Section 1
Origins
     
     The origin of our solar system is one of mankind's oldest
enigmas. Since the beginning of civilization, human kind has gazed
toward the heavens. Man searched for purpose in the patterns of the
distant stars and planets. As civilizations progressed they
perceived that the heavens were an integral component of their
lives. They separated the day into parts by analyzing the motion of
the sun across the sky. When specific stars would appear it was
known that spring was replacing winter. By analyzing the movement
of the moon they could prophesy when an eclipse would occur. In
studying spots on the sun they could anticipate vigorous electronic
interference. They surmised that human lives are contingent upon
extraterrestrial events.
     Although the first astronomers could not fathom the
significance of their toil, they believed that something awesome
lay before their eyes. Wanting to know what they were and how they
became, they would look unto the night. They knew that above was an
amazing phoneme that predated humankind's creation and possessed
the answers to many mysteries. By understanding the solar system
they realized that they would in part understand themselves. Thus,
they began a voyage that would last beyond their lives and into
those of untold generations. The search for our solar system's
origin begins in the celestial sky and ends in the searcher's
heart.

Section 2
Reasons

     It may seem trivial to devote such time and resources into a
puzzle that may not even have a logical resolution. The quest for
truth has consumed inconceivable hours of labor, taken human blood,
and required fortunes to finance. How could humans be so self-
centered as to indulge themselves already knowing how little they
were to progress? The misconception in this question is that there
is little to gain. If we can find how the solar system began, then
not only will we know who we are, but we will know the destiny of
the solar system. Therefore, it is inevitable that the search will
continue. Before discussing origins, it is conducive to clarify the
words: solar system. 
     Our star, the sun creates a tremendous "wind." This "wind" is
a result of the expansion of gases in the sun's 3,000,000øF outer
shell, or corona. When the gases expand, they are violently
stripped of their electrons and expelled from the sun. They
breakout of the sun's gravity with a velocity of greater than 310
miles per second! The atomic nuclei speed away from the sun heading
for the extremes of our solar system. Most of the solar wind
collides harmlessly with the planets, or other objects in the solar
system. Still, a significant amount of the solar wind escapes the
domain of our planets without any encounters. The solar wind then
enters interstellar space and interacts with the solar winds of
billions of other stars. It is only recently that scientists have
learned of the solar wind's extraordinary range. Previously, it was
thought that the solar wind only traveled one light day's distance
from the sun and then diminished to indistinguishable amounts.
Thus, the one light day distance was defined as the radius of our
solar system. But, scientists have concluded that the solar winds
extend far beyond the one light day radius. Therefore, the
dimensions of our solar system are only an abstract limitation that
lack substantial relevance.
     Now that we know the limit of our solar system, it is simple
to define it. Our solar system includes all matter inside a one
light day radius of the sun. Inside this radius are planets,
asteroids, meteoroids, satellites, interplanetary dust,
interplanetary plasma and comets.
     Planets are a vaguely and often incorrectly defined
astronomical term. World Book Encyclopedia defines a planet as: any
of the nine largest objects that travel around the sun. Although
this over simplifies the complex differences between the planets
and other objects in our solar system, it will suffice for this
paper. Our solar system has nine such "large objects": Mercury,
Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. 
The first four planets all have rocky surfaces and molten cores.
Mercury's atmosphere was blown away by the sun.  Of the inner
planets only Venus and the Earth have a significant atmosphere.
Mars has a very thin atmosphere, most of which froze to the
planet's barren surface. The next four planets, Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus and Pluto, overshadow the preceding ones in all dimensions.
Jupiter, the largest planet, is made mostly of gasses. If Jupiter
had been about twelve times more massive it could have itself
become a small star. The compositions of both Saturn and Uranus are
also mostly gaseous. Both consist of an opaque atmosphere and
unique ring structures made of frozen ice and rocks that orbit the
planets. Neptune and Pluto are the strangers of the solar system.
The sun appears only a dot on their horizon and the earth only a
speck of dust. Little is known about the compositions of either of
these planets. The orbits of these two planets cross at two places,
a potential catastrophic coincidence. The result of this is that
sometimes Pluto is closer to the sun then Neptune.   

