top of page
Prehistoric Adam and Eve

Human Evolution

The Universe through Intelligent Design

Human evolution

 

Human evolution is the process of change by which people originated. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from our ancestors and evolved over a period time.

 

One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism is the ability to walk on two legs. Other important human characteristics -- such as a large and complex brain, the ability to make and use tools, and the capacity for language -- developed more recently. Many advanced traits -- including complex symbolic expression, art, and elaborate cultural diversity emerged later.

 

Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to a group of primate species, the apes.  Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans come entirely from Africa.  They later entered Europe and populated many parts of the world much later.  

 

Paleoanthropology

 

Paleoanthropology is the scientific study of human evolution. Paleoanthropology is a subfield of anthropology, the study of human culture, society, and biology. The field involves an understanding of the similarities and differences between humans and other species in their genes, body form, physiology, and behavior. Paleoanthropologists search for the roots of human physical traits and behavior. They seek to discover how evolution has shaped the potentials, tendencies, and limitations of all people. For many people, paleoanthropology is an exciting scientific field because it investigates the origin, of the universal and defining traits of our species. 

 

Early human fossils and archeological remains offer the most important clues about this ancient past. These remains include bones, tools and any other evidence (such as footprints, evidence of hearths, or butchery marks on animal bones) left by earlier people. Usually, the remains were buried and preserved naturally. They are then found either on the surface (exposed by rain, rivers, and wind erosion) or by digging in the ground. By studying fossilized bones, scientists learn about the physical appearance of earlier humans and how it changed. Bone size, shape, and markings left by muscles tell us how those predecessors moved around, held tools, and how the size of their brains changed over a long time. Archeological evidence refers to the things earlier people made and the places where scientists find them. By studying this type of evidence, archeologists can understand how early humans made and used tools and lived in their environments.

 

The process of evolution

 

The process of evolution involves a series of natural changes that cause species (populations of different organisms) to arise, adapt to the environment, and become extinct. All species or organisms have originated through the process of biological evolution. In animals that reproduce sexually, including humans, the term species refers to a group whose adult members regularly interbreed, resulting in fertile offspring -- that is, offspring themselves capable of reproducing. Scientists classify each species with a unique, two-part scientific name. In this system, modern humans are classified as Homo sapiens.

 

Evolution occurs when there is change in the genetic material -- the chemical molecule, DNA -- which is inherited from the parents, and especially in the proportions of different genes in a population. Genes represent the segments of DNA that provide the chemical code for producing proteins. Information contained in the DNA can change by a process known as mutation. The way particular genes are expressed – that is, how they influence the body or behavior of an organism -- can also change. Genes affect how the body and behavior of an organism develop during its life, and this is why genetically inherited characteristics can influence the likelihood of an organism’s survival and reproduction.

 

Evolution does not change any single individual. Instead, it changes the inherited means of growth and development that typify a population (a group of individuals of the same species living in a particular habitat). Parents pass adaptive genetic changes to their offspring, and ultimately these changes become common throughout a population. As a result, the offspring inherit those genetic characteristics that enhance their chances of survival and ability to give birth, which may work well until the environment changes. Over time, genetic change can alter a species' overall way of life, such as what it eats, how it grows, and where it can live. Human evolution took place as new genetic variations in early ancestor populations favored new abilities to adapt to environmental change and so altered the human way of life.  Keep in mind that when we speak of human evolution through genetetic mutation we are not speaking of a change in species but rather the ability of the species to adapt to its natural environment or the mutation of genetic material that will make the species predominantly susceptible to extinction.

 

Evolutionists frequently assert that the similarity in DNA sequences provides evidence that all organisms (especially humans and chimps) are descended from a common ancestor. However, DNA similarity could just as easily be explained as the result of a common Creator.

 

Human designers frequently reuse the same elements and features, albeit with modifications. Since all living things share the same world, it should be expected that there would be similarities in DNA as the organisms would have similar needs. Indeed, it would be quite surprising if every living thing had completely different sequences for each protein—especially ones that carried out the same function. Organisms that have highly similar functionality and physiological needs would be expected to have a degree of DNA similarity.

What Is DNA?

 

Figure 1. The double-stranded DNA molecule forms with an A opposite a T and a G opposite a C. This sequence determines the structure of proteins.

