ancestry (see Fig. 17). But according to Hitching, these
are pharyngeal pouches rather than gills as such. In fish, they turn into gills; in
mammals, into glands. "They seem, in fact, to be simply an essential and predictable
stage of growth common to living embryos before they diverge on their genetically
preordained pathways," Hitching says (Hitching 1982, 174).

51. In this way, there are various problems in what is claimed to be evidence for evolution
in morphology and embryology. Nevertheless, those claims continue to be included in
all textbooks of biology, as before.
b. The View of Unification Thought: Creation in Likeness
According to Unification Thought, the human being is an image-ike substantial object
of God, and all things are symbolic substantial objects of God. In other words, the
human being has been created to express God's nature and image completely; and all
things have been created to express them symbolically. To put it another way, the
human being has been created in the likeness of God, and the rest of creation has been
created in the likeness of the human being. This is called "creation in likeness."

53. Fig. 17: Early Embryos of Shark, Bird and Human Being
God created human beings as His objects in order to love them and be pleased, and
created all things as objects of human beings, in order to please human beings.
Accordingly, the purpose for which the rest of the creation was created is to serve as
the environment for human life and to be the material for human life, as well as to be
human beings' object of love and care (see Fig. 18).
In the beginning, God conceived in His own image the image of the human being to
be created. The image of the human being means the design of human being. And
taking that image as the model, God conceived each one of all things by abstracting
and transforming the human image.
First, God abstracted and transformed the image of human being making the images
of animals; next, through abstracting and transforming the image of the animal, He
created the images of plants. Through abstracting and transforming the image of
plants, He created the images of minerals. And out of the image of minerals, He
created the images of molecules, atoms, and elementary particles.
Animals and plants are expressions of the image of human being's form and nature.
Therefore, individual animals and plants are simplifications of the human form and
nature, or emphatic expressions of the form and nature of human parts.
The aim is for human beings to feel their special characters objectively and to obtain
joy through those living beings. For example, a lion, which is the king of beasts, was
created to symbolize dignity; and a sheep, to symbolize obedience.
Seen from the viewpoint of creation in likeness, it is clear that homologous and
analogous organs are not an evidence for evolution. Since organisms were created in
the likeness of a human being, it is natural that there should be resemblance among
living beings (see Fig. 19). The likeness in the growth of the embryos of various kinds
of organisms does not prove the footprint of evolution. When we say that living
beings were created in the likeness of a human being, we imply that the process of
growth of each one of them is also modelled after the process of growth of the human
embryo. Therefore, the process of growth of the human embryo is a synthesis of the
processes of growth of all other organisms' embryos (see Fig 20).

55. Fig. 18: Objects of Joy Seen from the Viewpoint of Human Being
As for the gill slits, they are not the remains of the fish stage of the evolution process.
The embryo of a fish simply looks like an early human embryo. And the part that is to
develop into glands in humans, is transformed into gills in the case of a fish.
As for the vestigial organs, the coccyx, for example, is not a degeneration of the
animal tail. Instead, the animal tail was created by prolonging the human spinal
column. The "movable ear conch muscle" in the human ear is not something that has
degenerated, either. The ears of certain kinds of animals were created so as to move
quickly by expanding some part of the ear muscle of the human being.
In this way, the examples cited as evidence for evolution are, instead, what proves
creation in likeness, centered on the human being. The human being looks like an ape,
not because humans evolved from the ape, but instead, because the ape, which was
created in the likeness of human beings, looks like a human being.
According to the Christian theory of creation, all the created beings were created in
the likeness of God; yet, the relationship between humans and all the rest of creation
has remained unclear. Seen from the viewpoint of Unification Thought, the human
being was created in the likeness of God, as God's object of joy; and the rest of
creation was created in the likeness of the human beings, as human beings' object of
joy. Based on this view of Unification Thought, a valid alternative theory to
evolutionism can be presented.