Section 3
Theories

     With a rudimentary understanding of our solar system, it is
now feasible to discuss its origins. There are two main hypotheses
concerning the origin of the solar system: The Evolutionary Model,
and the Christian Model. Both models consist of several variations,
in this paper only two origin models will be discussed. For the
evolutionary approach the Nebular Hypothesis will be used. For the
creation approach, the Christian Bible will be used. The value of
the theories depends upon an individual's religious preferences.
Currently, there is not enough information to sanction a conclusion
concerning which theory is the most accurate, but there are
compelling arguments for both approaches. 

Section 4
Evolutionary Theories


     The Evolutionary Model has claimed almost complete attention
in the scientific fields and is often considered the real story of
origins. The Evolutionary Model has gained wide spread acceptance
during this century. Einstein's discovery of special relativity
made possible the theoretical concepts needed to explain this
theory.
     There are two basic categories of evolutionary models,
Dualistic Theories, and Monistic theories. Dualistic Theories are
established on the assumption that the solar system formed when
some massive object passed near the sun.  According to these
theories, the gravity of the object extracted a flow of gas from
the sun. The planets and other bodies of our solar system developed
from this gas. Monistic Theories are founded on the idea that the
solar system was formed from a flat cloud of gas (Cameroon 474).
Most astronomers now endorse the Monistic Theories because of the
evidence strengthening it, and the deficiency of evidence
advocating the Dualistic Theories.
     The earliest Nebular Theory was proposed in 1755 by Immanuel
Kant, a German Philosopher. For the past two hundred and thirty
seven years it has received only slight modifications. In 1796,
Pierre Simon Laplace, a French astronomer, refined the theory to
assert that the original nebula was larger than the current solar
system. The theory remained inadequate until the 1940's when
scientist began searching for the origins of the nebula from which
the solar system was claimed to have arisen. A variety of
Condensation Theories were introduced. "They assume that a star
exploded and that most of the exploded material escaped into space.
A small part of the material remained behind to form a nebula that
was captured by the sun's gravity." (Ellison 26c)
     The Nebular Theory can be perceived as an expansion of the Big
Bang Theory. It will therefore be beneficial to review the
essential ideas of the Big Bang Theory. The following is a simple,
explanation from Carl Sagan:
     Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened--the Big
Bang, the event that began our universe. Why it happened is the
greatest mystery we know.  That it happened is reasonably clear.
All the matter and energy now in the universe was concentrated at
extremely high density--a kind of cosmic egg, reminiscent of the
creation myths of many cultures--perhaps into a mathematical point
with no dimensions at all. It was not that all the matter and
energy were squeezed into a minor corner of the present universe;
rather, the entire universe, matter and energy and the space they
fill, occupied a very small volume. There was not much room for
events to happen in . . . In that titanic cosmic explosion, the
universe began an expansion which has never ceased.
     After the Big Bang, a haze of elementary particles was
expanding rapidly away from a central point. Something happened and
clusters began to form within parts of the cloud. These clusters
formed into massive stars that continued to travel away from each
other at perhaps almost the speed of light (186,232 Miles/Second).
After several million years these titanic stars underwent enormous
explosions because of unequal internal forces. In their resulting
debris were complex elements such as oxygen, carbon, iron, and in
diminutive measures the remainder of the elements. Practically all
the mass in the universe was accounted for in hydrogen. This haze
of elements proceeded to enlarge outward, when it again began to
cluster. A new succession of stars began to form. These stars,
although colossal in comparison to our own, were much smaller than