Every living cell contains DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), which provides the hereditary instructions for living things to survive, grow, and reproduce. The DNA is comprised of chemicals called bases, which are paired and put together in double-stranded chains. There are four different bases, which are represented by the letters A, T, C, and G. Because A is always paired with T and C is always paired with G, one strand of DNA can serve as a template for producing the other strand.

 

The DNA is transcribed into a single chain of nucleotides called RNA (ribonucleic acid), which is then translated into the amino acid sequence of a protein. In this way, the sequence of bases in DNA determines the sequence of amino acids in a protein which in turn determines the protein structure and function.

 

In the human genome (total genetic information in the nucleus of the cell), there are roughly three billion base pairs of DNA with about 20,000 genes (regions that code for proteins). Surprisingly, only about 1 percent of the DNA actually codes for proteins. The rest is non-coding DNA. Some of this DNA comprises control areas—segments of DNA responsible for turning genes on and off, controlling the amount and timing of protein production. There are also portions of DNA that play structural roles. Still other regions of DNA have as yet unknown functions.

What Is the Real Percent Similarity between Humans and Chimpanzees?

 

Figures 2 and 3: Evolutionists believe that the similarity in the DNA sequence of gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans is proof that they all share a common ancestor (Photos: Shutterstock)

 

Ever since the time of Darwin, evolutionary scientists have noted the anatomical (physical/visible) similarities between humans and the great apes, including chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Over the last few decades, molecular biologists have joined the fray, pointing out the similarities in DNA sequences. Previous estimates of genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees suggested they were 98.5–99.4 percent identical.

 

Because of this similarity, evolutionists have viewed the chimpanzee as “our closest living relative.” Most early comparative studies were carried out only on genes (such as the sequence of the cytochrome c protein), which constituted only a very tiny fraction of the roughly three billion DNA base pairs that comprise our genetic blueprint. Although the full human genome sequence has been available since 2001, the whole chimpanzee genome has not. Thus, much of the previous work was based on only a fraction of the total DNA.

The Differences Make the Difference

 

There are many other differences between chimpanzee and human genomes that are not quantifiable as percentages.8 Specific examples of these differences include:

 

At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called telomeres. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23,000 base pairs of DNA at their telomeres. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10,000 long.9

 

While 18 pairs of chromosomes are virtually identical, chromosomes 4, 9, and 12 show evidence of being “remodeled.”10 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of being “remodeled,” as the evolutionists suggest, these could also be intrinsic differences as each was a separate creation.

Even with genetic similarity, there can be differences in the amount of specific proteins produced. Just because DNA sequences are similar does not mean that the same amounts of the proteins are produced. Such differences in protein expression can yield vastly different responses in cells. Roughly 10 percent of genes examined showed significant differences in expression levels between chimpanzees and humans.11

 

Gene families are groups of genes that have similar sequences and also similar functions. Scientists comparing the number of genes in gene families have revealed significant differences between humans and chimpanzees. Humans have 689 genes that chimps lack and chimps have 86 genes that humans lack. Such differences mean that 6 percent of the gene complement is different between humans and chimpanzees, irrespective of the individual DNA base pairs.12

 

Thus, the percentage of matching DNA is only one measure of how similar two organisms are, and not really a good one at that. There are other factors besides DNA sequence that determine an organism’s phenotype (how traits are physically expressed). Indeed, even though identical twins have the same DNA sequence, as they grow older, twins show differences in protein expression.13 Therefore, there must be some interaction between the genes and the environment.

 

Importantly, not all of the data support chimp-human common ancestry as nicely as evolutionists typically suggest. In particular, when scientists made a careful comparison between human, chimpanzee, and gorilla genomes, they found a significant number of genetic markers where humans matched gorillas more closely than chimpanzees! Indeed, at 18–29 percent of the genetic markers, either humans and gorillas or chimpanzees and gorillas had a closer match to each other than chimpanzees and humans.14

 

These results are certainly not what one would expect according to standard evolutionary theory. Chimpanzees and humans are supposed to share a more recent common ancestor with each other than either have with the gorilla. Trying to account for the unexpected distribution of common markers that would otherwise conflict with evolutionary predictions, the authors of this study made the bizarre suggestion: Perhaps chimpanzees and humans split off from a common ancestor, but later descendants of each reproduced to form chimp-human hybrids. Such an “explanation” appears to be an attempt to rescue the concept of chimp-human common ancestry rather than to provide the data to confirm this hypothesis.