56. Fig. 19: Homologous Organs Showing Creation in Likeness Centered on Human
Being

57. Fig. 20: Ontogeny Indicating Creation in Likeness Centered on Human Being
5. The Two-Stage Structure of Creation: Within the concept of God, the
human being was created first.
As mentioned above, the image of human being was conceived within the mind of
God as His direct object of love. As it is written, "God created man in his image"
(Genesis 1), which means that the human being was conceived within the mind of
God in God's own image, as the most perfect being. 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, God conceived the earth as the dwelling place of humans and other living
beings, as well as the universe that sustains the earth. By abstracting and transforming
the images of animals and plants, God conceived the images of heavenly bodies in His
own mind. He also conceived the images of minerals as the material with which to
build the heavenly bodies. Through further abstraction and transformation, God
conceived the images of a molecule, an atom, and an elementary particle. These were
conceived as the basic material with which to make the heavenly bodies, plants,
animals, and human beings.
In this way, in God's mind, the ideas were formed in the following order: human being
-> animals (higher animals -• lower animals) - plants (higher plants - lower plants) -•
heavenly bodies - minerals -- molecules - atoms - elementary particles. Here "idea"
refers to Logos (design, blueprint, conception).
The creation of the phenomenal world was carried out in exactly the reverse order:
First, elementary particles, atoms, and molecules emerged. Those atoms and
molecules were combined to form heavenly bodies, which consist of minerals. Then,
the earth, a special planet among the heavenly bodies, was formed. On the surface of
the earth, first plants emerged; then, animals; and finally, humans.
This dose not mean, however, that animals were created after all plants had been
created. Rather, both the plant world and the animal world were created almost
simultaneously and in such a way that creation proceeded from lower stage beings to

58. higher stage beings. This is because plants and animals have a relationship of co-
existence and co-prosperity. So, it is safe to say that the plant world was created just
slightly ahead of the animal world.
Thus in creation, first came the formation of ideas (that is, the creation of Logos),
which took place within God's mind ;and then came the creation of the phenomenal
world, which took place according to Logos. This is called the "two-stage structure of
creation" (see Fig. 21).
The process of God's creation, which took place through the two-stage structure of
creation, can be summed up as shown in Figure 22, which is limited to animals and
humans. When we see only the result expressed in the phenomenal world, evolution
appears to have proceeded in the following order: from protozoans to invertebrates;
from invertebrates to fish ;from fish to amphibia; from amphibia to reptiles; from
reptiles to mammals; and from mammals-via anthropoids, ape-men, and early men-to
present-day humans.
However, that was not evolution but rather creation carried out systematically,
according to Logos.

60. Fig. 21: The Two-stage Structure of Creation

62. Fig. 22: The Formation of Logos and the Actual Order of Creation
6. The Creation of Human Beings Based on All Things as Material
The creation of all things was aimed toward the creation of human beings.
According to Christian fundamentalism, God created an adult man without a navel,
literally "from the dust of the ground," instantaneously. Was it really so?
From the viewpoint of Unification Thought, all beings are to be perfected through a
period of growth. Accordingly, they cannot appear in their perfected forms,
instantaneously. Creation took place systematically and developmentally, beginning
with something simple and gradually developing to higher and more complex things,
taking the simple as material for the complex. In addition, creation took place in such
an order that the environment was prepared first, and then living beings were formed
in it. Therefore the human being, who is the ruler of all creation, was created last, after
all the natural environment was made.
First, energy and elementary particles were formed. Elementary particles were
combined to form atoms, and atoms were combined to form molecules. Elementary
particles, atoms, and molecules were the materials for making the universe. And the
earth, a particular planet in the vast universe, was formed.
The air surrounding the earth contains vapor, hydrogen, ammonia, methane, nitrogen,
and so forth: the actions of ultraviolet rays and natural electric discharge (lightning)
formed amino acids, the bases of nucleic acids, organic acids, and so forth. These
were dissolved in the oceans, and formed a "soup of organic substances," as it is
called. That was the very material from which cells were made. The organisms that
appeared first were bacteria and blue-green algae, which are prokaryotic cells, that is,
unicellular organisms without a distinct nucleus. And having those as materials, then
appeared protozoans, or eukaryotic cells, which are unicellular organisms with a
distinct nucleus.
Then, with unicellular organisms as the material, multicellular organisms were formed.
About 600 million years ago, at the beginning of the Cambrian era, suddenly
multicellular organisms (invertebrates) emerged in great numbers in the oceans. (The
Biologists call that phenomenon "the explosion of the Cambrian era," or "the mystery
of the Cambrian era") (see Fig. 23). The marine invertebrates that emerged in the
Cambrian era can be regarded as having served as the material from which eventually
the vertebrates were made. About the explosive phase of the Cambrian era, Gould said
the following:

