The Second Account of Creation
The biological evolution
A celestial and terrestrial Adam
The second account contains a lot of multiple references in a
similar way than the first account. This leads to some apparent paradoxes, because
the different references are intermingled with each other in the same text, somehow
like a light source that is composed of different light waves. This is why these
paradoxes must be solved by decomposing the text into the different events it is
referring to, just like the light of a star can be decomposed into its color spectrum,
which allows the determination of its different chemical compounds.
At first sight indeed, the second creation
story looks like a fairy tale: all animals are eating herbs (Gen 1:30), there
is a tree of life as well as a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden
of Eden (Gen 2:9) and a speaking snake is telling lies to Eve (Gen 3:1-5),
to mention just a few paradoxes. Let us challenge this impression and decompose
the story into its different references. The snake, for example, is clearly an animal.
So it should be unable to speak, at least in human languages. However, being used
to multiple references from the first creation story, we may also conclude that
the snake represents both an animal
and a fallen angel. Now, if the snake stands for an angel, we have to suppose that
the same is true for the other animals. This therefore points to an analogy between
the hierarchy of the animals and that of the angels.
If the animals have such a twofold meaning, then even more Adam.
In fact, this can also be concluded from the anachronistic order of the evolution,
for the creation of matter is mentioned first (Gen 2:4-6), then follows the
creation of man (Gen 2:7), the plants (Gen 2:8-9) and the animals (Gen 2:18-20)
in this same order. Consequently, the creation of man is quoted too early. This
anachronism reminds us of those we have already met in the first account, that is,
the apparent creation of the planet Earth in the beginning (see
here), the creation of the light and the plants before that of the Sun (see
here), as well as the anachronism of the birds (see
here). This is why the anachronism of man must be understood
in the same manner: the term Adam does not only refer to the first man but
also to the angels.
If there is a celestial and terrestrial Adam, the same must be
true for the paradise. We have already mentioned in Celestial and terrestrial
plants that the first account describes a celestial paradise. So the surrealistic
impression of the garden of Eden with trees that give spiritual food and vegetarian
predators comes from the fact that it hints to Heaven where everyone, and possibly
every species, lives in peace with each other (Isa 11:1-9). On the other hand,
the terrestrial paradise is hinted to by the four rivers Pishon, Gihon, Tigris and
Euphrates, which exist in Mesopotamia as will be discussed in
The double meaning of Adam solves another severe paradox: “And
the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Gen 2:7). Are we
to take this verse literally, as do creation scientists, and to believe that species
were created independently of each other? Not at all, because Genesis must not be
taken literally and regarded locally without considering the context in which it
is placed. Since Adam has a meaning as angel and man, his creation out of dust (Gen 2:7)
must be understood as a kind of compromise between the creation of the angels out
of naught and of man out of a former species. This compromise has to be understood
in the context of the whole material, biological and spiritual evolution making
part of four levels:
- Naught, from which God created the angels is at level zero.
- The big bang is at level one, opening the evolution of the
- Level two is opened with the biological evolution, flora and
fauna, the animated creation.
- Finally, humans make part of level three, the creation supplied
with reason and responsibility, sharing it with the angels.
The average between level zero (naught), from which the angels
issued, and level two (fauna), from which man issued, is level one, matter.
This is why Adam, according to the multi-reference, was formed with dust, because
this person not only represents the first man but also the angels, as figure 10
suggests. Hence, the dust of the garden of Eden is multi-significant and its sense
changes according to the context to which it is applied. Thus, it also designates
the species from which humans descend. If this interpretation of Genesis 2:7 is
valid for the first humans, it is straightforward that it is also valid for all
other vegetal and animal species because they were created out of the ground as
well (Gen 2:9; 2:19). This view that all species descend from previous ones
is a widely accepted Darwinian concept called common descent, which took
place over millions of years of evolution.
Figure 10: The multi-reference of Genesis 2:7
referring both to the creation of the angels and man.
The majority of paleontologists had for a long time supposed that
hominization took place on a large scale, that is, by slow genetic changes from
one generation to the next happening at several places on the planet. This process
called polygenism was thought to be responsible for the appearance of the
different human races. There is indeed a slow genetic change from parents to their
children, and from them to their children, and so on. But this change does not cross
the borders of species, otherwise it would not be possible to determine clear boundaries
between species. A species is defined as a group of animals among which sexual reproduction
is possible. So if there was a linear genetic change between species, reproduction
between some animals of two different species close enough to each other would be
possible while for others it would not. This, however, cannot be observed in nature.