All Similarities Are Not Equal

 

MANY GENETIC DEFECTS ARE THE RESULT OF A SINGLE CHANGE IN AN AMINO ACID.

 

A high degree of sequence similarity does not equate to proteins having exactly the same function or role. For example, the FOXP2 protein, which has been shown to be involved in language, has only 2 out of about 700 amino acids which are different between chimpanzees and humans.15 This means they are 99.7 percent identical. While this might seem like a trivial difference, consider exactly what those differences are. In the FOXP2 protein, humans have the amino acid asparagine instead of threonine at position 303 and then a serine that is in place of an asparagine at 325. Although apparently a minor alteration, the second change can make a significant difference in the way the protein functions and is regulated. Thus, a very high degree of sequence similarity can be irrelevant if the amino acid that is different plays a crucial role. Indeed, many genetic defects are the result of a single change in an amino acid. For example, sickle cell anemia results from a valine replacing glutamic acid in the hemoglobin protein. It does not matter that every other amino acid is exactly the same.

 

Usually people think that differences in amino acid sequence only alter the three-dimensional shape of a protein. FOXP2 demonstrates how a difference in one amino acid can yield a protein that is regulated differently or has altered functions. Therefore, we should not be too quick to trivialize even very small differences in gene sequences. Further, slight differences in regions that don’t code for proteins can impact how protein levels are regulated. This alteration can change the amount of protein that is produced or when it is produced. In such cases, the high degree of similarity is meaningless because of the significant functional differences that result from altered protein levels.

What about Similar “Junk DNA” in Human and Chimp DNA?

 

Evolutionists have suggested that there are “plagiarized mistakes” between the human and chimpanzee genome and that these are best explained by a common ancestor. A teacher who found identical errors on two students’ papers would be rightly inclined to believe that the students cheated. The best explanation for two papers with an identical error is that they are both from the same original source. In the same way, some evolutionists have suggested that differences or deactivated genes shared by humans and chimps are best explained by common ancestry. They claim that the only alternative is a Creator who put the same error in two different organisms—a claim they would call incredible.

 

Evolutionists may consider something to be an error when there is a perfectly good reason that is yet unexplained. They conclude that the error is the result of an ancient mutation based on evolutionary assumptions. Further, when it comes to DNA, there may be genetic hotspots that are prone to the same mutation. For example, humans and guinea pigs share alleged mistakes in the vitamin C pseudogene without sharing a recent common ancestor.

 

Examples of the alleged “plagiarized mistakes” are endogenous retroviruses (ERVs)—part of the so-called “junk DNA.” ERVs are stretches of DNA that can be spliced (cut out), copied, and inserted into other locations within the genome. There are many different types of these mobile pieces of DNA.

 

The ERVs are not always consistent with evolutionary expectations. For example, scientists analyzed the complement component C4 genes (an aspect of the immune system) in a variety of primates. Both chimpanzees and gorillas had short C4 genes. The human gene was long because of an ERV. Interestingly, orangutans and green monkeys had the same ERV inserted at exactly the same point. This is especially significant because humans are supposed to have a more recent common ancestor with both chimpanzees and gorillas and only more distantly with orangutans. Yet the same ERV in exactly the same position would imply that humans and orangutans had the more recent common ancestor. Here is a good case where ERVs do not line up with the expected evolutionary progression. Nonetheless, they are still held up as evidence for common ancestry.  Additional evidence has suggested that ERVs may in fact have functions.20 One very important function has to do with implantation during pregnancy.

Has Science Discovered God?

What about the Alleged Fusion of Human Chromosome 2?

 

Humans normally have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that human chromosome 2 has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in an ape-like ancestor in the human lineage instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation. While this may account for the difference in chromosome number, a clear and practical mechanism for how a chromosomal abnormality becomes universal in such a large population is lacking. The fusion would have occurred once in a single individual. Every single human being on earth would have to be a descendant of that one individual. Because there is no selective advantage to a fused chromosome, this becomes even more difficult for evolutionists to explain since natural selection would not be a factor.