their predecessors. Still, they were too massive to continue their
reactions for long, and they again resulted in super nova. Each
nova consequently generated a greater quantity of elements. This
process happened a total of five times before our solar system was
born.
     Some 5 billion years ago, our solar system was a slowly
spinning cloud of mostly hydrogen, and a trivial conglomeration of
other elements. This cloud was larger than our current solar system
and without form. For unknown reasons this cloud began to collapse
inward. As the volume of the cloud diminished, its gravitational
attraction became proportionally greater. The acceleration with
which it was collapsing began to steadily increase. In the nucleus
of the cloud, the elements became concentrated and heated. Although
the cloud obscured everything inside, it began to rotate more
quickly, due to the physical properties of centripetal motion. The
cloud began to take on a disk-like appearance, thin at the edges
and bulging at the center. For the next million, or so years this
collapse continued. During this time, other smaller condensations
of matter began to form within the cloud that was spinning around
the central core. These condensations in turn began to collect
matter through their gravitational attraction while the center of
the cloud pulled them around it.
     While all this was occurring, the temperature at the core of
the cloud was escalating. The temperature became so great that the
force of gravity could no longer control the expansion of gasses.
The result was an explosion that blew away the dust from the inner
part of the cloud to reveal the primitive solar system.
     Still, our sun was not a star. It was only a luminous
accumulation of gasses with an immense gravitational force.
Throughout the next 10 million years it recommenced accumulating
matter until it reached a critical point. Its' immense
gravitational force created extreme internal temperatures and
pressures. It began to fuse hydrogen atoms into helium atoms and in
the process producing a profusion of energy. At this point the
sun's collapse was stopped and its' forces gradually established an
equilibrium. It then took another 1 to 10 million years for the
energy at the center of the sun to reach the sun's photosphere.
     To contemplate the origination of the planets, it is necessary
to return to the sun when it was beginning to form. Around it,
smaller condensations of matter were rotating. These condensations
began to collapse into themselves while still rotating around a
central point in the cloud. Their evolution was similar to that of
the sun, only on a much more modest scale. As the masses of the
condensations increased, their gravitational attraction
intensified. Eventually, these masses became the planets. The
planets became heated through a combination of their internal
gravitational forces, radiation from the cloud, and collisions with
the nebula's remains. The interiors of the planets heated to the
point that their core melted into a liquid. Because of specific
gravities, the lighter materials drifted upwards while the denser
materials settled toward the cores. The tremendous internal
pressures in the cores of these planets found weak spots in the
planets' crust. The molten material broke through the crust and
resulted in such extensive volcanic activity that it has never been
rivaled. The first eruptions resulted in creating atmospheres
because the lightest of the materials in the cores were gasses. The
primary gas in these atmospheres was probably carbon dioxide. The
evolution of these primitive atmospheres differed with each planet.
Some planets were so close to the sun that their atmospheres were
literally blown away. Whereas, some planets were so distant from
the sun that their atmospheres froze to their surfaces. In other
cases, it appears that the atmospheres gradually evaporated away
into space. All the planets were uninhabitable, and most had
already developed such inhospitable conditions that life could
never exist on them without protection.
     At this point, things become too complex to explain in any
detail. It is also at this point that science breaks down.
Astronomers begin to offer more theories and an equal amount of
arguments for those theories. It is beyond the scope of this paper
to evaluate each individually.

