1

ChapterChapterChapterChapter1111 BeyondBeyondBeyondBeyond Darwinism:Darwinism:Darwinism:Darwinism: AAAA ProposalProposalProposalProposal ofofofof aaaa NewNewNewNew

CreationCreationCreationCreation TheoryTheoryTheoryTheory

One hundred and fifty years have passed since Darwin advocated the theory ofevolution by publishing On the Origin of Species. During this period, evolutionism hasspread around the world, overwhelming the traditional Christian view of Creation.While evolutionism seems to have achieved a complete victory in the sciences, manycriticisms have accumulated in this time negating the simplistic and materialistic viewof evolution. It is in this context of the polarizing debate of “Creation or Evolution” hasdeveloped, becoming particularly intense in the United States of America, therepresentative Christian nation in God’s Providence.

According to a November 2004 Gallup survey, over 33% of the American publicbelieve that the Bible is the actual Word of God and that it should be taken literallywhile 80% believe that God was involved in creation in some way. The poll showed thatwhile only 10% supported materialistic evolutionism, the majority of these beingintellectuals. It is this 10% of the population that includes the biologists who proclaimthat only materialistic evolution can be scientific and reject any trace of God’s role.Their rallying cry is “Don’t bring religion into the academic world.”

Reflecting this imbalance of views, the majority of high-school and middle-schoolteachers of biology are evolutionists resulting in court battles between teachers whowant to teach the theory of evolution and the parents who oppose it. There seems to beno solution to this debate because evolutionists insist that the theory of evolution isscientifically correct, while creationists insist on God’s role based on religiousrevelation, mainly that recorded in the Bible.

Since the theory of evolution fundamentally denies God’s role of creation, creationtheory and evolution theory are incompatible with each other. Then, how the problemwill be solved? Which is correct?

The question is which of the two views—God or no-God—accords more withscientific facts. Traditional Christian theories of creation dogmatically advocatedcreation theory, neglecting scientific facts, by interpreting the Bible literally. On theother hand, the theory of evolution developed based on observation and theaccumulation of facts in the fields of biology, archeology, etc. Accordingly, thematerialistic view has been more successful and accepted as scientific truth.

While the theory of evolution has many problems, it has continued to survive

2

because there has been no valid alternative to it. The only counterproposal has been thatof ‘special creation’ presented from the Christian perspective that interprets the Bibleliterally. This view is acceptable only to fundamentalists; all others find it totallyunacceptable. This is why it is necessary to present a new creation theory which is trulyscientific and not ignore the facts established by modern science, as a counterproposal.To meet this need, a new creation theory based on Unification Thought is presentedhere.

In this work, each topic will deal with Darwin’s evolution theory, Christianfundamental creationism and the new creationism of Unification Thought. It will beshown that the new creation theory removes the basis for controversy betweenevolutionism and creationism. I take up here as the Christian creation theory thefundamentalist’s special creation which interprets the Bible literally. It is because theconfrontation between the theory of evolution and creation theory can be shown clearlyby taking up special creation, and because it is the typical creation theory ofChristianity.

I.I.I.I. IsIsIsIs ThereThereThereThere PurposePurposePurposePurpose inininin LivingLivingLivingLiving Beings?Beings?Beings?Beings?

Theory of EvolutionThe principle of the natural world is the survival of the fittest, and the stronger prey

on the weaker. Therefore, the ones fit for survival—the ones with strong fertility andstrength—have survived. Therefore, living beings do not exist with purpose.

Creation TheoryGod is complete by Himself, a self-fulfilling Being; therefore it was not necessary

for Him to create human beings and all things. However, God unilaterally createdhuman beings and poured love into them. He created all things for human beings,ordering them to “have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the airand over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen. 1:28). That is, humanbeings were created as masters of all things. However, the purpose of existence for allthings is not made clear in this theory.

New Creation TheoryIn order to be joyful, God created human beings as His object partners of love. And

God created all things as object partners of love for human beings in order for humanbeings to be joyful. Every created being has the purpose of creation: the purpose for the

3

individual and the purpose for the whole. The purpose for the individual is to “maintainits existence,” and the purpose for the whole is to “live for others.” Therefore, lowerbeings exist for higher beings, and ultimately, every being exists for human beings, aswell as being fit to survive.

According to Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest, those living beingswhich had stronger power to live and those which were more suitable to exist wereallegedly able to survive, multiply and evolve. Note that if it were so, this world wouldbe ruled by the insects and weeds that have such a robust drive to thrive and multiply.When we observe living beings, however, we see that they do not exist with the purposeof survival alone. Whether they are fit to survive or not is just one of the conditions forliving beings to exist.

Let’s consider a watermelon, for example. Watermelons absorb plenty of water inthe hot summer. They develop color and taste, and bear large fruits. What do theseadditions mean for the sake of the existence of a watermelon? For the purpose ofexistence and multiplication, all it needs is the ability to make seeds. After seeds fall tothe ground, they bud and grow in the spring when it rains and temperatures rise. Thereis no need to keep a large quantity of water within the fruit. It is not necessary to addcolor and taste. Evolutionists would say that a watermelon accumulates water, addscolor and taste as a tactic: to be eaten by humans and animals so that its seeds getwidely scattered around. However, it is clear that a watermelon is incapable of planningsuch a tactic.

We ought to think that watermelons have been created to be enjoyed by animals,and more so by human beings. In other words, watermelons exist not only because theyare fit to survive (the individual purpose) but also for the sake of other beings (thewhole purpose). In other words, each living being has dual purposes of creation:purpose for the individual and the purpose for the whole; particularly the purpose forthe whole.

Let’s look at butterflies. Their beautiful wings are attractive. In discussing the roleof the markings on butterfly wings, scientists say such things as “in order to avoidenemies” and “in order for males and females to attract one another.” To “avoidenemies” means that they are fit to survive; for “males and females to attract oneanother” makes them fit to multiply. However, to that we must add that butterflies existto fascinate and delight us humans: many people are crazy about collecting beautifulbutterflies. In fact, butterflies are flying as if they were stars in a fashion show even atthe risk of being noticed by their natural predators.

4

What about the mimicry exhibited by some insects? Certain insects mimic a plantor other insect. Evolutionists claim that mimicry is explained by natural selection: thoseinsects that look like leaves, twigs, flower petals, poisonous insects and the like couldhave survived because birds could not find them or were afraid of them. However, canan insect transform itself while running about trying to escape being eaten by birds? Infact, there are a lot of entomologists who thinks that essence of mimicry has not yetbeen grasped. This question was raised in an article in The Yomiuri Shinbun:

To whom do they want to show their mimicry? Biologist Kiyohiko Ikeda says thatmimicry by insects is a problem with four aspects: model, insect, bird, and humanbeings who observe it. To what extent should an insect mimic a plant or other insectin order to surprise or impress us? The problem of mimicry becomes naturally theproblem of human recognition.1

The answer to his question: “To what extent should an insect mimic a plant or otherinsect in order to surprise or impress us?” is that the mimicry by insects was created byGod in order to surprise, impress, and delight us.

II.II.II.II. AreAreAreAre LivingLivingLivingLiving BeingsBeingsBeingsBeings Designed?Designed?Designed?Designed?

Theory of EvolutionAccording to Darwin, living beings constantly undergo variations; the struggle for

existence takes place among various individual beings, and those most fit to existsurvive as a result of natural selection. Living beings have evolved through therepetition of such processes for a long time. Here, variations are caused purely bychance. They did not take place according to a certain purpose or plan. Those variationsare the same thing as “fluctuations.” However, the variations that Darwin mentionedwere fluctuating variations that are not inherited. Later, Hugo De Vries found variationsthat were fixed and inherited; such variations were given the name “mutations.” As thevariation is random in Darwinism, the conclusion is that living beings are not designed.

Creation TheoryGod is the Creator of everything. As David spoke to God, “Thy eyes beheld my

unformed substance” (Psalms 139:16), God had already the plan of created beingsbefore He began to create them. The central point is that living beings are designed byGod.

5

New Creation TheoryEverything was created by God’s Logos (Word). Logos is a plan, a blueprint of the

created being—living beings are designed by God.

Then, let’s examine whether design exists or not, citing some examples.

A.A.A.A. TheTheTheThe NNNNeckeckeckeck ofofofof thethethethe GGGGiraffeiraffeiraffeiraffeWhy is giraffe’s neck long? Evolutionists explain it as follows: Necks of the giraffe

ancestors were not so long, but they did vary in length. They are fighting each other toeat leaves of tree. Among them, those giraffes with longer necks had advantages forsurvival because they were able to eat leaves both on higher and lower parts of trees,while those with shorter necks were in a disadvantage. Accordingly, those with longernecks have survived; namely, they were selected by nature. As a result of such randomchange followed by the struggle for existence—the essence of the theory of naturalselection—the neck of the giraffe gradually became longer.

However, fossils indicating that necks gradually became longer have not beendiscovered. The position of evolution is rejected. In addition, as a science writer,Ryuichi Kaneko, points out there is an essential aspect of the giraffe neck called the“wonder net.” 2

Since the neck of the giraffe is long, the pressure needed to get the blood up to thehead has to be high. When the giraffe lowers its head in order to drink, blood in the neckwould flood into the head, causing cerebral hemorrhage in the giraffe. In order toprevent this from happening, blood vessels form protective webs, called wonder net, infront of the brain so that blood from the neck may scatter and the blood pressure not gettoo high. The giraffe cannot survive if only its neck becomes longer. In order to survive,it must be equipped with a wonder-net. However, it is implausible that among thegiraffe's ancestors, nature would select from giraffes with various neck lengths both thelonger necked giraffe and the wonder net at the same time.

Surprisingly, the brain of the okapi, which is supposed to be the ancestor of thegiraffe, already had the wonder net although there is no need for it as their necks werenot long. Why is it that okapis have the unnecessary wonder nets? The theory of naturalselection cannot explain it.

