Are Creation and Evolution mutually exclusive?  I vote NO, and present the following in support of my thesis.

It’s been my purpose for the past several years to work toward justifying the physical world with the metaphysical (science with the spiritual).  Science being a child of philosophy, I believe that both are on parallel tracks that will link again when we finally know the truth. It’s my goal to fuse the two approaches insofar as possible while realizing that full spiritual understanding is out of my (or anyone else’s) range.  That said:

The Universe had to have a beginning, a cause (every effect has a cause).  Everything that is has to come from ‘somewhere’—have a beginning.

Creation says that there is a creator; Evolution says that it all ‘just happened’ after some initial event—say, the Big Bang.

Looking at the Big Bang as Creation, what’s the difference?  Possible Answer: a Creator.

But when?  Because of the non-existence of time before the Big Bang (our very concept of time requires matter in motion, so time in our terms could not have existed before matter), that singularity cannot include time and therefore must be by (our) definition ageless, dateless, timeless and continuous.  How to resolve this?  Possible answers: an underlying potentiality or an eternal Creator.

It may come as a surprise that this suggestion of some eternal singularity (and its undeniably spiritual overtones) is supported by the very science that often seems bent upon proving otherwise. However, we may postulate with some certainty that whatever preceded the universe not only still pervades everything in it, but also is continuous within it, existing in an unbroken continuum within and between quarks, solar systems, constellations and galaxies. It was, is, and will be, at least until the end (if there is one) of the entire system that contains it. (This could be the end of time as we know it.)  Disbelieving or not accepting this potency doesn’t change it; if the Big Bang makes any sense at all, so also does the idea that we must be given of it and whatever preceded it.

Whatever it is may possibly be best described by the philosophical term dynamis (of which energy is its actualization).  For additional support, go to

Religious philosophy chooses God as its dynamis.  But what/who is God?  The issue to be clarified seems to be the God of the Bible as described in Genesis, a God that created Man in His(?) image, which much of religious philosophy identifies as a personage.  Let’s explore this situation.

Genesis 1:26 says “And God said, let us make Man in our image, after our likeness; and let them (mankind?) have dominion over…all the earth…” (But what is “our image”?   Who are the “we” implied by “our”?)  Read on for additional confusion…

The fact is that Man, wishing to ‘put a face’ on God, visualizes (has created) Him in his (man’s) own image!  Since we read that God has created man, and man appears as he does, then God must resemble Man—reverse logic, as it were.  But is this the case?

I submit that it is not.  I submit that God in whatever form is first a spiritual entity, a POWER (dynamis) rather than a person as we know it—not a bearded man on a cloud.  The Creator is everywhere, in everything, at the same time.  The Creator does not have a physical ‘image’, but a spiritual one impossible for Man to visualize.  I submit that God can be only imaged as Spirit or Soul.

If this is the case, then “the breath of life” making Man a “living soul” (Genesis 2:7) could be the ‘image’ of God transferred to Man.  Man is in God’s image via his spiritual soul, not his physical being.  Otherwise, what would be the meaning of “male and female created he them” (Gen. 2:27)?  God would have to ‘resemble’ woman as well.  Think about it: What does God need with gonads?  Is there a goddess (unmentioned) somewhere in the wings?  Are they the ‘we’ referred-to?  I don’t know.  Do you?

Furthermore, who’s to say?  The translations representing the Word of God infallibly guiding the hand(s) of the writer(s) are less than clear.  How are these seeming inconsistencies to be resolved?  Are they translational problems?  I don’t know.  Do you?

If the Big Bang (some 13.7 billion years ago) can be described as other than something from nothing (a thing created), or if I’ve missed something, I will reconsider my position, but for the present I am open to considering such a creation that seems not to conflict with science.

Does this justify science with spirituality? Of course not, but it certainly points in that direction rather than away from it. For more, see For additional information, go to

Leave a Reply