63. The long phase of the Cambrian filled up the earth's oceans. Since then, evolution has
produced endless variation on a limited set of basic designs. Marine life has been
copious in its variety, ingenious in its adaptation, and (if I may be permitted an
anthropocentric comment) wondrous in its beauty. Yet, in an important sense,
evolution since the Cambrian has only recycled the basic products of its own
explosive phase. (Gould 1977, 133)

64. Fig. 23: Explosion in the Cambrian Era
With the marine invertebrates in the Cambrian era as the material, fishes, amphibia,
reptiles and mammals were created. (Here, the phrase "with the marine invertebrates
as the material," means "with the genes of marine invertebrates as the material.") And
it can be seen that, on the basis of the anthropoid among mammals, the ape-man and
early man were created; and on the basis of the early man, the human being (the
physical aspect of human being) was created.
God created all things by investing all His power over a period of several billion years,
and it was all for the creation of human beings. And with all things as the material, He
created the human being (physical person). Yet, the human being is not merely a
physical being. As it is written in the Bible, "the Lord God . . . breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life" (Genesis 2:7), and man was given a spirit. The spirit was
created with all the elements of the spirit world as the material. The spirit has almost
the same appearance as the angel has, who already existed when man came into being.
In this way, human beings, Adam and Eve, consisting of spirit (spirit person) and
flesh (physical person) were created (see Fig. 24).
Here, let us consider about the Great Forest, the dinosaurs, and the early humans. The
creation of all things was aimed toward the creation of human beings. Therefore,
those things that were prepared as the environment for human life have remained until
today as they were, but those that were required only for the course of creating the
human being and for the course of creating the environment for human life
disappeared when those courses passed. Since ape-men and early men were required
only in the course of creating the human being, we can think that they disappeared
when the human being was created. It can be said that the Great Forest in the
paleozoic era completed its mission by forming the environment for gymnosperms
and angiosperms, and that the dinosaurs in the mesozoic era completed their mission
by forming the environment for mammals.