The giraffe eats the leaves of the acacia tree in the meadows of Africa. According tothe theory of evolution, the ones with the shorter neck are sure to be defeated in thestruggle for existence. In fact, however, there exist not only the giraffe with longest

6

neck but the gerenuk, the impala, and the Kirk’s dikdik with shorter and shorter necks.They share eating leaves of the acacia according to their height. Therefore, the giraffe'sneck did not become long by natural selection but we should think that the giraffe wascreated as an animal with long neck from the beginning.

Also, the neck of giraffe is strong enough and it doesn't break when male giraffesfight each other using their necks. It is not that the neck has gradually become longerwhile the giraffe is trying to eat the leaves of higher and higher branches. The long neckwill be likely to break easily if it is only lengthened. A plan is also necessary for a longand strong neck that can endure such impacts.

B.B.B.B. TheTheTheThe IIIIssuessuessuessue ofofofof EEEEyesyesyesyesNext, let me discuss the topic of the eye, an object that has often been central in the

debate of evolution versus creation. It is impossible to explain how an organ with such acomplicated function and structure as the eyes of vertebrate animals has been able todevelop through the natural selection from among the random variations of the animalbody.

Darwin himself frankly confessed, “To suppose that the eye (which is an organ ofextreme perfection and complication), could have been formed by natural selection,seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”3 Yet, he insisted that theeye came into being through evolution from a simple spot of light-sensitive cells to thesophisticated camera-eye of man. He supported this view by describing the stages in thehistory of evolutionary development. While descriptive, note that if many differenttypes of automobiles were displayed chronologically, no one would think that theautomobiles evolved by themselves through competition of speed and strength. Theywere developed as a result of constant input of creativity by engineers. By the sametoken, the development from a simple spot sensitive to light to the highly developed eyedoes not prove evolution. In fact, each stage of development is a great leap and does notprove random evolution. A science journalist, Richard Milton also says as follows:

Modern Darwinists seem to have a profoundly optimistic belief that the occurrenceat an early stage in evolution of such a fundamental innovation— cells which aresensitive to light—makes cumulative selection of vision somehow less improbable.But the existence of light-sensitive tissue has no effect whatever on the probabilityof the mutation of a lens, or an iris mechanism or an eyelid or anything else.4

Furthermore, a biochemist Michael J. Behe points out that Darwin did not explain

7

where the simple light-sensitive spot had come from, and thus did not deal with thequestion of the ultimate origin of the eye. As a matter of fact, the light-sensitive spotitself is not simple. It may have been merely a black box to Darwin, but it turns out tobe far more complex than a TV set as elucidated by the researchers who have exploredthe biochemical structure of vision.5

Rev. Sun Myung Moon says that the eye is a system created carefully by the Beingwho knew how the natural world was like. If we observe the eye, he states, we cannotdeny the existence of God:

In the process of birth in the animal world, the eye came into being first. The eyeitself is a material being. Prior to its birth, did the eye know or did not know thatthe sun exists? The eye itself, which is a matter, came into being without knowinganything. Yet, the fact that it came into being in such a way as to be able to see thesunlight means that, before the eye came into existence, there existed a Being whoknew that the sun exists. In other words, the eye came into being with theknowledge of the existence of the sun. Even though the eye itself did not know thatthere is air, that there are dusts in the air, and that there is radiant heat whichvaporizes water, there existed a Being which knew all those things and designedthe eye so that it might be protected by an eyelid and a lachrymal gland.6

C.C.C.C. TheTheTheThe BBBBeautifuleautifuleautifuleautiful FFFFeatherseatherseatherseathers ofofofof aaaa PPPPeacockeacockeacockeacockAnother difficult problem for Darwin and his theory was why a peacock has such

beautiful tail feathers which, while magnificent, are large and heavy yet do not seemnecessary for living. A peahen lives perfectly well without such feathers. Darwinallegedly complained, “Every time I see the feathers of a peacock, I feel bad.” In orderto solve this conundrum, he advocated the theory of “sexual selection”—the strugglebetween males for mates and selective choice by females in their choice of mated.However, how is it possible for the beautiful feathers of a peacock—so like a dress withthe patterns of eyeballs—to evolve by males struggling with other males to win females,or females choosing their mates? Even if peahens are attracted by the beautiful feathersof peacocks, peahens are not artists but merely appreciate the patterns. Also, whenpeacocks struggle with each other the feathers fall off, dimming the patters and fadingthe colors. No creative action is involved in the theory of “sex selection.”

Mariko Hasegawa, a Japanese scholar who studies sexual selection, says that it isvery difficult to find an answer to the question as to why selection by female wouldpromote evolution of such artistry. She states: “But, from the position of modern

8

evolutionary biology, it is not easy, but very difficult, to answer the question of whythese selections (such as the length of tail feathers, the number of patterns of eyeballs,the size of the food brought about by males, the decoration of nest, etc.) evolve. . . . As amatter of fact, a scenario where the selection of mates has driven a step in evolution hasnot yet been established.” 7

D.D.D.D. TheTheTheThe CCCCharacterharacterharacterharacter ofofofof NNNNaturalaturalaturalatural SSSSelectionelectionelectionelectionEvolutionists consider natural selection identical to creation. Darwin said, “Natural

selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, eventhe 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.”8As forscientists: Dobzhansky compared natural selection to a composer; Simpson, to a poet;Mayr, to a sculptor; and Huxley, to Shakespeare. Stephen Jay Gould said, “The essenceof Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit.”9 Evolutionists raisednatural selection to the position of the Creator.

In Darwin’s original proposal, natural selection was the action of judging which,out of many variations, was fit to survive. While natural selection can select animproved design, it is quite a different thing to claim that natural selection can create orimprove designs. Ignoring this obvious fact, evolutionists have promoted naturalselection from the simple act of selecting to the role of creating and improving designs.This is a big leap in the logic proposed by Darwinism.

Yoshihiko Makino, a medical scholar, suggests that a “structure ofself-organization” is deeply involved in the evolution of living beings. He criticizes thetheory of hereditary mutation and the theory of evolution through natural selectionsaying “natural selection has nothing to do with creation. It is merely a negativemechanism for removing things which do not fit.”10

Richard Milton adds, “Because natural selection offers only death or glory it cannotprovide the microscopic adjustments that the individual needs. Yet we are asked tobelieve that a mechanism of such crudity can creatively supervise a program of genemutation.”11

As science writers, Ryuichi Kaneko and Mika Nakano insist, “Now the time hascome when we should thoroughly clarify the identity of what is called naturalselection.”12

E.E.E.E. LogosLogosLogosLogos asasasas thethethethe BBBBlueprintlueprintlueprintlueprint ofofofof CCCCreatedreatedreatedreated BBBBeingseingseingseingsModern biology has established that the shape and quality of living beings are

9

determined by the genetic information stored in the nuclei of cells. It is well establishedthat the long neck of a giraffe, the sophisticated eyes of a human being, the beautifulfeathers of a peacock etc. all exist because of the blueprints stored in the genetic codesin their DNA.

Scientists have established the existence of genetic codes although their content andworkings are still being explored by medical doctors, chemists, physicists, andbiologists. It is unscientific and illogical to think that the intricate contents stored inthese codes came into being by accident. It would be much more scientific and logicalto think that the Word (Logos) of the Creator, the Being who surpasses humanintelligence, was the source of these blueprints and designs. As geneticist KazuoMurakami comments on the genetic codes:

Who and how, on earth, wrote the elaborate blueprint of life? It is beyond humanwork, and I cannot help saying that it is a miracle exactly. We are made alive by thisgreat power "Something Great" of nature.13

The “Something Great” that Murakami invokes is nothing other than God. Recently,in the United States, the promoters of the Intelligent Design theory are drawingattention. Intelligent Design is a theory criticizing simplistic Darwinism by showing thatthe design of living beings cannot be explained by accidental mutation, and that it isnecessary to include the concept of a Designer of the natural world as a scientificconcept. This theory opens the way to accept the Creation by God.

III.III.III.III. GradualGradualGradualGradual Evolution,Evolution,Evolution,Evolution, InstantInstantInstantInstant Creation,Creation,Creation,Creation, orororor CreationCreationCreationCreation bybybybyStages?Stages?Stages?Stages?

Theory of EvolutionNeo-Darwinism claims that mutations provide the raw material for evolution, and

the natural selection determines the direction of evolution. However, mutations can onlycause fragmentary and partial transformations of the species and cannot bring aboutmacroevolution in a geologically-brief period of time. Accordingly, Neo-Darwinismclaims that living beings have evolved continuously and gradually by piling themutations for a long time. This position is called gradualism.

Creation TheoryThe heaven and the earth were created in six days about 6,000 years ago. Living

10

beings were created, each according to its kind. Then came the flood at the time of Noahwith his family and a pair of each land animal being preserved in the ark. This positionis that living beings were created almost simultaneously and instantly, and have notchanged since the creation of the world.

New Creation TheoryLiving beings were created stage by stage, taking a long period of time. At certain

times, a new being was created based on existing beings through the engagement ofGod’s creative force (cosmic force). After a certain time has passed, the process wasrepeated and a newer and higher being was created through the engagement of God’screative force.

The characteristics of the theory of evolution, creation theory, and the new creationtheory are shown in figure 1.1. Christian creationism, which asserts that all livingbeings were created within six days 6,000 years ago and have been unchanging eversince, is difficult to reconcile with the accumulated evidence. This theory cannot beaccepted in the age of science today.

We will now examine whether living beings have evolved gradually andcontinuously or were created stage by stage—both theories accepting that a long periodof time was involved.

A.A.A.A. CCCCharacterharacterharacterharacter ofofofof MMMMutationutationutationutationThrough mating, many offspring different from their parents are born. However,

breeding merely recombines the genes which originally existed. New genes cannot bemade through sex. It is only through mutation that new genes are made. Therefore,mutation is the one and only thing that makes possible the inheritable variation abovethe species level. Accordingly, as Milton says, “It is pretty clear that the whole theoryrests finally upon the phenomenon of spontaneous genetic mutation.”14

However, observed mutation does not bring about change beyond species. It createsonly minute changes within a species. The alleged new species of primrose that theadvocates of the theory of mutation of Hugo De Vries observed, were not new speciesbut rather mere varieties in terms of the shape of leaves, the way their branches spread,their height, their petal shape, etc.