Section 5
Evolutionary Quandaries

     The Nebular Theory is an analytical explanation for the origin
of the solar system that, when applied to actual situations,
fosters discrepancies. In other words, the theory doesn't work. 
     To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the origin
of the solar system are subject to serious objections. The
conclusion in the present state of the object would be that the
system cannot exist. (Harold Jefferys 1970)
     It is important to be aware that there is no one theory for
the origin and subsequent evolution of the solar system that is
generally accepted. All theories represent models that fit some
facts observed today, but not all. (Mars and Earth, 1975a)
     The Nebular Theory states that all the planets, their
satellites, and the other objects in the solar system formed from
the same cloud. If this were the case, then all the planets should
have similar compositions. They do not. Perhaps, the original cloud
from which the planets were claimed to have formed was heterogenous
in composition. Possibly such a heterogenous nebula could have
existed. Even so, there would still be problems. Judging by the
proximity of the moon to the earth, it would be viable to surmise
they formed from the same section of the nebula. According Gary E.
Parker in What is Creation Science, the earth and moon do not share
a similar composition. This leaves two possibilities: the theory is
totally incorrect, or it is partially incorrect.
     Another problem involved with the Nebular Theory pertains to
the origin of the sun. Early in the sun's life, before it had begun
nuclear reactions, there was a tremendous explosion inside the sun
that resulted in a catastrophe. An intense solar wind ripped
through the solar system clearing away the remnants of the nebula
from the inner solar system. Later, when the sun gained more mass,
it reached a critical point and began its' nuclear reactions. Why
did it not again explode? Why did it explode the first time instead
of initiating nuclear reactions?
     The Nebular Theory hypothesizes that the original cloud was
rotating in the same direction. This would explain why all the
planets and other objects travel around the sun in one direction.
But, it does not explain some of the eccentric orbits in our solar
system. How did it happen that Neptune and Pluto's orbits cross?
How did the comets develop their idiosyncratic and often
catastrophic orbits? Another mystery is Venus' retrograde. All the
planets rotate in the same direction as their path around the sun
except for Venus. Venus rotates in the opposite direction. The only
answer astronomy currently offers about such eccentric orbits is
that at some time devastating collisions must have occurred. This
answer is not sufficient, because there is no evidence supporting
it.
     The Nebular Theory states the Earth is approximately 5 billion
years old. If the Earth is a great deal older or younger than 5
billion years, the Nebular Theory has yet another fault. William
Stansfield provides ten reasons why he thinks the Earth is a young
planet:
1. Even at today's low rates of volcanism, "juvenile" water
released from volcanoes would fill up all the oceans in far less
time than the supposed 4.5 billion-year-age of the earth.
2. The same is true for the amount of lava extruded on the
continents from the same source.
3. The amount of meteorites accumulated in the strata and
meteoritic dust in the crust, in relation to amounts reaching the
earth at present, would indicate an age in thousands of years, not
millions or billions.
4. The great pressures now existing in oil reservoirs could only
have been sustained for a few thousand years.
5. The helium in the atmosphere could have accumulated at present
rates in only a few thousand years.
6. The present worldwide buildup of radiocarbon in the atmosphere
would have produced all the world's radiocarbon in several thousand
years.
These arguments are solid, but each can and has been debated. These
points have both a strong following and a strong opposition.
Without research, they do not have very much value.
     The Nebular Theory is a logical continuation of the Big Bang
Theory. Although the two do not rely on each other, they produce a
more effective argument together. Logically it would be said that
they are an example of linked reasoning. Thus, a fault in the Big
Bang Theory weakens the support for the Nebular Theory. It appears
obvious that the Big Bang Theory is in contradiction to The Second
Law of Thermodynamics. Chaos appears to be forming into order.
Although this is not an unfounded argument, it is weak and
misleading. The initial moments of the Big Bang all were dependant
upon subatomic events. Thus, it is unfair to dismiss the Big Bang
Theory without an understanding of how subatomic particles work.
The following quote from Raymond A. Serway will show why it is not
prudent to dismiss the Big Bang Theory with our current knowledge.
     Our understanding of physics at short distances is far from
complete. Particle physics is faced with many questions. Why is
there so little antimatter in the universe? Do neutrinos have a
small rest mass, and if so, how do the contribute to the "dark
matter" of the universe? Is it possible to unify the strong and
electroweak theories in a logical and consistent manner . . . The
questions go on and on.
     These are not the only reasons that the Big Bang Theory cannot
be said to be in direct violation of The Second Law of
Thermodynamics. A new science of chaos has emerged recently with
the advent of more powerful computers. It is the study of
mathematical functions that produce fractals. Fractals are highly
ordered patterns that resemble the seemingly chaotic situations
found in nature. Mathematicians have always believed that numbers
can describe nature. Fractals are finally giving them the means.
"Scientists at the University of Austin, in Texas, have captured in
the controlled conditions of the lab a pattern that exists within
turbulence." (Bassett 1990) There was almost certainly turbulence
during the early stages of our universe. This leads to the question
of whether there may have been patterns in the chaotic beginning of
the universe. Such order could be the start of a more detailed
theory explaining the birth of the universe and the solar system.
     Physicists in the late nineteenth century believed the second
law to be valid for the entire universe, but nowadays people are
not so sure. Most of our experimental thermodynamic observations
are on systems that are not of astronomic size, and we must be
cautious about extrapolating thermodynamic results to encompass the
entire universe. There is no guarantee that laws that hold on a
terrestrial scale must also hold on a cosmic scale. Although there
is no evidence for a cosmic violation of the second law, our
experience is insufficient to rule out such a violation. (Levine
1988)
     Some people use these flaws to reject the Nebular Theory. This
is a colossal mistake. Most theories are born immature, very few
are created perfect. Ever since its inception in 1755, the Nebular
Theory has been evolving. It has made its way from being a totally
absurd theory to the leading chain of thought. It may be almost
perfect, or it may be the foundations of a future theory, or it may
eventually totally disprove itself. Whichever the case, it has
provided a first step into an establishable explanation of our
origins.