Hybrid reproduction is either possible for all animals between two different subspecies
or it is not possible at all, independently of the fact that the vast majority of
hybrids are sterile.
If one supposes that God created every species in a direct intervention,
then the biological evolution must be discrete, that is, occurring on distinct steps
from one species to another. Discrete evolution implies that God only intervened
when a new species appeared.
Assuming that God created new species out of former species, one can speculate about
how exactly this happened? Did he transform an adult male and female of a former
species into a new one? This is doubtful! It is more probable that they were simply
born from a female of a previous species. This implies that God’s intervention happened
at the conception in the very beginning of the existence of a new species. This
way, a couple of a male and female would have risen by their mother, which is possible
because of the relatively slim differences from one species to the next. In fact,
DNA varies very little from one species to the next, which also shows strong evidence
for common descent.
This implies that the first humans were born from a mother belonging
to an anterior species of Homo sapiens but of the same genus Homo.
This could be Homo erectus or Homo neanderthalensis depending on whether
one considers the latter a species apart or a subspecies of Homo sapiens.
In any case, the real first couple of modern humans were born from a mother who
was capable of feeding, educating, and giving them the love necessary to develop
behavior worthy of the first humans. The ancestors of humankind must consequently
have been rather close to modern humans, probably capable of primitive language,
for instance. This argument also weights against adult creation because any living
being must undergo a learning process in order to survive in a given environment.
Arguing that God “preprogrammed” these capabilities is not very convincing because
it would be too tricky: the newly created species would have a created memory of
events that never took place, would remember situations that never occurred, and
That the first humans were born as babies is supported by another
argument: as we shall see in The incarnation prefigured by Adam, the creation
of Adam contains numerous allegorical elements pointing, among others, to the birth
of Christ, who is prefigured by Adam. So since it is well known that Christ did
not come into this world as an adult but was born from a woman as a baby, one can
conclude that Adam was born likewise because of this prefiguration.
The view that humanity stems from single parents is called monogenism
(or monogenesis), by opposition to polygenism, and was sustained in the 1980s by
Allan Wilson’s research team, which compared
mitochondrial DNA in
people of different races and concluded from the variation of the genetic data that
all modern humans descended from one mother in Africa about 150’000 years ago. This
does not mean, however, that the very first parents lived at the same time because
mitochondrial lineages can be broken when a mother has only sons. But in any case
it shows strong evidence for monogenesis and that south-eastern Africa is the cradle
The incarnation prefigured by Adam
Analogous processes of monogenism can
be observed in the whole of evolution: the physical universe was formed from a very
small point, a singularity,
at the big bang; all planets were born from the same solar disc; the continents
issued from a single one before their continental drift; life was only formed on
Earth and nowhere else
and from a single cell; new species emerged from a single couple of a previous species;
Adam and Eve are the ancestors of humanity; Abraham is the ancestor of Israel; Christ
is the First-born of all Christians. At the example of the big bang, these events
may all be called singularities. They appear when something completely new
enters into existence and prefigure monogenesis, which thus seems to be an universal
law reflecting the image of the unique God.
Since these singularities go back to the earliest event of the
physical world, the big bang, the entire physical, biological and spiritual evolution
announce Christ, who is the accomplishment of all things. In fact, we have already
seen that the six levels end with Christ and increasingly announce him (see
He is the last step of all the evolution. This is why the creation is full of prefigurations
of the incarnation and redemption. As a consequence, the parallel between Adam and
Christ confirms common descent, not only of all humans, but of all species because
Christ was born from a woman becoming thus the first born of the big family of Christians.
This is also why Genesis 2:7 refers to Jesus’ birth, for the breath
of life that God blew into the nostrils of Adam prefigures the Holy Spirit, by which
Jesus was conceived (Lk 1:35). And the garden of Eden, whose pure, not cursed
earth (Gen 3:18) is taken to form Adam, is an image of Mary, the Mother of
So the evolution did not end with the first man but continued until the incarnation,
which is the key event of the entire evolution prefigured by many sub-events because
God created this world in view of our redemption by the sacrifice of the cross.
Because of the same analogy, Mary is prefigured by the prehuman
mother who gave birth to Adam. At the same time, she is prefigured by Eve, who is
“the mother of all living” (Gen 3:20) and who is possibly born of the
same pre-human mother. In this case, Eve would be the sister of Adam, despite their
later conjugal relationship. This status of brother and sister, and their conjugal
relationship prefigure the relationship between Christ and Mary, who is the Bride
of God since the Holy Spirit, who is God, conceived Jesus in Mary (Lk 1:35).