Geneticists have tried to cause mutation in fruit flies by irradiating them with x-rays;however, the changes that occurred as a result were only changes in eye color, theirwing shape, making of new spots on the belly, etc. Fruit flies remained fruit flies.

11

Moreover, mutation is generally harmful and destructive to living beings. It bringsabout deformation and malformation within species. The question is: How can mutationmake living beings evolve from a lower level to a higher one? As Milton says, “Of allthe difficulties facing Neo-Darwinism, the improbability of spontaneous geneticmutation leading to beneficial novelties in form ought to be the major source ofconcern.”15

B.B.B.B. GradualGradualGradualGradual EEEEvolutionvolutionvolutionvolutionAccording to Darwin, small variations occurred consecutively, and living beings

evolved gradually through natural selection. If that is the case, consecutive fossils ofliving beings should be discovered that would show the steps of gradual evolution fromone species to another. However, no fossils of intermediates have been found. This lackof fossils serving as evidence of intermediate living beings is called a “missing link.”Darwin said that fossils of intermediates would be found sooner or later, but missinglinks have not been filled as of today, 150 years later.

Another problem is that certain living beings during the process of evolution maynot be fit to survive. For example, the bat is considered to have evolved from amouse-like animal. But, during the process of evolution, that animal would have been inan intermediate state in which legs could not be distinguished from wings, and in thatstate that animal must have been unable to fly or to run. Therefore, such a stage wouldhave been detrimental for the animal’s existence.

Viewed from the evidence of fossils, it is known that some living beings remainedunchanged over a long period of time and that at a certain point new living beingsappeared. That process has been repeated. In consideration of these findings, a theorydenying gradualism in evolution emerged.

In 1972 American paleontologists, Stephen. J. Gould (1941-2002) and NilesEldredge presented the “theory of punctuated equilibrium.” This theory asserts that aspecies usually passes a long period of equilibrium during which the species remainsunchanged; and then it undergoes an abrupt change away from equilibrium. The theoryof punctuated evolution rather than the theory of gradual evolution is now accepted asbeing in accord with the evidence.

C.C.C.C. TheTheTheThe CambrianCambrianCambrianCambrian EEEExplosionxplosionxplosionxplosionFor the first two billion years, life on Earth was unicellular; it consisted of

single-cell plants and animals. Approximately 640 million years ago large-sizedmulti-cell living beings appeared on the earth for the first time. These life forms are

12

called the “Ediacaran fauna” as their fossilized remains were discovered in the EdiacaraHill of South Australia. They were invertebrates with no exoskeletons with soft bodiesand, probably, with limited capability of moving about. They do not seem to have leftany direct descendants.

During the Cambrian Era (545 to 500 million years ago), many marineinvertebrates such as trilobites, snails, coral, and brittle stars appeared. About 535million years ago, the variety of invertebrates in the seas increased explosively. This iscalled the “Cambrian Era Explosion.” The remains of many of these mysteriouslyshaped life forms were discovered in the Rocky Mountains of Western Canada—the“Burgess Shale faunas” of 515 million years ago. Those animals had exoskeletons.Some of them with body plans quite different to any organism existing today.

Simon Conway Morris at Cambridge University, an expert in this field, says,“There must have been some kind of enormous evolutionary mechanism.”16 However,evolutionists are unable to explain how and why it occurred using the theory ofaccumulated mutations.

Living beings in the Cambrian Era were rich in diversity, ingenious in adaptations,and wondrous in their beauty. It has been stated that all possible body plans for livingbeings came into being at that time and they became the basic designs for all animalsthereafter. This explosive development is currently a great mystery.

D.D.D.D. NeutralNeutralNeutralNeutral MMMMutationsutationsutationsutationsIn 1966, a geneticist Motoo Kimura (1924-94) advocated the theory of “neutral

mutation.” According to this theory, when the variations of living beings are observedon a molecular level, most mutations are neutral, neither profitable nor unprofitable toindividual beings. In other words, they are neither selected nor abandoned by naturalselection. These neutral mutations accumulate within species through “random geneticdrift.”

These neutral mutations are activated later in history, appearing as useful charactersthat are established by natural selection. In this theory, natural selection is not at workwhile the organisms are undergoing mutations on a molecular level over long periods oftime. Natural selection works later only when the mutation in the genotype is expressedin the phenotype.

This theory of neutral mutation has almost replaced natural selection on themolecular level. According to this theory, only those organisms that happen to have auseful quality in a given environment can survive through natural selection. Kimuracalled this as the “survival of the fortunate,” not the “survival of the fittest.”

13

The importance of neutral mutation is now recognized around the world. Accordingto Kaneko and Nakano, the bottom line is that natural selection works only whencharacters that have accumulated by chance through neutral mutations appear in thephenotype. 17

E.E.E.E. SubjectiveSubjectiveSubjectiveSubjective EEEEvolutionvolutionvolutionvolutionAnthropologist Kinji Imanishi (1902-92), who has criticized Neo-Darwinism for 40

years, advocated “evolutionism of subjectivity” which states that living beings havepurpose and subjectivity. According to Imanishi, a species does not evolve gradually asthe better adapted are selected and thrive; rather, the species changes as it is destined todo when it encounters a certain crisis, in a relatively short period of time. “A specieschanges into a new species by constantly remaking itself in order to adapt itself to theenvironment.” He says that living beings evolve through “directional mutations.” As tothe question as to why the giraffe’s neck became long, his position is that “the necks ofthe giraffe became long all at once at a certain time because of necessity.”18

Imanishi discovered that the larvae of four kinds of mayflies differentially choosetheir habitats according to the difference in speed of river currents. Based on that headvocated the “theory of differentiation in inhabitation.” This theory asserts that speciesthat are close to one another differentiate their habits so as to live in co-existence. Thisis quite a different perspective to the Darwinian view that individuals engage in astruggle for existence and only those that are fit for existence survive.

Imanishi’s theory of evolution that species change all at once when the time tochange emerges accords with the concept of punctuated equilibrium in its conclusion.These aforementioned theories of punctuated equilibrium, neutral mutation, ofsubjective evolution, etc., all suggest that Neo-Darwinism is incorrect—that life formsdo not evolve gradually and continuously as a result of accumulated accidental smallmutations.

F.F.F.F. EvolutionEvolutionEvolutionEvolution IIIInvolvingnvolvingnvolvingnvolving VVVVirusesirusesirusesirusesA recent finding in recent molecular biology is that viruses carry genes between

cells, individual organisms, and species. Based on this, geneticist Hideomi Nakaharaand theoretical physicist Takashi Sagawa have discussed the manipulation of the geneticcode by viruses. Current techniques of genetic engineering often use viruses, a modernform of the artificial selection. These thinkers suggest something similar occurs in thenatural world, advocating the “virus theory of evolution.” They suggest that the originalfunction of viruses lies, not in causing illness, but in transporting and mixing genes in

14

ways transcending the boundaries of species.Their answer to the question of how the neck of a giraffe became long, according to

the virus theory of evolution, it is because “the giraffe was infected by virus whichcauses the neck to become long.”

G.G.G.G. LifeLifeLifeLife HHHHasasasas CCCComeomeomeome fromfromfromfrom SSSSpacepacepacepaceBritish astronomer Fred Hoyle and his research co-worker Chandra

Wickramasinghe developed a bold theory that “life has come from space.” They assertthat fragments of genes in great quantities fell from space, and that, by taking in thesefragments, living beings have reformed their bodily form.

It is true that the nucleotide subunits of DNA, along with the amino acid subunits ofproteins, have been found in the analysis of meteorites that have landed on earth and inthe spectroscopic observation of comets. There is no denying the possibility that comets,meteorites and dust particles floating through the universe have contributed some of thecomponents for life to the earth. Yet, the question of how they assembled into livingsystems remains as much a riddle as it is for those components created by abioticprocesses on the earth.

H.H.H.H. SpecialSpecialSpecialSpecial GGGGenesenesenesenesAfter the neutral theory of molecular evolution was developed, its importance was

recognized. There are other seemingly silent codes in the DNA, genes that resembleactive genes but are idle, as if retired or not yet activated.

It has been found that DNA has many blank parts called “introns” having no knowncoding functions. There are also “pseudogenes” which are copies of certain genes butwhich have totally lost their functions. It is an open question as to such things as intronsand pseudogenes exist. In answer to this question, Kaneko and Nakano state:

It can be said that DNA in living beings, while awaiting the opportunity for a nextgreat leap, may be adopting a strategy of positively taking mutations into intronsand pseudogenes. . . . In other words, the genes of living beings are setting traps inorder to store various mutations necessary for a future great leap.19

Additionally, there are the recently discovered genes called “homeotic genes.”Alteration in these can cause a great abnormality, called homeosis, in the structure ofinsects such as a fly’s feelers becoming its legs. It has been discovered that amongvarious homeotic genes there are linear arrangements of such genes called collectively

15

the “homeobox.” Homeoboxes are now thought to be the gene-complexes that controlthe growth patterns of living beings during growth. Evolutionists suggest that mutationof the homeobox would cause great change in the character of living beings and be thecause of macroevolution.

I.I.I.I. AnAnAnAn AAAAlternatelternatelternatelternate VVVViewiewiewiew ofofofof EEEEvolutionvolutionvolutionvolutionAccording to science journalist Richard Milton, there seem to be three key aspects

that do not support the neo-Darwinian view of evolution.20

They are: (1) the unerring accuracy in the development of living systems withouttrial and error; (2) the presence of a systematic program above the cellular level,controlling somatic development; and (3) the overwhelming probability thatenvironmental factors can in some unknown way directly affect the genetic structure ofthe individual.