 

Evolution proponents who insist that the chromosome 2 fusion event proves that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor are employing a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Affirming the consequent follows the pattern:

 

If P, then Q
Q 
Therefore, P

 

In other words,

 

If humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, then there will be evidence of chromosome fusion.
There is evidence of chromosome fusion.
Therefore, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

 

Here is why it is a logical fallacy: For the sake of the argument, let us assume that humans are descended from ancestors that had 48 chromosomes just like the apes, and that there was a common ancestor five million years ago. The alleged chromosome 2 fusion would have occurred after the human line split from that of chimpanzees and been passed to all humans on the planet. Even in an evolutionary scenario, the chromosome fusion does not provide evidence for continuity between humans and chimps because it only links those individuals that share the fusion.

 

In other words, there is no extra evidence for humans having an ancestor in common with chimpanzees provided by the fusion of chromosome 2. It is no more compelling than it would be if humans and chimpanzees had the same number—48. One could even argue that common ancestry with chimpanzees is less compelling because of the alleged fusion on chromosome 2.

The similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is really in the eye of the beholder. If you look for similarities, you can find them. But if you look for differences, you can find those as well. There are significant differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes that are not easily accounted for in an evolutionary scenario.

 

Creationists expect both similarities and differences, and that is exactly what we find. The fact that many humans, chimps, and other creatures share genes should be no surprise to the Christian. The differences are significant. Many in the evolutionary world like to discuss the similarities while brushing the differences aside. Emphasis on percent DNA similarity misses the point because it ignores both the magnitude of the actual differences as well as the significance of the role that single amino acid changes can play.

 

Please consider the implications of the worldviews that are in conflict regarding the origin of mankind. The Bible teaches that man was uniquely formed and made in the image of God (Genesis 1 and 2). The Lord directly fashioned the first man Adam from dust and the first woman Eve from Adam’s side. He was intimately involved from the beginning and is still intimately involved. Keep in mind that the Lord Jesus Christ stepped into history to become a man—not a chimp—and now offers the free gift of salvation to those who receive Him.

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudo scientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligentcause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

 

Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design. The idea in its current form appeared in the 1980s, and Johnson adopted and developed it after Darwinian evolution came up short, in his view, in explaining how all organisms, including humans, came into being. Johnson taught law for over 30 years at the University of California at Berkeley and is the author of the book Darwin on Trial, in which he argues that empirical evidence in support of Darwin's theory is lacking. In this interview, hear why he feels that such evidence is "somewhere between weak and nonexistent," why he feels intelligent design is a testable science, and why he thought the Dover trial was a train wreck waiting to happen.

 

The evolutionary idea that the universe wanted or needed to be created as a form of explain the beginning of the Universe cannot be supported by the Scientific method.  The very idea that the Universe wanted or needed something would suggest an initial desire of characteristic which is not parallel to physical space.  Lets remember that the very first action to create the Universe was the cosmic spliting of the atom.  To suggest that the Universe wanted or needed to be created we would be suggesting that the very first atom had some form of desire.   So the question then becomes, where did the first atom actually come from and what cosmic catalyst occured to cause the initial comsmic explorion that created the Universe and all its celestial bodies? 

 

The Spectrum

 

It’s possible to divide up that spectrum in different ways. In fact, it’s possible to divide it into a mind-numbing array of fine-tuned categories.

 

That gets unwieldy, though, and it seems that, today, most participants in the origins discussion would say that they advocate one of four major positions:

 

  • Creationism

  • Intelligent Design

  • Theistic Evolution

  • Atheistic Evolution

 

How can we describe these positions?

 

Creationism

 

The people most likely to identify themselves as “creationists” seem usually to endorse some or all of the following claims:

  • There is a God.

  • The world was made in a period of six, twenty-four hour days.

  • The world is only a few thousand years old.

  • God specially intervened to create the life forms on earth, without using prior, extinct life forms to do so.

  • The majority viewpoint in the natural sciences on the age of the world and the origin of present-day life forms is mistaken.

 

Intelligent Design

 

The people most likely to identify themselves as advocates of “intelligent design” seem usually to make the following claim:

  • The world (either the whole cosmos or just the life on earth) shows evidence of a scientific nature that suggests it was intelligently designed.