However, Christ is also God, more exactly God-man. This double nature of Jesus means
that he is not only the son of Mary but at the same time her Spouse,
which is prefigured by the conjugal relationship of Adam and Eve as shown by figure 11:
God the Creator
|Birth of humanity
||Mary Mother of God
|Birth of Christians
||Mary the New Eve
Figure 11: The analogies between
Adam / Eve and Christ / Mary
Mary thus became the Mother, similar to God the Father, of all humans
born in the faith in Jesus, who is the First-born of this new generation (Lk 2:7;
Col 1:15; Rev 1:5), the eldest of a multitude of brothers (Rom 8:29)
born and adopted by the Holy Spirit (Gal 4:4-7), the new Adam exempt from all
sin (Rom 5:12-19). Finally, Mary is also a child of this big family because
she has herself faith in her son. In this sense, Jesus and Mary are also brother
and sister, like Adam and Eve. It seems that this way the word of Jesus “Whoever
does the will of God, that person is my brother, and my sister, and my mother”
(Mk 3:35) is perfectly realized.
The atheistic background
As we have seen, Genesis supports discrete evolution. This contrasts
with continuous, gradual evolution, or
backed by the concept of
which is supposed to produce new species through the accumulation of small random
mutations in the genetic code over millions of years. Such a pure atheistic view
on evolution, which reduces life to an exclusively material biochemical process
exempt from any kind of divine intervention, is contested by all sorts of creationist
beliefs. While it is not the place of this book to go through the pros and cons
of all these theories, it is nevertheless possible to get a solid opinion about
the subject using common sense in the light of faith.
First, let us consider the argument, unrefuted over the decades,
of the lack of intermediate forms between species in the fossil record. It is true
that for some species there are apparently intermediate forms. A few examples, however,
cannot support a theory about a process that is supposed to have worked globally.
On the other hand, almost every species contradicts natural selection because they
are nearly all very different from the closest ones.
Evolutionists have tried in many ways to counter this argument.
For instance, one often argues that the discovered fossil record is far from being
complete, which may be true. However, it shows that species appear abruptly and
then remain stable over a long time, as suggested by figure 12. Even Darwin
himself was aware of this problem, since he wrote in his famous work On the Origin
of Species about Lingula, a genus of still living shells:
Species of different genera and classes have not changed at
the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells
may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms... The Silurian
Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus.
Figure 12: Phyletic gradualism implying slow change
from one species to another as opposed to discontinuous evolution observed in nature
implying stasis after speciation. Punctuated equilibrium is one of some more recent
theories trying to conciliate this observation with natural selection (source:
He also wrote: “If species really, after catastrophes, created
in showers […], my theory is false.”
With showers, he refers to the
an epoch during which most present day phyla appeared over a very short period from
about 540 to 490 Ma after hypothetic significant changes in the environment.
As a response to such issues, neo-Darwinists invented a lot of speculative theories
like allopatric speciation
and punctuated equilibrium
and so on in order to solve these problems. However, such theories mix scientific
facts with extrapolated speculations. Afterwards, these theories are handled on
the same level as quantum mechanics or general relativity. This is completely fallacious
because not only are these physical theories based on a coherent mathematical structure
but they are also observed in nature innumerable times, whereas evolutionary theories
sustaining natural selection neither have any solid mathematical evidence nor are
they directly confirmed through observations.
This raises the question why the concept of natural selection
could survive from Charles Darwin up to the present? The answer lies in atheism:
since one expects of educated people that they give explanations for the origin
of humankind, atheists find themselves in the dilemma of providing natural explanations
for the origin of species. Hence, because not all educated people believe in God,
natural selection is still in discussion at the present day. This is why they have
no other choice than to stick to their dead materialistic ideology, getting enmeshed
in absurdities they try to hide behind the complexity of life.
While it is acceptable that, in the first place, one should investigate
natural phenomena on the ground of possible natural explications rather than relegating
them straightaway to the realm of supernatural forces, it is not scientific at all
to postulate the non-existence of God and deduce from this that natural selection
in any case must be responsible for speciation even though it is not yet proven.
This is just pseudo-science not based directly on facts but on their extrapolation.
This is why natural selection has primarily nothing to do with science but with
beliefs, that is, with anti-religion, and involves the same irrationalism and indoctrination
as practiced by certain religious groups that Darwinists despise for their lack
of scientific adherence.