The first aspect arises based on the non-existence of intermediate fossils. In otherwords, nature goes unerringly to its target. For example, the human eyelid is made insuch a way as to exactly cover the human eye. No creature has an imperfection such astoo large or too small an eyelid.

With regard to the second aspect, the presence of a systematic program, thequestion is where this program exists and how it is accessed and carried out. We mustadmit the presence of a systematic program which integrates genes. But, where it comesfrom remains a riddle.

With regard to the third observation of environmental factors affecting geneticstructure, Milton says that psychological states as well as physical behavior affect thegenes of somatic cells and that viruses can transmit the genetic mutations to sexualcells.21 For example, epidemiologists believe that they have identified a “cancerpersonality,” which means that there is a possibility that psychological factors (forexample excessive anxiety) could be translated into both somatic and genetic factors.

Geneticist Kazuo Murakami also thinks that psychological factors can affect genesas shown in the case in which a person’s hair turns white over night when he or shereceives a strong psychological shock. He says that the mechanism of the influence ofpsychological factors upon genes will be clarified in the near future. 22

J.J.J.J. CreationCreationCreationCreation bybybyby SSSStagestagestagestagesNext, let us examine the contents mentioned above from the perspective of a new

theory of creation based on Unification Thought.Mutation of homeobox genes, neutral mutation, transport by viruses, and genes

16

falling from space are all accidental or destructive. They bring about deformation,sickness, or monstrous forms—they bring about change but cannot make living beingsevolve from lower to higher levels. In order to evolve to higher forms, creative forces,not accidental forces, must be involved.

If dynamite is made to explode at random, it will cause destruction. On the otherhand, if it is used in accordance with a plan, it can serve a role in creative civilengineering. The same thing can be said of living beings: random change in the genomewould merely harm living beings while change according to a plan can lift living beingsto higher levels. Therefore, we can say that God created living beings, from lower tohigher, by generating change in the genome according to His plan. It can be seen thatthis perspective allows for the possibility that God used such things as viruses, cosmicrays, and the raw material of life coming from comets in actualizing His plan: God isthe greatest genetic engineer.

The new theory of creation does not agree with Christian fundamentalist specialcreation, which says that the universe and living beings were created by God instantly insix days just six thousand years ago. Creation took place stage by stage, taking a longtime. At a certain points in time, the creative force from God had a new input. As aresult of this input, a new species was created. Following this, a period of time passedpreparing things for the next step. When all was ready, God’s creative force was inputagain, creating a next new species. Figuratively speaking in terms of computer software,when God’s creative force is input to the existing species, information is upgraded,bringing forth a new species. In this way, according to this theory based on UnificationThought, living beings were created stage by stage.

Concerning the roles played by introns and pseudogenes, we can rephrase the“mutation was accumulated in preparation for the next great leap” of Kaneko andNakano as “new genes were prepared for the next step in creation.”

As listed above, Milton presents three key observations that must be included in analternative view of evolution. The new theory of creation embraces these three aspects:

First, it is quite natural that nature goes unerringly to its target because nature wascreated by God through Logos, namely, according to His plan.

Second is the presence of a systematic program above the cellular level. Accordingto Unification Thought, all beings and phenomena consist of sungsang aspects (mentalfactors, functions) and hyungsang aspects (structure). Therefore, behind cellularstructures (particularly behind genes), life itself acts like a kind of electromagnetic wave.All of space is permeated with such life field containing the blueprints to organizegenes.

17

The third observation is the possibility that spiritual factors affect material geneticcodes. According to Unification Thought, in order for living beings to be elevated fromlower to higher level of existence, the third force, or the cosmic force must be put infrom outside. This force refers to God’s creative force, a spiritual force, which affects allliving beings. Milton’s position that spiritual factors can change genetic codes leads tothe scientific recognition of God’s work of creation.

Imanishi’s theory of subjective evolution is externally very similar to the theory ofpunctuated evolution proposed by Gould and Eldredge. Both theories are of one accordin saying that the living beings evolved by repeating the sequence of a short period oftime when the leap occurs followed by a long period of no change which maintains thestatus quo. There is an external similarity between these theories and the UnificationThought theory of creation by stages. All that is necessary is to change the words“evolution in a leap” to “creation in a leap” and to change the words “the period of nochange” to “the period of perfection of a stage” or “the period of preparation for thenext creation.”

As for the explosive appearance of marine invertebrates during the Cambrian Era,we can say that they were created as the raw material for what was created later —thefishes, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Here, the expression “as the raw material”means that the genes necessary for the emergence of future living beings were prepared.

Today, genetic engineers are performing gene recombination, the process by whicha strand of DNA is broken and then joined to a different DNA. As a recent remarkableexample, a brewing company “Suntory Limited” of Japan has succeeded in thedevelopment of a “blue rose,” previously thought impossible. The development of avariety such as “blue rose” through the recombination of genes by scientists means thatthey are learning and imitating, though partially, what God did in the creation of allliving beings through recombination of genes. However, what scientists can do is tocreate variations within the same species, while God, the greatest genetic engineer, cancreate new species.

IV.IV.IV.IV. TheTheTheThe SecondSecondSecondSecond LawLawLawLaw ofofofof ThermodynamicsThermodynamicsThermodynamicsThermodynamics

According to the second law of thermodynamics—the inevitable increase in entropy ordisorder—all things in the natural world will tend to proceed to the direction ofincreasing entropy; namely, in the direction of increasing disorder. For example, anabandoned house in which nobody lives will collapse, while the dead body of a humanor animal will decompose and return to the soil. The direction of evolution is opposite to

18

this; living beings have developed in the direction of increasing order and complexity.Thus, evolution seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics.

TheoryTheoryTheoryTheory ofofofof EEEEvolutionvolutionvolutionvolutionEvolutionists explain this by stating that the law of entropy applies only to isolated

systems and that entropy can decrease on the earth because it is an open system. Theysay that the sun emits an enormous amount of energy with an associated immenseincrease in entropy; the earth receives a part of this energy from the sun that nurturesliving beings on earth with its decrease in entropy. The second law of thermodynamicsis still in effect as the overall entropy of the sun plus earth is always increasing.

Concerning this point, the prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins makes a flatrejection to the claim that evolution violates the law of entropy, saying that such claim isfrequently made by the lay or amateur opponents of evolution.23

CreationCreationCreationCreation TTTTheoryheoryheoryheoryEvery living being is not brought about by random natural forces but is made by

God’s creative fiat. Accordingly, in this view of creation an instantaneous decrease inentropy occurs.

NewNewNewNew CreationCreationCreationCreation TTTTheoryheoryheoryheoryAs British scientific writer Francis Hitching points out, the evolutionists’

explanation that the solar energy made the entropy of the earth decrease is not anenough answer. According to Hitching, “there is still the problem: how does the Sun’senergy sustain the evolutionary process? How does order come from disorder? Ascreationist literature points out, the Sun shines on living and nonliving things alike, onhuman beings and statues of human beings. . . . The sun’s energy may bathe the site ofan automobile junk yard for a million years, but it will never cause the rusted, brokenparts to grow together again into a functioning automobile.”24

When a house is deserted, it will collapse. If, however, a handyman repairs andreconstructs the house, it will be maintained and become a home of higher value. By thesame token, living being will deteriorate when they are exposed to the random naturalforces such as cosmic rays, ultraviolet rays, thunder, submarine volcano eruptions,whereby genetic damages are brought about. If, however, a genetic engineer repairs,reconstructs, or brings new gene fragments into the DNA, it is possible for a livingbeing to maintain itself or develop into new species. In other words, if the creative force― the third force, or the cosmic force― is at work guiding the physical forces, living

19

beings can develop from simple to complex, from lower to higher beings.Astronomer and philosopher, Arne A. Wyller has proposed that there is a planetary

mind that pervades the entire earth. The planetary mind is a giant intelligence that writesthe blueprint of evolution and manipulates DNA. Harold Saxton Burr (1889-1973), whowas a professor of anatomy at the Yale University School of Medicine, proposed the lifefield, the invisible field of electric force, which covers the entire earth and enables everyliving being to grow according to its design. Such proposals as Wyller and Burr testifyto the Unification Thought new creation theory

V.V.V.V. IsIsIsIs LikenessLikenessLikenessLikeness EvidEvidEvidEvidenceenceenceence forforforfor EvolutionEvolutionEvolutionEvolution orororor forforforfor Creation?Creation?Creation?Creation?

Theory of EvolutionEvolutionists claim that homologous organs, vestigial organs, and the recapitulation

of history in embryology are proof of evolution. All these factors are included intextbooks of biology around the world as evidence of evolution.

Creation TheoryGod created man and woman in His image. He created all things, and blessed man

and woman, saying, “have dominion over all things” making humans the master of allthings. However, the exact relationship between human life and other life forms is notexplicit.

New Creation TheoryIn the formation of Logos, man and woman were conceived in God’s image, and all

things were conceived in the image of man and woman. This process is called “creationin likeness.” In the creation of the phenomenal world, all things were created first, fromlower to higher beings, and when this environment had been prepared, man and womanwere created.

The organs of different organisms that exhibit similarity in structure due toevolutionary differentiation from the corresponding part of a remote ancestor are called“homologous organs.” Homologous organs are the same in their basic structure, thoughtheir shapes and functions may differ. For example, a human being’s hands, a dog’sfront legs, a whale’s flippers, and a bird’s wing are all homologous. On the other hand,organs that have different origins and yet have come to have the same external shape

20

and function because of their adaptation to the environment are called “analogousorgans.” The wings of a bird—derived from the front legs—and the wings of aninsect—derived from flaps of skin—are an example of analogous organs. Finally, anorgan that was functional in an ancestor but has lost its original function during theevolutionary process is called a “vestigial organ.” A vestigial organ is the result of adegeneration in function and is considered a process in evolution.