Section 6
Creation Science

     There are two primary influences within Creation Science.
Scientific Creationism attempts to explain the origin of the
universe in a manner that relies solely on scientific explanations
revolving around a Creator without a literal dependence on the
Bible. They hold to the belief that the physical universe of space,
time, matter, and energy has not always existed. It was created by
a transcendent, omnipotent, supernatural being that has always been
in existence.  
     The other influence is Biblical Creationism, which is based
upon the literal interpretations of the teachings of the Bible.
They hold that the universe was created in six days, as described
in the first two chapters of Genesis, and confirmed in Exodus 20:
8-11. They believe the content of this record to be fully
intelligent, factual and historical, therefore they believe that
any origin theories involving evolutionary development are false. 
     In the beginning, there was nothing, according to Genesis.
Creation occurred in six days. The first day, the "heavens", the
earth, light and darkness were created. This is the beginning of
our cosmos. The second day, God created the sky to divide the
waters. Thus, our atmosphere and hydrosphere were created. On the
third day, He brought forth dry land and plant life. This was the
creation of our lithosphere and biosphere. Day four was used to
create the sun, moon, stars, and other planets. This was the
beginning of our astrosphere. Day five brought forth the birds and
sea life for the atmosphere and hydrosphere, and day six brought
forth all land animals, including humans, for life on the
lithosphere and biosphere. On day seven, the creator rested.  
     The Evolutionary theory of the origin of the universe
establishes our solar system as billions of years old. Creation
scientists influenced by the Bible see this as either a
misinterpretation or fabrication. They believe that the creation of
the universe occurred much more recently than that. In the
seventeenth century, Archbishop James Ussher calculated a date of
approximately 4000 B.C. based on biblical genealogies. Other
creation scientists calculate an age of ten thousand years based on
the decay of the Earth's magnetic field.
     Many strict followers of the idea of Biblical Creationism will
interpret the "seven days" of creation literally, but many
scientific creationists will suggest that these days did not
necessarily take place within our standard twenty four hour period.
Instead, it has been suggested that these "days" were actually
"epochs." But, they still maintain that the order of the creation
events is accurate. One example is the gap theory, which separates
the first and second verses of Genesis 1 by a large time gap. The
geological ages are placed within this gap between the initial
creation of the planet and the next day in which creation is
improved upon. Another theory is the day-age theory that extends
the length of each day in the "creation week." In other words, each
stage of the creation process lasted much longer than a single
twenty-four hour day as we know it; long enough to allow the
geological ages and possibly some sort of evolutionary sequence as
well. Both theories would eliminate any statement of the Biblical
Creationist's theorized age of existence.
     Besides the basic ideas and theories of the creation
scientists, let us discuss some arguments that might give them some
credit over the evolutionary theorists. One is the argument of
chance or design in the universe. In our physical origins based on
evolution, the formation, location, atmosphere, balance of life
forms, and the many other factors concerning our planet, are just
too many for the creationist to accept as random chance. Therefore,
the creationists believes in some greater supernatural design
behind the formation of the order in our solar system.
     The evolutionary model of the universe is gradually becoming
more ordered after being formed in a state of simple, disordered
randomness. Yet, the creationist model holds that the degree of
organization in the universe is decreasing. In their view, the
universe was created in perfect organization, therefore, the degree
of organization in the universe can either remain level or go down.
Another way to explain this idea is to say that in the evolutionary
model, order will come from disorder. In the creation model, order
can only come through the intervention of a supreme being, such as
the event of creation itself.
     Where did the disorder in the creation model begin? The
Biblical creationists claim that after the fall of Adam and Eve in
the Garden of Eden, "a universal process of decay and death came
into being, which introduced disorder and imperfection." This is
what they identify with the scientific creationists' idea of the
increase in entropy as it is described by The Second Law of
Thermodynamics.  
     The scientific creationists also gain support for their theory
through The Second Law of Thermodynamics. It states that natural
processes go in the direction that increases disorder (entropy).
The growing amount of disorganization that the creationists believe
exist is explained by the second law. The beliefs of the
evolutionists work against the laws of thermodynamics because their
theories suggest that the order of the universe is becoming less
disorganized and more complex.