66. Fig. 24: The Human Being, Consisting of Spirit and Flesh
7. On the Theistic Theory of Evolution: Everything came about through
God's creation, not through evolution.
Christian fundamentalism opposes the "theistic theory of evolution," which asserts
that God used evolution as the means of creation. Duncan states the following:
Many good men, and scholarly men have held what is commonly called "theistic
evolution." Many professors of science in Christian colleges, desiring to maintain
their scientific standing and respectability, hold to theistic evolution. Theistic
evolution teaches that God made the first bit of protoplasm and directed the course of
evolution from then on . ... The Bible-believing Christians reject theistic evolution
because it makes a literal interpretation of the Scriptures impossible. The Bible clearly
states that man was made from the dust of the ground and that Adam was made in the
image of God. (Duncan 1978, 88)
As for this matter, let us explain the position of Unification Thought. Unification
Thought upholds creation by God, rejecting the theory of evolution. Yet, Unification
Thought accepts as they are the scientific facts that have been clarified by geologists
and anthropologists. Nevertheless, the Unification Thought way of interpreting those
facts is different from that of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution (Neo -
Darwinism) asserts that living beings evolved through mutation and natural
selection ;the new creation theory of Unification Though asserts, instead, that creation
occurred through stages, from lower beings to higher beings, with the goal of reaching
the human being. If one looks at the phenomenal consequence only, one might have
the impression that things have evolved. Nevertheless, the real process was still not
evolution but creation.
Unification Thought asserts clearly that the human being was created in the "image of
God." The human being was created from the same elements as the minerals, plants,
and animals. Therefore, man was created from the dust of the ground (the same
material that composes the earth). Yet, Unification Thought does not agree with the
Christian fundamentalist view that all living beings were created instantaneously six
thousand years ago. Unification Thought sees that the record of creation in the Bible
merely describes the process of creation, and that the numbers, six days and six
thousand years, do not express a literal, exact period of time (see Fig. 25).
Unification Thought does not support or assert the theistic theory of evolution. What
Unification Thought asserts is the true theory of creation.

67. 8. The Creation of Adam and Eve: God's love is realized through Adam
and Eve.
As written in the Bible, Unification Thought holds that God created Adam and Eve,
who became the first human ancestors of humankind. In the Bible it is recorded that
God first created Adam, and then Eve from a rib of Adam; however, the real meaning
of this is not that God literally created Eve from Adam's rib, but rather that He created
Eve according to a blueprint similar to that according to which He had created Adam.

69. Fig. 25: The Creation of Heaven and Earth (as Described in the Bible), and the
Generation of the Universe (According to Science)
Anthropologically, it is said that there were the stages of the ape-
men (Australopithecus) and the early men (homo erectus) before human beings (homo
sapiens)appeared. As already stated, Unification Thought holds that those beings were
required in the course of creating human beings (as far as the human physical aspect is
concerned). And even though the stages of ape-men and early men were traversed
before reaching the stages of homo sapiens, nevertheless there must have been a great
leap when human beings (i.e., Adam and Eve) were created. Also, we could say that
Adam and Eve were entirely new creations, in that they were endowed with spirit.
At this point, let us discuss the significance of the creation of Adam and Eve from the
standpoint of Unification Thought. One of the most intriguing and difficult problems
in science is to explain how male and female came into being, and as to this question,
the Reverend Sun Myung Moon said the following
If there is a most arcane mystery in the world of beings, it is that man and woman
have come into existence, and that male and female in animals have come into
existence. Furthermore, in the plant world there are stamen and pistil; and in the
mineral world, there are cation and anion. In this way, everything has been made
according to the pair system. Man and woman, male and female-the reason why
things exist in this way is the mystery of mysteries. (Family 1991, 4-5)
Natural science seeks to clarify the causality of things. Therefore, natural science
inquires into the cause of a particular phenomenon but cannot clarify the reason why
that particular phenomenon has come into being. The question why male and female
came into existence is related to the reason why of things; this is, therefore, not a
question to be solved by biology, but rather a matter to be scrutinized by philosophy.
Seen from the viewpoint of Unification Thought, male and female came into existence,
not because of evolution, but because they were created in the likeness of the Creator.
This means that man and woman, male and female, stamen and pistil, cation and
anion, and so forth-all of them came into being in that way because God, the Creator,
possesses male and female characteristics. This point is expressed in Unification
Thought in the following terms: "God is the united body (or harmonized body) or
Yang and Yin."
Then, for what purpose do yang and yin (masculinity and femininity) exist? They
exist for the purpose of love. If Adam and Eve had grown to be husband and wife
centered on God, loving each other, God would have dwelt with them, and they would
have fulfilled God's purpose of creation, namely, the perfection of love. Male and