According to Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), when the embryos of vertebrates arecompared with one another, all of them resemble one another in their early stages ofdevelopment: All of them have gill slits and a tail, and all have a fishlike heart with asingle atrium and ventricle. Based on that, he claimed that embryos, in the course ofdevelopment, repeat the evolutionary history of their ancestors in some abbreviatedform. This is the theory of recapitulation, advocated by Haeckel, according to which“ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”

According to Unification Thought, a human being is an image-like substantialobject of God, and all things are symbolic substantial objects of God. While a humanbeing has been created to express God’s nature and image completely, all other beingshave been created to express this nature symbolically. To put it another way, a humanbeing has been created in the likeness of God, while the rest of creation has been createdin the likeness of the human being. God created human beings as His object partners oflove and created all other things to be the object partners of love to humans; to serve asthe environment and the material for human life, in order to bring joy to people.

In the beginning, God conceived in His own image the first pair of humans, Adamand Eve. This image is the design and form of a human being. Then, taking that imageas the model, God conceived all other things by abstracting, simplifying andtransforming the human image.

From the Unification Thought viewpoint of creation in likeness, it is clear thathomologous and analogous organs are not actually evidence of evolution. In the theoryof evolution, a human hand has evolved from the common ancestor of the bird’s wings.But that is not the case. Taking the human hand as the model, God conceived the bird’swings in the likeness of the human hand by simplifying and transforming it (see fig. 1.2).The same thing can be said of a dog’s front legs and a whale’s flippers. As for theanalogous organs, it is natural that there should be resemblance among living beingssince they were created in the likeness of a human being.

It is also holds for the vestigial organs. Evolutionists say that human coccyx is aresult of the degeneration of a monkey’s tail. This is not the case; rather the monkey’stail was designed by prolonging the image of the human spinal column.

21

The likeness in the growth of the embryos of living beings does not prove thevalidity of the theory of evolution. Since living beings were created in the likeness of ahuman being, the process of growth of the embryo of other living beings is alsomodeled after the process of growth of the human embryo. Therefore, this case alsoindicates creation in likeness to a human being (see fig. 1.3).

VI.VI.VI.VI. TheTheTheThe OriginOriginOriginOrigin ofofofof HumansHumansHumansHumans

Theory of EvolutionIn this view, about 6 million years ago, cousins of the chimpanzees came out of the

forest onto the open savanna and a random sequence of mutations allowed them to walkupright on two legs. Following this, a random sequence of mutations allowed theirhands to develop so that they could use tools. A further sequence of random mutationsdrove the development of a large brain, allowing the quality of tools to improve; for thecapacity for language to emerge; and for the basics of human culture to emerge.

Creation TheoryIn this perspective, animals on land were created from the soil, according to their

kinds, on the Sixth Day of Creation about 6,000 years ago. A man (Adam) was made ofdust from the ground. God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he becamealive. Then God made Adam fall asleep, and God took one of his ribs and He made itinto a woman (Eve).

New Creation TheoryIn this new view, God created all living beings through the Logos (plan) and His

creative force, starting with lower beings and progressing, stage by stage, to higherbeings. In this process, God created beings that looked externally human as far as thephysical body was concerned from hominid precursors. Finally, He chose a couple fromthese and gave spirit selves to the children who were born from them: in this way, Adamand Eve were created.

According to the fundamentalist creation theory, God created living beings andhuman beings from the soil as if He was a magician—a viewpoint hardly acceptable tothe scientific mind. On the other hand, according to anthropologists, who are mostlyevolutionists, the outline of human evolution is as follows:

The divergence between the human and great ape lineage happened about 6 million

22

years ago. The first bipedal ape at the start of the human line is called Australopithecus.Then Homo habilis, characterized by the use of primitive stone tools, appeared about2.5 million years ago. Later, more refined stone tools and hand axes were used by Homoerectus roughly 1.7–1.5 million years ago. Approximately 500,000 years ago, the size ofthe human brain rapidly expanded and they began to use fire and invented tools. Theyare “archaic Homo sapiens.”

In 1978, Rebecca Cann of the University of Hawaii, together with Alan Wilson andMark Stoneking of the University of California, investigated mitochondrial DNA and itsvariation in women’s placenta donated by African, European, Middle Eastern and Asianpregnant women. Unlike the DNA contained in the nucleus, which is a mixture of bothparents’ genes, mitochondrial DNA is transmitted only through the maternal lineage,and is changed only by mutation with no sexual mixing. As the result of their research,they concluded that all mitochondrial DNA extant today originated from themitochondrial DNA of one woman who lived in Africa some 200,000 years ago. Shewas named the “Mitochondrial Eve.”

Complementing this, the Y chromosome is inherited only through the male line.Analysis of the Y chromosome lineage resulted in a man called the “African Adam”who existed in Africa sometime between 200,000 and 50,000 years ago.25 Therefore, itcan be said that humans (Homo sapiens), who had the same physical bodies as today’shuman beings, appeared between 200,000 and 50,000 years ago.

Finally, there occurred the “dawn of human culture”, a “creative explosion”, “agreat leap forward”, and the “sociocultural big bang” about 50,000 years ago.26 Forexample, the wall paintings in the Chauvet cave in France are splendid, they are as ifdrawn by an artist like Leonardo da Vinci.27 According to the Randall White of NewYork University, “Cro-Magnons were perfectly capable of going to the moonneurologically.”28 However, there are questions about the aforementioned scenario thatdefy explanation by anthropologists using the theory of evolution:

A.A.A.A. HowHowHowHow DDDDidididid AAAApespespespes SSSStarttarttarttart totototo WWWWalkalkalkalk UUUUpright?pright?pright?pright?What started forest apes walking about on two legs is a current mystery.

Anthropologists R.G. Klein and B. Edgar admit:

As to the advantages that bipedalism would have offered a ground-dwelling ape,the first and perhaps most obvious is that the arms and hands could now be used tocarry food to widely scattered trees or to other group members. . . . Novelexplanations of bipedalism are thus still welcome. . . . The initial advantages of

23

bipedalism may always remain a matter for speculation, but they must have beensignificant. 29

Comparing a chimpanzee’s frame to the human frame reveals that they are greatlydifferent. Even if apes had come out of the forest, they would have walked in a mannercalled “knuckle walking,” leaning forward. It is inconceivable that, carrying things orstretching their backs, would allow their frame to change in such an extent as to becomesuitable for bipedalism. Without the blueprint of a human frame, a stable and uprightbipedalism is impossible.

B.B.B.B. WhyWhyWhyWhy DDDDidididid anananan AAAApelikepelikepelikepelike BBBBrainrainrainrain RRRRapidlyapidlyapidlyapidly GGGGrow?row?row?row?The rapid enlargement of the brain was a major step in human evolution as

emphasized by R.G. Klein and B. Edgar:

Between 1.8 million and 600,000 years ago, brain size remained remarkably stableat roughly sixty-five percent of the modern average, but not long afterwards itincreased to about ninety percent of the modern value. . . . Its emergence 600,000years ago would signal a punctuational event.30

However, the reason why the brain underwent this rapid enlargement, apunctuational event in the history of human evolution, is unanswered. Nobel Prizelaureate biologist Gerald M. Edelman, when discussing this problem, admitted that:“These are profound and largely unanswered problems in paleontology, anthropologyand archeology.”31

Not only the brain size but also its structure is largely different between Homosapiens and its precursors. Therefore, a simple enlargement of the brain is not sufficientto explain the emergence of a brain with all the human capacities. It is notable that thesize of an elephant’s brain and that of the blue whale dwarfs that of the human, but theintellectual level of these animals is far inferior to that of the human.

C.C.C.C. WhatWhatWhatWhat CCCCausedausedausedaused thethethethe ““““DDDDawnawnawnawn ofofofof HHHHumanumanumanuman CCCCultureultureultureulture”””” 50,00050,00050,00050,000 YYYYearsearsearsears AAAAgo?go?go?go?The cause of the cultural Big Bang that occurred 50,000 years ago is also a mystery.

Commenting on this, R.G. Kleine and B. Edgar note that: “Archeology demonstrates theradical nature and consequences of the last event [which occurred about 50,000 yearsago], but it says nothing about what prompted it, and it is here that we face aconundrum.” 32 Later they point out that: “We must now proceed to the most difficult

24

question of all: what accounts for the ‘dawn.’ The answer as we shall see is contentiousand it may always be that way.”33 R. G. Klein concludes that, “Something happenedabout 50,000 years ago. . . . Researchers can only speculate for now about what broughtthe shift about.”34

What does it imply when an artist as talented as Leonard da Vinci appeared as aresult of the cultural dawn; and that at that time there was the intellectual ability to go tothe moon?

We can compare the human brain to a computer. Just as a computer is designed byscientists, the brain, the high quality computer, should have been designed by a greatintellect. Also, in order for a computer to demonstrate its sophisticated abilities, highquality software has to be installed on the computer. As a matter of fact, the humanbrain is equipped with high quality software such as the grammar and syntax oflanguage. However, as anthropologist Ian Tattersall points out: “Neither do we knowwhy, at the end of this process, the human brain had become so beautifully exapted forlanguage and symbolic reasoning”35 There is no other way but to think that such highquality software has also been designed by a great intellect.

In addition, just as an intellectual human operator is necessary to operate acomputer, so an intellectual and spiritual being as operator is necessary to operate thehigh quality computer, the human brain. Thus, the Homo sapiens who drove the culturalbig bang 50,000 years ago cannot be an animal-like being with only a physical body.The brain of an animal has not been equipped with either high quality software or ahighly intellectual operator.

We conclude that, from the viewpoint of Unification Thought, the physical bodyplan of the human emerged 200,000-50,000 years ago; then about 50,000 years ago thefirst man and woman, Adam and Eve, with human spirits (spirit selves) were created.Their spirits, or spirit selves, are the intellectual operators that direct the high-qualitysoftware of the physical brain.