The contradiction with the law of increasing disorder
The obsession with which Darwinists are subjugated by the idea
of an inventive and life-generating nature closely resembles the medieval obsession
that perpetual motion
machines can be constructed. Such machines are supposed to continually deliver more
energy than they consume, which is absurd because it violates two fundamental
laws of thermodynamics:
(1) conservation of energy and (2) increase of disorder (or entropy). The Parisian
Academy decided in 1775 to stop examining any proposals concerning plans of perpetual
motion machines, which however did not prevent some people from inventing new projects
over and over again, even up to the present.
The same obsession is linked to the hypothesis of natural selection:
just as perpetual motion reflects the desire to handle an inexhaustible energy as
only God holds it, the belief in natural selection manifests the wish to possess
creative forces as only God owns them. Both represents the old wish to take the
place of God, so it is just absurd wishful thinking, as discussed in
cycle of the angels and humans. As it happens, natural selection suffers from
the law of increasing entropy: left to itself, nature generates more and more disorder
and only intelligent beings are able to make order within a system. For instance,
humans are able to construct sand castles on the shore, but the ocean destroys them.
The probability that waves breaking on the shore may build sand castles is not very
little, it is just plain equal to zero. Even infants understand without difficulty
Of course, evolutionists cannot be convinced by this simple argument,
arguing that the Earth is not a closed system, that order can come out of chaos
or that natural selection is acting like
Maxwell’s demon and so
on. However, what is needed here is just common sense and, above all, honesty, teaching
us, for instance, that a complex system like the eye cannot be produced by coincidence.
The evolution of the eye was mentioned by Darwin himself as being difficult to understand
by natural selection. However, he could not stick to this simple reality and prevent
himself from speculating how it could nevertheless have happened by indicating functional
intermediate steps from light sensitive cells to a camera-like eye. Such biased
extrapolating logic is typical for evolutionists, because they do not radically
apply the hypothesis of random processes, according to which there is no reason
to suppose that the different components of the eye were straightforwardly put together
in the right way.
In fact, there are no living beings in the fossil record that
tried out eyesight, even though it evolved step by step. But these steps were
always fully functional without any unused features. If chance is behind speciation,
however, one should expect a completely random evolution, that is, species with
useless lenses somewhere on the body, non-functional retinas somewhere else, as
well as pupils, irises, eyelashes, and so on. Finally, one should find species trying
to combine these components, without speaking of the fact that these parts are themselves
already complex systems and that nature should have achieved the same task for a
second eye both symmetrically placed on the head and linked to the most complex
organ, the brain, without which the new seeing species would still have been completely
On a more philosophical and theological level, the law of increasing
disorder symbolizes the fact that everything under the heavens returns to death
and decay. It is the physical expression of the corrupt human nature leading inevitably
to social degradation. Humankind constantly needs the intervention of God in order
to be renewed and liberated from sin. On the level of biological evolution, this
is expressed by divine intervention at every apparition of a new species because
nature was thus repeatedly renewed.
Why natural selection does not work
The most striking differences between species is not their outer
form but on the level of certain anatomical details. There are, for example, no
intermediate forms between the scales of reptiles and the feathers of birds or the
hairs of mammals, both of which stem from reptiles.
These differences are directly related to the fact that it is
not by one single mutation that a new species is brought forth. Several changes
are necessary, which causes an insurmountable problem to nature:
DNA is a molecular language that
contains entities comparable to those of human scripture, that is, letters (the
four nucleotides), words,
phrases, paragraphs, sections, and so on. Random mutations within this language
occur on the level of the letters. This is why it can intuitively be figured out
that mutations are disturbing rather than favorable for an organism that suffers
them, for DNA is a very balanced code in which the least changes are disadvantageous
in most cases, as stated by biology professor Klotz.
Human DNA contains about five billion nucleotides, which would
give 10’000 middle-sized books of about 500’000 letters each. When we compare DNA
with a computer program and change any bit (a 0 or 1) in the compiled
code, there is a high risk that it will crash thereafter. By adding another function
to the program, not just one bit but many bytes must be added or modified. Yet,
successive changes of single bits, although the good ones, do of course not successively
provoke the desired results because the new function only works with the complete
code. Partial code produces nonsense. This is like an access code to a computer.
It is evident that the computer only accepts the complete code. So it does not suffice
that only one or more letters are right. Even if only one single letter is wrong
the computer considers the entire code wrong.