Section 7
More on Thermodynamics

     When attempting to define the Laws of Thermodynamics and the
term "entropy", one will find that the different interpretations
are to numerous to list. For the purposes of this discussion, we
will use the definitions that help to better explain the argument
designed by creationists to prove that God created the universe.  
     In Classical Thermodynamics, a good explanation of the second
law would state "In any physical change that takes place by itself,
the entropy always increases" (Morris 38). Entropy can be defined
as "a measure of the quantity of energy not capable of conversion
into work" (Morris 39). In Statistical Thermodynamics, it is stated
that "Energy must always flow in such a direction that entropy
increases." Also, "all changes are in the direction of increasing
entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of
running down" (Morris 39). 
     Now, the proof that God created the universe is stated by
Henry Morris as this:
     Thus, the second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove
anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly,
the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself.
The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the
quantity of available energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go
backward in time, the available energy would have been
progressively greater until, finally, we would reach the beginning
point, where available energy equalled total energy. Time could go
back no further than this. At this point both energy and time must
have come into existence. Since energy could not create itself, the
most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly
come is that: In the beginning, God created the heaven and the
earth. (Strahler 89)


Section 8
Religious Alternatives to the six days of creation.  

The Gap Theory

     The biblical creationist s "gap theory" (also known as the
"creation - ruination - re-creation" theory or the restitution
theory) places a large time gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis
1:2.  
     1.  In the beginning God created the heaven and the 
         earth.  
     2.  And the Earth was without form, and void; and 
         darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the 
         Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.  
     The cause for the initial creation of this theory lies in the
alternative translation of the word "was"in the second verse. With
this alternative translation, the verse could read "And the Earth
became without form. The change in wording suggests a possible
insertion of a large time gap between an initial creation and a
later creation. This time gap made it possible for diluviast groups
to fit in "their entire program of successive catastrophic
extinctions, each ending a long period of deposition of
fossiliferous strata".  
     Those people that accept this theory assume that the initial
creation was an act of perfection, complete in nature.  However,
the Hebrew words for "without form, and void" can be interpreted by
Biblical scholars as a suggestion of a world that is "ruined and
empty". Those who subscribe to this interpretation assume that the
initial, perfect world has undergone a great cataclysmic change,
leaving behind an earth that was shattered, uninhabited, and
imperfect.  After this cataclysm, God restored the Earth by means
of a six-day "re-creation".  (Strahler, 79)

The Day-Age Theory

     The day-age theory extends each "day" of the six day time
interval of creation in to much longer period of time. This allows
for the possibility of an evolutionary sequence to take place, with
all of its large accumulations of strata. 
     The basis for this theory again lies within an alternate
interpretation of particular phrases within the Bible. For example,
2 Peter 3:8 states that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day". Now, the ratio of one day
per thousand years literally translates as 6,000 years for creation
to take place, which is an insignificant amount of time for
non-creationists. However, "if all time since creation is taken as
7,000 tropical years , which contain 2,555,000 mean solar days, and
we multiply by 1,000, we get 2.555 billion years. Not bad for a
planet now regarded as about 4.6 billion years old, but not good
enough for a universe 10 to 20 billion years old."  (Strahler 80)