It is written in the Bible that Adam was made from the dust of the earth. This issymbolic; the dust is not literal soil but all the things of the earth in its broadest sense.God first made apes on the billion-year foundation of living systems. On this foundation,God created such beings as were externally human. Then, choosing a pair of male andfemale from them, God gave spirits to children born to them. In this way, Adam and Evewere created. Eve was not made literally from Adam’s rib; the rib refers symbolically tothe blueprint, it indicates that Eve was created using the same, if complementary,blueprint involved in the emergence of Adam.

25

VII.VII.VII.VII. WhyWhyWhyWhy Sex?Sex?Sex?Sex?

Theory of EvolutionWhy did living things change from the asexual reproduction used by the first living

systems to the sexual process so common in later life (stamen and pistil; male andfemale; man and woman)? The challenge is that asexual reproduction is so much moreefficient than the sexual process in creating large numbers of descendants. Thedefinitive reason for this change is an open question although a variety of answers havebeen proposed.

Creation TheoryGod created humans in His image—man and woman. Likewise, living things were

created in pairs: as male and female.

New Creation TheoryGod is the united being of the dual characteristics of Yang and Yin. By separating

those dual characteristics, God created man and woman, male and female, and stamenand pistil as “yang substantial beings” and “yin substantial beings.” This is called thepair system of the created world. God created the world using the pair system for thepurpose of generating love and beauty in the created world.

Why did reproduction by sex emerge in living systems? This is still a puzzle inmodern biology as asexual reproduction is a much more efficient way of making asmany offspring as possible.

The most influential theory in answer to this conundrum is the “Red Queenhypothesis.” This is named after the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll’s “Alice inWonderland,” who must run constantly just to stay in one place; she cannot just standstill. The hypothesis is that living beings must also keep on changing to cope withparasites like viruses.

In asexually reproducing organisms, descendents are a clone of the parent so theyare all identical. Accordingly, if one can be destroyed by an efficient parasite, all ofthem can be and the lineage will perish. In the case of sexually reproducing organisms,they can cope with parasites because the genes are being constantly mixed into newcombinations in their descendants. This is the assertion that “sex exists to creatediversity.”

A similar view is the assertion that “sex exists to preserve genes.” Evolutionary

26

biologist Richard E. Michod explains why having two copies of genes is advantageous:

Sex overcomes the many genetic errors—damage and mutations—that threaten life,and in so doing the DNA molecule becomes whole. Sex maintains the well-beingof genes, and through their immortality, sex provides for the continuation andimmortality of life.36

These are thus advantages to sexual reproduction. Such advantages do not explainwhy sex appeared, however, as noted by science writer Hisako Nishimura:

Why do men and women exist in this world? ——This is “the first mystery of sex.”This is a question that humans have thought about ever since the beginning ofhistory. . . . Various theories have been presented about the origin of sex. However,they only explain the significance of sex that has already emerged. The question ofwhy and how male and female came to exist on the earth still remains.37

In the Unification Thought viewpoint, sex exists for the sake of love. Man andwoman were created to realize love. In other words, God wanted to perfect love throughman and woman. Male and female in animals, stamen and pistil in plants, and cationand anion in minerals were also created in order to express love, although of a lowerdimension. God’s creation was accomplished through the pair system, elevating thedimension of love by stages. The process of creation was therefore a “progress of love.”Love and beauty are connected; the creation of love is simultaneously the creation ofbeauty. Therefore, God created the world gradually to be more lovely and morebeautifully.

All living beings are created in pairs for love. Only a pair of male and femalewithin the same species can mate. Even if an offspring is born as a result of matingbetween different species, that offspring is unable to reproduce. It is impossible fordifferent species to mate with one another. This implies the existence of “gates of love”in living beings. Accordingly, even if a single individual being evolves into a higherbeing, it cannot multiply into a new species. It is impossible for evolution to proceedthrough mating by a male and a female of different species going beyond the “gate oflove.” Both male and female must be elevated to a new stage together. In other words,new species appear through the creation of new pairs not new individuals.

VIII.VIII.VIII.VIII. TheTheTheThe OriginOriginOriginOrigin ofofofof LoveLoveLoveLove

27

Theory of EvolutionThe theory of evolution discusses the origin of the physical body. It hardly

discusses such issues as how love came into existence and how it was elevated tohuman love.

Creation TheoryGod’s essence is love. God is the perfect and self-sufficient being. Yet, He

unilaterally created human beings and poured His love into them. Love between humanbeings came from God.

New Creation TheoryLove came from God. Yet, love of human beings and love of animals are different

in terms of quality and dimension. God created all things to make an environment oflove for human beings, to build bridges of love among human beings, and to makeornaments of love for human beings. Therefore, human beings are the central players oflove, in the starring role; all other things are in the role of supporting players and thestage setting for the love drama.

Origin of love by Sydney Mellen is one of the few treatises that discuss the originof love and its development from an evolutionist’s viewpoint. In his view, the basicbonds of mother and offspring as found in mammals evolved into the various types ofhuman love:

The capacities for love which natural selection developed in mammals, especiallyin the higher primates, have developed in humans far beyond the primordialmother-infant bond, and have spread in several new directions. Preceding chaptershave suggested ways in which the basic mammalian resource of emotion may havebeen channeled into varieties of love between a woman and a man, of love betweena man and the children surrounding him, and even, paradoxically, of homosexuallove. But biological evolution and cultural evolution have not stopped there.38

With regard to the conjugal love between man and woman, in particular, he says,“The propensities for love between males and females proved so advantageous, andwere developed by natural selection.”39 With regard to the agape love taught inChristianity, he says, “The love inherent in the Christian faith had its origins in

28

biological evolution just as surely as other varieties of human love. In fact it was thesame thing. The sublime love which was evoked by Jesus and his early followers, andwhich illuminated the Western world for so many centuries, was essentially asummation or apotheosis of several different varieties of earthly human love”40 Hisconclusion is that the origin of love is ultimately to be found in biological evolution.

In contrast to this view based on evolution, Unification Thought asserts, asChristianity does, that love comes from God. With regard to the love of human beingsand that of animals, Unification Thought explains that, just as bodies of living beingswere designed with the human body as the model, so animal love was symbolicallyexpressed with human love as the model. This is because we are created to feel joy byfeeling our own original nature (love) through all things. Human love is manifested onthe foundation of the family as children’s love, siblings’ love, conjugal love, andparental love: these loves are God’s love being manifested diversely through membersof a family.

In terms of hyungsang (physical body), God created all things step by step fromlower beings to higher beings with human beings as the ultimate goal. Likewise, interms of sungsang (mind, heart), God created the animal kingdom by elevating lovefrom lower dimension to higher dimension with human love as the goal. This is theprogress of love.

God aimed at perfecting love through Adam and Eve. However, due to the fall ofAdam and Eve, love remained incomplete. As a result, the created world became theworld without the central role of true lovers. The world of creation, the stage of love,has remained without the starring roles of true love, and all things have been keenlylonging for their appearance.

The love between man and woman and the love between male and female ofanimals are closely related to sexual reproduction. In biology, a species is generallyconsidered a group of organisms that can generate offspring through sexual mating. Inthis view, the interbreeding between different species is impossible.

However, the gradualism inherent in evolutionary thought does not allow for adistinct boundary between species. In particular, Richard Dawkins, one of therepresentative evolutionists in the contemporary age, insists that the gap between humanbeings and apes is not an absolute:

What if a clutch of intermediate types had survived, enough to link us to modernchimpanzees by a chain, not just of hand-holders, but of interbreeders? . . . It issheer luck that this handful of intermediates no longer exists. . . . We need only

29

discover a single survivor, say a relic Australopithecus in the Budongo Forest, andour precious system of norms and ethics would come crashing about our ears. . . .So what if, in the continuum of all apes that have lived in Africa, the survivorshappen to leave a convenient gap between Homo and Pan? Surely we should, inany case, not base our treatment of animals on whether or not we can interbreedwith them.41

From the Unification Thought perspective, there is what can be called “the gate oflove” between species. Accordingly, different species cannot interbreed with each other.God created the world of living beings according to species so that each species canmanifest its unique individuality. Therefore, each species is created to manifest a uniqueloveliness as well as a unique external appearance. In that sense, as creationists assert,the species maintain their unchanging nature and boundaries. There cannot be aninterbreeding between human beings and apes. This is because, if interbreeding occursbetween the two, the perfection of love between man and woman, the purpose of God’screation, collapses.

IX.IX.IX.IX. ProcessProcessProcessProcess ofofofof Evolution,Evolution,Evolution,Evolution, orororor ofofofof CreationCreationCreationCreation

Theory of evolutionAccording to the modern evolutionary synthesis (Neo-Darwinism), the process of

evolution is as follows:(1) Mutation gives rise to the raw material of evolution.(2) Natural selection decides the direction of evolution.Mutation refers to accidental and random change caused by cosmic rays, ultraviolet

rays, lightning, DNA copying mistakes, etc. Occasionally, an organism has a usefulmutation which thrives and, in this way, evolution progresses.

Creation TheoryAs the Bible states: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with

God. . . . All things were made through him.” (John 1:1-2) The Word was first formedby God. Then, through the Word, all living beings were created.

New Creation TheoryAs in Christian creationism, the Word (Logos) was formed first; then, living beings

were created according to the Word. Logos is not the verbal word uttered by God but is

30

God’s idea and blueprint for the universe. The formation of logos was from top tobottom, starting with human beings and descending gradually toward lower livingbeings then to molecules and atoms etc. The creation of the physical world, however,was from bottom to top, from atoms to simple cells to higher-level beings, and finally tohuman beings. This is called the “two-stage structure of creation.”

In the Bible it is written, “Every house is built by someone, but the builder of allthings is God” (Hebrews 3:4). Actually, nobody would think that a house, no matterhow simple a hut, could be built by trees and branches being blown about by a storm.

The mutations embraced by evolutionists are a result of random actions such ascosmic rays coming from the explosion of stars, ultraviolet rays coming from thenuclear fusion reactions in the sun (basically a giant H-bomb), and lightning, all ofwhich are as random as typhoons and hurricanes. It is inherently impossible fororganisms to come into possession of more sophisticated structures and qualities as aresult of such randomizing actions.