 

Most advocates also seem to hold the following proposition:

  • God exists and is the intelligent designer of the world.

This view, however, is not essential to their position.

 

Theistic Evolution

 

The people most likely to identify themselves as “theistic evolutionists” seem usually to endorse some or all of the following claims:

  • There is a God.

  • The world developed over a longer period of time than six, twenty-four hour days.

  • The world is much more than a few thousand years old.

  • God used prior, extinct life forms to produce the life forms we see today.

  • The majority viewpoint in the natural sciences on the age of the world and the origin of present-day life forms is correct.

 

Atheistic Evolution

 

The people most likely to identify themselves as “atheistic evolutionists” seem usually to endorse some or all of the following claims:

  • There is no God or, at least, we do not have good reason to believe that there is a God.

  • The world developed over a longer period of time than six, twenty-four hour days.

  • The world is much more than a few thousand years old.

  • The life forms we see today arose from prior, extinct life forms.

  • The majority viewpoint in the natural sciences on the age of the world and the origin of present-day life forms is correct.

 

 

 

Gravitational time dilation is a form of timedilation, an actual difference of elapsed timebetween two events as measured by observers situated at varying distances from a gravitating mass. The stronger thegravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the slower timepasses.  

 

What is Time?

 

Time is a measure in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them. Time is often referred to as the fourth dimension, along with the three spatial dimensions.

 

There are many approaches toward understanding the phenomenon of time. We perceive time as past present and future.  In physics time plays a major role in measurement of motion and forces.  Einstein’s relativity introduced the concept of slowing of time in motion and gravity which have been precisely confirmed.

 

One of the earliest devices to measure time were the sundials which used suns motion across the sky as a standard of measurement for time. The use of units like seconds and minutes which are radial angle measurements in geometry points toward the original connection of time measurements to radial motion of astronomical objects across the sky. Once we started using accurate time keeping watches, clocks and digital devices capable of measuring time independent of the celestial connection time developed a life of its own.

When we measure the speed of a car, we are just comparing its motion to the motion of the hands of the clock and also indirectly to the fractional motion of sun across the sky. We seem to be measuring speed with something abstract called time; we are actually just comparing a known motion (of the sun) with an unknown motion of the car. Time is a way to compare or describe different kinds of motions like speed of light, how fast heart beats or how frequently earth spins around its axis. But these processes could be compared directly without making reference to time. Time may have no independent existence it may be just a common unit of motion making the world that is filled with motion easier to describe.
      
TIME CHANGE MOTION AND FORCES

Time is a real phenomenon a continuous change through which we live. Time becomes evident through motion; sunrise sunsets, night and day, the changing seasons, the movement of the celestial bodies all is indicative of continuous change. The aging process is a reminder that molecular motion and interactions are also at work and are a part of time. Other important aspect of time is presence of motion of particles like photon and the motion at the atomic level. An often overlooked but very important aspect of time is that forces also act in time.

 

Imagine two objects one moving in orbit around the other in space. Now suppose from our distant observation point of a fixed time we observe time to get slower in the area where these two objects are moving. We expect to see slower motion? We also should observe proportionally weaker (gravitational) force; otherwise the objects will get pulled together. If we observed faster time, we expect to see faster motion and stronger forces to keep the objects from flying apart. While with zero time motion will freeze and force will become zero. The increase or decrease in strength of forces is only in relation to our fixed time from where we are making the observation. From the point of view (time) of the orbiting objects neither motion nor force has changed. As this thought experiment 
also can be extended to particles held together by electromagnetic forces we can say that time involves both motion and forces.


                                             PERCEPTION OF TIME:  THE PAST THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE

                                                                  “Life is enslaved to the passage of time
                                                                     Except for this moment which is free” 

 

We perceive time as past present and future. The most real perception of time appears to be in the moment we call present, however almost all of what we perceive as the present is already past. The present is a fleeting moment; whatever is happening now (present) is confined to an infinitesimally narrow point on the time line which is being encroached upon by what we think of as the past and the future. Present resembles the sharp point of a recording laser or needle; it may be the mental awareness of recording of memory as it is being inscribed into our brain. A person who goes to an event  but falls asleep would have no recollection of it as if the event did not exist in his past. Unless we are consciously aware of an event it does not seem to enter our past memory.