70. female in animals, stamen and pistil in plants, cation and anion in minerals were also
created for the purpose of giving and receiving love, whereby unity is realized, even
though their levels may be lower than that of human beings.
References
Aristotle, The Physics. London: William Heinemann Ltd. 1957.
Boolootian, Richard A. College Zoology. l lth ed. London: Collier Macmillan, 1981.
Criswell, W.A. Did Man Just Happen? Chicago: Moody Press. 1980.
Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species. London: Penguin Books. 1968.
Divine Principle. 2nd ed. New York: Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of
World Christianity. 1973.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius. Evolution of Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1960. . "Scientific American." In Duncan 1978, 40.
Duncan, Homer. Evolution : The Incredible Hoax. Lubbock, Texas : Missionary
Crusade. 1978.
Engels, Frederick. "Speech at the Graveside of Karl Marx." In Marx and Engels,
Selected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 1970.
Futuyma, Douglas J. Evolutionary Biology. 2nd ed. Sunderland, Massachusetts:
Sinauer Associates Inc. 1986.
Gish, Duane T. Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on the Origin of
Life (A Critique). San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers. 1972.
Gould, Stephen Jay. Ever Since Darwin. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
1977. . The Panda's Thumb. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 1980.
Heinze, Thomas F. Creation vs. Evolution Handbook. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker
Book House. 1973.
Hitching, Francis. The Neck of the Giraffe. Ontario: The New American Library of
Canada. 1982.
Hoyle, Fred and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe. Evolution from Space : A Theory of
Cosmic Creationism. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1981.

71. Huxley, Julian S. Evolution in Action. Great Britain: Penguin Books. 1963.
Imanishi, Kinji. What is Evolution? (in Japanese) Tokyo: Kodansha. 1976. Quotations
in English are the author's translation.
Komatsu, Sakyo. A Nonstandardized Biology (in Japanese). Tokyo: Shinchosha. 1982.
Quotations in English are the author's translation.
Mayr, Ernst. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. 1963.
Monod, Jacques. Chance and Necessity. New York: Random House Inc. 1971.
Moon, Sun Myung. "The Unification of the World and Head-Wing Thought, or
Godism." (Sermon given at the Unification Church Headquarters of Seoul on August
25, 1991). Family Magazine (in Japanese). November 1991. Quotations in English are
the author's translation.
Moore, Ruth. Evolution (Japanese edition). Tokyo: Time-Life International, 1969
(originally published by Time Inc., New York, 1964). Quotations in English are the
author's translation.
Myednykov, Boris Mikhaylovich. The Frontier of the Interesting Theory of
Evolution (Japanese edition). Tokyo: Tokyo Tosho Co., Ltd. 1982. Quotations in
English are the author's translation.
Nagano, Kei. The Frontline of Biology (in Japanese). Tokyo: Nihon Hyoronsha. 1986.
Quotations in English are the author's translation.
Nakahara, Hideomi and Takashi Sagawa. Why Does Man Evolve? (in Japanese)
Tokyo Tairyusha. 1986. Quotations in English are the author's translation.
Nelson, Byron. After Its Kind. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publisher. 1967.
Suzuki, Hiroshi and Hideo Mod. Explaining New Biology (in Japanese). Tokyo: Bun-
eido. 1987. Quotations in English are the author's translation.
Takei, Katsuaki. "The Myth of the Archaeopteryx on the Verge of Falling" (in
Japanese). Kagaku-Asahi Magazine. Tokyo: Asahi-Shimbun Sha. February 1987.
Quotations in English are the author's translation.
Watson. Lyal. Lifetide. London: Hodder and Stoughton. 1979.

72. Ueda, Rikizo and Hiroshi Suzuki. Explaining Biology II (in Japanese). Tokyo : Bun-
eido. 1974. Quotations in English are the author's translation.
Usubuchi, Isamu. The Theory of Evolution Reexamined (in Japanese). Tokyo:
Kodansha. 1985. Quotations in English are the author's translation.
Whitcomb, John C. Jr. The Early Earth. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.
1972.