Such evolutionary development and increase in sophistication is a consequence ofthe “two stage structure of creation” advocated by Unification Thought.

Prior to creation, the image of a human being as God’s direct object of love wasconceived within His mind. As it is written in the Bible: “So God created man in hisown image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”(Gen. 1:27), a human couple, Adam and Eve, was conceived in God’s image as theperfect beings they would become when mature. Taking the human image as a model,and by abstracting and transforming it, God conceived the images of animals; by furtherabstracting and transforming them, He conceived the images of plants. Even amonganimals, 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 loweranimals. Among the images of plants, He also conceived the images of higher plantsfirst, and then gradually the images of lower plants. At the extreme end of the process ofabstracting and transforming the images of animals and plants, God conceived theimage of a cell. The cell was conceived as the smallest unit of all living beings.

Next, by abstracting and transforming the images of animals and plants, Godconceived the images of the heavenly bodies: God conceived the earth as the dwellingplace for humans and other living beings, and the universe to sustain the earth. He alsoconceived the images of minerals as the materials with which to build the heavenlybodies. Through further abstraction and transformation, God conceived the images ofmolecules, atoms, and elementary particles. These were conceived as the basic material

31

with which to make the heavenly bodies, plants, animals, and human beings. Finally, Heconceived the image of light (electromagnetic wave) as the most basic material.

Thus, in God the ideas were formed in the following order: human being � higheranimals � lower animals � higher plants � lower plants � heavenly bodies �minerals � molecules � atoms � elementary particles� light. Conceiving the ideameans forming the Logos, the design and blueprint for each stage.

The creation of the phenomenal world occurred, however, in exactly the reverseorder. From the explosion of energy called the Big Bang emerged elementary particles,atoms, and molecules. Those atoms and molecules coalesced into the heavenly bodies,including the earth, a special planet among the heavenly bodies.

On the earth, first, plants emerged, then, animals, and finally, humans. This doesnot imply that animals were created after all the plants had been created. The plantworld was created just slightly ahead of the animal world, so that both worlds werecreated almost simultaneously, and in such a way that creation proceeded from lower tohigher stage beings. This is because plants and animals have a relationship ofco-existence and co-prosperity.

The sequence of creation was, first the formation of ideas (that is, the creation ofLogos), which took place within God’s mind; and then the creation of the phenomenalworld, which took place according to Logos. This is the “two-stage structure ofcreation” (see fig.1.4).

When we look at the organisms that appeared on the earth in the second stage —thepart encircled by a frame in figure 1.4—they seem to have evolved from simpler andlower beings to more complicated and higher beings. In other words, in the plant worldcreation proceeded in the following order: algae� mosses� ferns� gymnosperms�angiosperms, and in the animal world: amoebas � invertebrates � fishes �amphibians� reptiles � mammals� apes � hominids� early men. This, however,was not due to random evolution but rather the plan of creation carried outsystematically as guided by the Logos.

In the formation of the Logos, there was abstraction and transformation in the plan.By abstracting the image of human being, God designed the image of animal. Next, Godtransformed the abstract image of animal, and designed concrete images of variousindividual animals. For example, God created animals with long noses (elephants),those with long necks (giraffes), those with much hair (sheep), those which are strong(lions), etc. In the same way, He transformed the abstract image of plant and designedvarious specific plants, such as those that emphasize flowers (rose), those thatemphasize fruits (watermelon and apple), those that emphasize seeds (wheat), etc.

32

The same process went into the design of the heavenly bodies. God transformed theabstract image of heavenly body into the design for the planet of water (Earth), theplanet that protects the Earth from the collision of comets and asteroids (Jupiter), thebeautiful planet with rings (Saturn), and the star as the source of light and heat (Sun),etc. Transforming the abstract image of an atom, He designed specific atoms such ashydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, etc. Transforming the abstract image of anelementary particle, He designed specific such particles as electrons, protons, neutrons,neutrinos, etc. The process of abstraction and transformation in the formation of theLogos is illustrated in figure 1.5.

The classical Greek philosopher Anaximander thought that human beings came intoexistence as a result of the transformation of fish. On the other hand, Plato thought thatfishes and birds were the products of the degeneration of human beings. Plato saw theworld of idea centered on human beings; Anaximander saw the phenomenal world fromthe viewpoint of evolution. They both caught a part of the whole picture: Plato dealtwith the formation of Logos, the first stage of the Unification Thought two-stagestructure of creation; while Anaximander dealt with the creation of the physical world,the second stage of the two-stage structure of creation.

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844), a French natural historian, thought that allanimals could be created from one pattern or a prototype; and that all animals came intoexistence by transforming this prototype. It is said that Geoffroy believed in a kind ofdivine order. Goethe, his contemporary, also thought of the “proto-plant” and the“proto-animal.” He thought that all plants had come from the proto-plant and that allanimals from the proto-animal. Both the views of Geoffroy and Goethe are embraced bythe Unification Thought theory of the “processes of abstraction and transformation inthe formation of Logos.” In Unification Thought, however, proto-plant includes thestages of proto-algae, proto-moss, proto-fern, proto-gymnosperm and proto-angiosperm;similarly, the concept of proto-animal embraces the stages of proto-amoeba,proto-invertebrate, proto-fish, proto-amphibian, proto-reptile, proto-mammal andproto-ape.

In that same period, Cuvier (1769-1832), a French authority in comparativeanatomy, asserted that there were four basic types of animals, which are not convertibleto each other because of the absence of any resemblance. Thus, he rejected Geoffroy’stheory. However, as the structure of God’s creation has now been clarified, the insightsof Geoffroy and Goethe can be seen to have their merits.

As pointed out earlier, one of the problems confounding the theory of naturalselection is the puzzle presented by the wonder net of the okapi. Commenting on this,

33

Ryuichi Kaneko concludes that: “The only reasonable interpretation with regard to thisis that the ancestors of giraffes determined to prolong their necks and, with an eye to thefuture, prepared the wonder net. In other words, we come to the extraordinaryconclusion that the giraffe evolved with a purpose. Such an example as this one is beingdiscovered in the world of living beings one after another. A theory of evolution whichcan answer this question will become the most correct theory of evolution.”42

While this is a problem for Darwinian evolution, the Unification Thought newcreation theory deals with this in the following way: In the process of forming images,God first conceived the images of higher beings then, and simplifying and transformingthem, He conceived the images of lower beings. In the actual process of creation, thelower beings appear before the higher beings. Accordingly, as the okapi is the ancestorof the giraffe, the image of the okapi was conceived by God using the giraffe as thestarting point. In other words, the image of the okapi was created on the basis of theimage of giraffe. Thus, the okapi was created as the preparation for the giraffe. Thinkingin this way, we can understand why the okapi has the wonder net.

X.X.X.X. WhatWhatWhatWhat IsIsIsIs thethethethe DrivingDrivingDrivingDriving ForceForceForceForce ofofofof Creation,Creation,Creation,Creation, orororor ofofofof Evolution?Evolution?Evolution?Evolution?

Theory of evolutionNatural selection is the driving force of evolution. Therefore, natural selection

stands in the position of the Creator in place of God.

Creation TheoryGod is omniscient and omnipotent. He is the Creator. All beings were created by

God according to His will.

New Creation TheoryGod has 100% creativity. Yet, He does not manifest all His creativity but has given

a part of it to human beings. This is for the purpose of making human beings creatorsand the lords of dominion over all things. Figuratively speaking, God manifests 97% outof 100% of His creativity and entrusts the remaining 3% to human beings.

If God created all things 100% and complete, human beings would have nothing todo but just appreciate their beauty and consume them for nourishment. If that were thecase, human beings would be no different from all things and would not be qualified tobe lords of dominion over, and co-creators of all things. That is why God deliberately

34

entrusted one part of His creativity to human beings.For example, God created the wild orchids. Later, people bred and improved on the

wild orchids and made them blossom with a variety of beautiful flowers. The personwho bred the beautiful orchid can be regarded as its creator. The same reasoning can beapplied to apples and grapes. God created wild apples and grapes. Then, human beingsimproved them, creating beautiful apples such as the crisp ‘Fuji’ and the delicious‘Kyoho’ grapes. Those who developed these varieties are considered as their creators.

The same thing can be said about the development of science and technology. Goddetermined the laws of nature and prepared the necessary energy and material.Moreover, He made various models of all things. (For instance, a bird is a model of anairplane.) On the foundation of God preparation, scientists added their creativity anddeveloped science and technology.

Animals also have creativity. The creativity of animals has the following qualities:(1) Instinctive creativity. Birds making a nest, bees making a comb to store honey,

beavers constructing a dam, etc.(2) Ability to adjust to environment.(3) Ability to learn: Animals can learn to some extent if trained by humans.Humans can develop new plans and develop new techniques. However, animals do

not have the kind of developmental creativity as humans have. As a matter of fact, thereis no ape that sees a mirror and applies makeup, or an ape that cooks, writes a novel, orcomposes music.

Random forces in the natural world, left to themselves, do not have creativity evenat the level of animals. Yet, Dobzhansky compares natural selection to a composer;Simpson, to a poet; Meyer, to a sculptor; and Huxley, to Shakespeare. Evolutionists tryto expel God and to place natural selection in the role of the Creator.

Ⅺ.... BothBothBothBoth EvolutionismEvolutionismEvolutionismEvolutionism andandandand CreationismCreationismCreationismCreationism CanCanCanCan BeBeBeBe InvigoratedInvigoratedInvigoratedInvigorated

bybybyby UnificationUnificationUnificationUnification ThoughtThoughtThoughtThought

From the perspective of Unification Thought, the theory of evolution is not totallywrong. Looking at external sequence of phenomena, living beings seem to have evolved.So it was, in a sense, natural that evolutionism should come into existence and the stepsdescribed by evolutionists recognized. Evolutionists, however, assert that mutationswere brought about at random by disorderly forces such as cosmic rays, ultraviolet raysand lightning, and that progress occurred by the natural selection of these random

35

mutations. Such randomness is not acceptable as a means of progress. Living beingswere created stage by stage from lower to higher beings by a creative force rather thanrandom forces.