Unlike the present the past and future are measurable durations of time. Past historical events, a meeting, or a wedding reception, are all measurable durations or extensions in time, just like a recorded material on tape. This similarity suggests that past is just a recorded memory, while future can be compared to an unrecorded tape.

Historical events have in them the same time characteristic as stories that are just creations of human imagination. Both contain in them the time concepts of earlier, the later, the past the present and the future; this again suggests that past really is similar to memory of events.

Future appears to be a projection created by our past experiences stored in our memory. The fact that the present which gives us the most real feel of time cannot be measured while the inaccessible past and future can be measured as durations strongly suggests that the way we perceive time (present-ism or the block universe view) is an illusion.

 

Theory of Relativity predicts slowing of time with motion and gravity. These predictions are confirmed in particle 
accelerators and gravity experiments.  Twin paradox discussions may have served as a distraction from obvious question that arises;  if there is a block universe why particles and masses with slower time do not disappear into the past?  In gravitational fields space is clearly continuous between areas of slower and faster time. Black holes with their intense gravity that bring time to a screeching halt do not disappear from our present into the past. Slowing of time without sliding into the past or the future suggests that time is a process and not a dimension.  This may be a significant point against the block universe view of time when taken together with other aspects of time described on this page. Block universe derives its support from Lorentz transformation equations 
which have never been proven experimentally.

 

SUMMARY

1.  We measure time by comparing one standard motion against another. Time may not have any independent existence. Time and clocks are used for convenience. The motion could have been compared directly.

2. Motion alone is not enough to explain time. Forces also appear to be part of time. Arrow of time may be explained if we think of time as presence of forces and motion.

3.  Perception of time as past present and future gives us the illusion of the passage of time as well as the block universe view of time. Above it is shown that this perception may just be an illusion and time is more like memory and recording devices.
 The similarity of time characteristic of past present and future in historical events and made up stories also suggests that our  perception of time is an illusion and this aspect of time is also like a record. The fact that the present which gives us the most  real feel of time cannot be measured while the inaccessible past and future can be measured as durations strongly suggests  that the way we perceive time (present-ism or the block universe view) is an illusion.

4. Slowing of time in motion and gravity does not lead to disappearance into the past as should happen if there was block universe.
 Absence of time travellers from futuristic advanced civilizations is also against the concept of the block universe.

5. The concept of origin of the universe in the Big Bang is at complete odds with the block universe view of time. If the block universe  which is supposed to be laid out as a time-scape (from the past to the present to the infinite future) exists and began in big bang  then it would mean that all of the time up to the infinite future would come into existence in the instant of the big bang. This idea is  truly preposterous.

6. Slowing of time in gravity and in motion as well as the ultimate speed limit c provides us the necessary clues to understanding the  cause of the phenomenon of time however we need to first convince ourselves that time is a process that is linked to motion and  forces and the block universe view of time is not correct.

Time, Space, and Matter

 

 

There is an immeasurably and unimaginably huge universe out there (even though the most important part of it appears to be here). The physical universe is "temporal"—its physical characteristics are defined qualitatively and quantitatively in and by time, space, and mass/energy (usually abbreviated as just "matter").

 

Any effort to determine the cause of the universe is purely hypothetical. No human was there to observe the processes, so any attempt to understand events of pre-history (especially original events) must, therefore, be based on "belief systems," or presuppositions. While the theories and ideas may be many, the presuppositions can only be of two sorts: 1) there is an infinite series of causes, going back into infinite time, with no ultimate Cause; or 2) there exists an uncaused First Cause that was "outside" or transcendent to the universe.

 

Many scientists today conduct their research based on their presupposition or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world—that which can be seen around us—and thus they do not accept that any ultimate Cause exists.

 

Scientists at ICR hold to the presupposition that the "uncaused First Cause" is the Creator who exists outside of the physical creation He made. Time is not eternal, but created. To ask what happened in time before time was created is to create a false paradox without meaning. There was no "before" prior to the creation of the triune universe of time, space, and mass/energy.  Yet even more amazing (and the universe is amazing) is the historic fact that the Creator-God, after purposefully creating the time-space-matter universe, chose to enter it in the God-human person of Jesus Christ—for the sole purpose of providing a means by which humanity could have a personal relationship with the Creator.

 

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

bottom of page