DNA works similarly: mutations are like spelling errors. Humans
are able to guess the meaning of a word or phrase containing errors, but the cell
does not have this level of intelligence and is disturbed when they occur. So even
if a mutation made part of a good code, which in itself is already improbable enough,
it would mostly have disturbing effects, since errors in the biological language
equal non-understanding and only the complete code makes sense. This is why the
need to accomplish a very large number of mutations to produce a new species would
have become deadly for intermediate species, since mutations occur singly in most
cases. This is why over the number of needed mutations, they become lethal in any
case and the probability of natural selection theoretically and practically reduces
Random mutations generate precisely the contrary of what they are
supposed to generate from the Darwinist point of view: natural deselection, preventing
species from transmission of disease and safeguarding the original genetic code,
which was created by God. This is supported by the fact that the cell nucleus involves
sophisticated processes in order to safeguard the original code. For instance, the
female X-chromosome proceeds to compare code after recombination and thus repairs
defective code, say mutations. Some years ago, the male Y-chromosome was believed
to be limited in repairing its code, which caused Oxford University geneticist Sykes
to proclaim that the human race will extinct in about 125’000 years unless women
find a way to reproduce themselves without men.According to more recent research however, it seems that the male Y-chromosome
is safe from corrupting.
Other reasons to discard natural selection
Apart from these scientific reasons, there are many others more
difficult to prove, but not less convincing. Since the idea of natural selection
is based on the survival of the fittest, life should only be in possession of features
that are related to mere survival. Life, however, especially human life, overflows
with characteristics that have nothing to do with mere survival. How can our ability
for humor, or the fact that we like music and art, be related to natural selection?
Or emotions such as love, which is easiest toward weak individuals like children
and animals? Love and respect for others are “mechanisms” that bring no advantages
for individual survival, but nevertheless we consider them the highest human characteristics.
One may argue that such virtues are good for social survival,
which is more successful than individual survival. Therefore, abilities for social
life as well as for art may have been developed by natural selection because they
make us happy and willing to live. Also the love for children may just be something
that has emerged from natural selection because otherwise nobody would want to raise
children and the survival of the human species would have been compromised. The
problem with this point of view is that love would only be virtual, just a means
to an end, a kind of illusion caused by some biochemical processes. It would not
be real. However, life only has sense if real love exists. This is why there must
be a Creator: just as most people came into existence because their parents decided
to have children as an act of love, also God created the world, all species and
the human race through real love. Life only has sense if it came into existence
through the real will and love of God.
Of course, one can also claim that life does not necessarily need
to have a sense. But if life has no sense, does it have a value then? Does it need
to be protected? Is it worth to be lived? Is there still the need for any ethics
and rules for social behavior? It becomes much more difficult to answer these questions
affirmatively by supposing that life has no sense. The view that life has no sense
leads to social corruption and self-destruction, which is in contradiction with
life. From this can be concluded that life has a sense, because this is the only
view that protects and generates life.
In fact, because of its essentially philosophical dimension, the
theory of natural selection may cause dramatic social behavior praising the law
of the strongest following the example of nature. This so called
social Darwinism is
the basis of Western imperialism and of most older or newer racial ideologies. It
is also indirectly responsible for the two World Wars as various studies show.
In Germany for instance, the National Socialists were strongly inspired by social
Darwinism in their intention to “purify” the planet of the presence of the Jews.
Such negative social behavior against life caused by sticking to the concept of
natural selection by survival of the fittest is also a valid reason why it cannot
have produced life.
Natural selection is the exact opposite of
reality: the aim of evolution was to bring forth humankind created in the image
of God. So it is evident that God’s will was to bring creation increasingly to an
independence reflecting his own at the highest possible level. In the domain of
speciation, this independence implied that it was not the new species that had to
adapt itself to the environment, as supposed by Darwinists, but the environment,
so as to offer an adequate life basis for a future species, in other words, so as
to produce an ecosystem allowing the new species to live on its own. The rise of
the oxygen-producing cyan bacteria, for example, prepared the environment for heterotrophic
micro-organisms, which themselves later became an environmental component for another
species, and so on. Thus creation does not at all exclude evolution, which inversely
cannot be used to exclude God from the process of evolution. By professing this
opinion, one does not entrench oneself “in a refusal of this or that scientific
one is simply convinced that reality is not as simple as some people conceive it.
THE LIFE CYCLE OF THE ANGELS AND HUMANS
THE FIRST ACCOUNT OF CREATION