In creation, we can consider that the creative force directed cosmic rays, ultravioletrays, and used vectors (virus, plasmid, phage) in the manipulation of genes. Also, wecan consider that nucleotides and amino acids were formed on comets and they werecarried to the earth where they were used to synthesize nucleic acids and proteins.Therefore, the new creationism advocated by Unification Thought can embraceevolutionism, while correcting its errors.

On the other hand, Christian creationism asserts that six thousand years ago theomniscient and almighty God created the universe and all living things in six days as ifHe were a magician. However, this is a poetic description using symbols and was neverintended to be taken literally. In reality, it took God a long time to realize the plan,investing His energy in accordance with the plan.

If we think of the Biblical description in this way, it is quite in accord with thediscoveries of science. We should reconsider God not as a magician but as the greatestand highest scientist and artist. The new creationism of Unification Thought takes thecore of Christian creationism and supplements with aspects of time, plan, and theinvestment of energy. Furthermore, it clarifies God’s purpose of creation and therelationship between human beings and all things. Then, Christian creationism willrevive in today’s age of science fulfilling St. Paul’s prophecy in 1 Corinthians 13:9-12

For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophesy is imperfect; but when the perfectcomes, imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thoughtlike a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then Ishall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.

Taking all this into account, we can reinterpret the description of “creation in sixdays” written in the Bible, and explain the process of creation by God from theviewpoint of modern science.

1.1.1.1. TheTheTheThe FirstFirstFirstFirst Day:Day:Day:Day: TheTheTheThe creationcreationcreationcreation ofofofof thethethethe universeuniverseuniverseuniverse throughthroughthroughthrough ““““lightlightlightlight””””The Bible records that on the first day God said, “Let there be light”; and there was

light. From the standpoint of modern science, this corresponds to the fact that theuniverse was formed through the inflation and Big Bang. As a result of the Big Bang,

36

which happened about 13.7 billion years ago, the expanding universe was filled withintense high-energy electromagnetic radiation (“light”) and a relatively small amount ofhydrogen and helium. As time passed and the universe expanded, the radiationcooled—eventually becoming the ‘cosmic microwave background’ radiation of thecurrent day—and the atoms coalesced into tendrils of vast gossamer gas clouds. Theclouds slowly spun, making a hundred billion shining points. These vast spinning gasclouds developed to become clusters of galaxies. That was how the universe wasformed.

2.2.2.2. TheTheTheThe SecondSecondSecondSecond Day:Day:Day:Day: TheTheTheThe birthbirthbirthbirth ofofofof thethethethe planetplanetplanetplanet ofofofof ““““waterwaterwaterwater””””The Bible records that on the second day God made the firmament and separated

the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above thefirmament. From the standpoint of modern science, this stage corresponds to the statejust after the formation of the earth some 4.6 billion years ago. The earth was coveredby a thick atmosphere, consisting mainly of hot steam (the waters above), carbondioxide and ammonia. As the earth cooled, the water in the atmosphere condensedcreating the ocean (the waters under). This is how the earth, the planet of “water,” wasborn.

3.3.3.3. TheTheTheThe ThirdThirdThirdThird Day:Day:Day:Day: TheTheTheThe formationformationformationformation ofofofof seasseasseasseas andandandand landlandlandland ((((““““earthearthearthearth””””))))The Bible says that, on the third day, “land” and “seas” were created. According to

modern science, the early earth was covered with water until tectonic movementsuplifted the first dry land and gradually formed the continents. Land rose from under theseas. While just how this land formed has not been fully clarified, it is safe to say thatthere were continents—though not in the configuration we see them today—by 3.5 to 2billion years ago. About 4 billion years ago, the first simple living beings, the bacteria,were born in the oceans. About 3.5 billion years ago, algae were born and startedgenerating oxygen through photosynthesis. The atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolved inthe sea becoming calcium carbonate, depositing as limestone while the ammonia wasoxidized to nitrogen. Nitrogen became the main ingredient of the atmosphere.

4.4.4.4. TheTheTheThe FourthFourthFourthFourth Day:Day:Day:Day: TheTheTheThe formationformationformationformation ofofofof ““““airairairair”””” ofofofof oxygenoxygenoxygenoxygenAccording to the Bible, God created “the greater light” (the sun), “the lesser light”

(the moon), and stars on the fourth day. As a matter of fact, however, the sun, the moonand stars already existed at that time. Therefore, the description should be interpreted tomean that the sun, the moon and stars became clearly visible from the earth after the

37

atmosphere covering the earth cleared up. The oxygen, which was generated in the seaby photosynthetic algae, was at first absorbed by the large amounts of dissolved ferrousions, depositing and accumulating as ferric oxide—the iron ore beds which are mined inthis age. About 2 billion years ago, the accumulation of iron oxide ended and freeoxygen was increasingly discharged into the atmosphere.

The primordial atmosphere on the earth consisted of grey, thick, foggy layers. Asthe oxygen accumulated, there was a slow change in the atmosphere, and the skybecame blue and clear. The earth began to become blue about 2 billion years ago,becoming the “blue planet.”

About 600 million years ago, multicellular animals appeared in the oceans. Then,about 535 million years ago, a massive development of marine invertebrates called “theCambrian explosion” occurred. Corals and other living beings which produce calciumcarbonate shells converted carbon dioxide into limestone, reducing further the amountof carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmospheredecreased to only 0.03 %, which is the same level as it is at present. On land, simpleplants and then animals emerged, among them insects and the simple earthworms thatcreated soil by their activity. Thus, about 400 million years ago, the environment onland was prepared where high-level living beings were able to live. At that time, thedensity of oxygen in the atmosphere reached 21%, the same as today. This is how theearth with ‘light,’ ‘water,’ ‘soil,’ and ‘air,’ —all so eminently suited for human life—was created.

5.5.5.5. TheTheTheThe FifthFifthFifthFifth Day:Day:Day:Day: TheTheTheThe ageageageage ofofofof greatgreatgreatgreat forestsforestsforestsforests andandandand dinosaursdinosaursdinosaursdinosaursThe Bible says that God created living creatures of the water (fishes) and winged

birds on the fifth day. According to modern science, what flourished in this fifth stagewere: the ferns and gymnosperms; fishes in the seas; and the first amphibians colonizingthe edges of the continents. About 400 million years ago, fish multiplied in greatnumbers in the seas—the Devonian period often called the Age of Fishes. The plantkingdom on land started with the simple mosses, followed by the Age of Ferns. Fernsdeveloped the ability to make sturdy trunks and giant trees emerged, forming the GreatForest of the Carboniferous period whose fossilized remains are the great coal beds oftoday. It was a world of green silence with no flowers, flying insects or birds.

Then on land the gymnosperms (conifers) appeared— trees without flower petalsand with seeds unprotected by fruits that scattered their pollen in the air. On land, theamphibians developed hard-shelled eggs, which opened the Age of Reptiles. With the

38

Mesozoic era, there came the age of dinosaurs, the giant reptiles. One lineage of thedinosaurs developed into the birds and began to fill the sky.

This era corresponds to preparing the general environment in the scheme of God’screation. This was the era prior to creating the world of love and beauty thatfollowed—the world of mammals and angiosperms (flowering plants) as the home forhuman beings. For that reason, both the giant ferns and giant reptiles disappeared whenthis period was over. Many of the gymnosperms of the Mesozoic Era also disappearedand were replaced by angiosperms, plants with fruits and flowers.

6.6.6.6. TheTheTheThe SixthSixthSixthSixth Day:Day:Day:Day: TheTheTheThe completioncompletioncompletioncompletion ofofofof thethethethe purposepurposepurposepurpose ofofofof creationcreationcreationcreationThe Bible says that God created cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth,

and finally human beings on the sixth day. According to modern science, the Cenozoicera started about 65 million years ago when the plant kingdom opened the age ofangiosperms (fruits and flowers) and the animal kingdom the age of mammals. Algae,mosses, ferns and gymnosperms still exist today, but they are no longer the main players.In the animal world, invertebrates, fishes, reptiles, and birds have supporting, not centralroles.

Finally, Adam and Eve were born as the first ancestors of humankind. The worldcentering on human beings was complete. It was supposed to become the world whereGod’s ideal of love would be fulfilled. In the animal world, males and females play outthe drama of love. In the plant world, stamens and pistils have give and receive actionscreating the flowers and fruits of love. Into this environment of love prepared by allthings, Adam and Eve were supposed to actualize the highest love as the central playersin the drama of love. This did not take place, however, because of the Fall and the idealis yet to be fulfilled.

The unified description of the creation of heaven and earth according to the Bibleand from the standpoint of modern science is illustrated in figure 1.6.

By describing the process of creation as outlined above, we can understand thatGod did not instantly create the universe as if He were a magician waving a magic wand.Rather, He created the universe scientifically, taking His time, according to His plan,first creating the environment to sustain life. Then it took Him a long time to createliving beings, stage by stage from lower to higher beings, culminating in human beings.He created living beings by stages using the pair systems, elevating the level of lovetoward the perfection of love that was possible for Adam and Eve.

The argument between evolutionism and creationism is an intense and polarizeddebate. Left as it is, there is no way of finding a solution as both sides will continue

39

their disagreements with no meeting of minds. It is hoped that the new creationismadvocated by Unification Thought will provide a perspective that both sides can agreeupon.

40

Fig. 1.1. Gradual Evolution, or Instant Creation, or Creation by Stages?

Fig. 1.2. Homologous Organs Showing Creation in Likeness Centered on aHuman Being

41

Fig. 1.3. Ontogeny Indicating Creation in Likeness Centered on a HumanBeing

Source: Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, 95. Modification is added.

42

Fig. 1.4. The Two-Stage Structure of Creation

Fig. 1.5. The Process of Abstraction and Transformation in the Formation ofLogos

43

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