Section 9
Ontological Models Relating Religion and Science

     Ontology is a philosophical field that examines the nature of
reality. Those who study in this field have established four models
of science that indicate a specific type of relationship to
religion. They each have a unique view of creation and its
developments afterwards, some of which you will be able to relate
to the concepts already discussed. Here, we will use the terms
given to the categories by their field.  
     The first model is theistic-teleological dualism.  They
recognize God as a supernatural being that is continuously active
in influencing the natural world. However, they do not rely
specifically on the Bible s teachings. For example, they will not
dispute that God played a role in initiating the Big Bang.  As far
as human history goes, they believe, as stated earlier, that God is
omnipotent through all time.  Divine creation brought about the
creation of the universe 10 to 20 billion years ago, and biopoesis
3.6 to 3.7 billion years ago. Finally, for the sake of Persuasive
divine guidance, control, and/or purpose, organic evolution was
guided by God and eventually man was created by God through
evolution.  
     The second model is that of deistic-mechanistic dualism. This
model shows the same beginning pattern as the first model
presented. However, they believe that any type of divine
intervention ceased after biopoesis. Organic evolution developed
under a mechanistic program, and biogenesis eventually brought
forth the evolution of man.  
     The next model is referred to as fundamentalist creationism
(also a dualistic model). The origins are based deeply in religion.
They believe that the creation of the universe, the earth, the
biosphere, Man, etc., took place in six days 4,000 to 10,000 years
ago. They also believe in a Noachian Flood which resulted in mass
extinctions and fossils being enclosed in strata. The processes
afterwards are somewhat based in science. They recognize minor
evolutionary changes within species (microevolution) and some
extinctions of species. There is a question, however, whether this
model s processes are mechanistic throughout or if there is any
further divine intervention.  
     Finally, we come to mechanistic monism. This model denies the
supernatural entirely and only recognizes the natural realm. Quite
simply, they recognize the creation of the universe 10 to 20
billion years ago, mechanistic biopoesis 3.6 to 3.7 billion years
ago, mechanistic organic evolution, and mechanistic evolution of
man. This model does manage to incorporate God into the natural
realm under a mechanistic concept. They recognize God as
anthropogenic. In other words, God is a creation of man.  

Section 10
Cosmogonic Myths

     Although this paper is based on scientific facts and theories,
we are already on the borderline by discussing biblical
creationism. It would not be proper to leave out a brief mentioning
of the pre-scientific theories on the creation of our physical
universe, namely the cosmogonic (creation) myths.  
     A cosmogonic myth is a symbolic narrative of the beginning of
the world as understood in a particular tradition and community,
and it is usually representative of the community and its needs.
The following paragraphs list the different types of cosmogonic
myths as presented in the 1989 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica
and reinforced in Alpha: the Myths of Creation by Charles H. Long. 
     Although creation myths are numerous, a few basic types may be
distinguished. One of these, found in almost all parts of the
world, is the belief in a supreme creator deity, usually
characterized as omniscient and omnipotent, as having existed alone
prior to the world s creation, and as having had a plan in creating
the world. In many of these myths, the creator s plan is thwarted
through some action of a creature. This rupture leads in some myths
to the deity s departure from creation; in others it signifies the
ambiguity of the world. In a contrasting cosmogonic view, the world
emerges gradually through stages, as the fetus develops toward
birth. In contrast to the supreme deity type, emergence myths
emphasize the latent power in the earth and its components.  
     A third type of cosmogonic myth is that which sees the world
as offspring of primordial parents. The world-parents, symbolizing
the sky and the earth, usually appear late in the creation
narrative. The union of the parents is disrupted by the offspring,
the agents of separation and thus of creation. While reasons for
this separation vary, it usually results in a cosmic order centered
on the techniques and knowledge of human culture. Related to this
type is one in which creation derives from a cosmic egg. This egg,
like the world parents, symbolizes unity and yet contains the
possibilities of separation or creation. A fifth type of cosmogonic
myth tells of an animal or devil who, at the bidding of the deity,
dives into the primordial waters to secure a portion of the earth
on which life can survive. 

Section 11
Creational Criticisms

     The Creationism Theories, like the Nebular Theory, are not
free of faults. Yet, because of the nature of the theories they are
more difficult to criticize. Both theories violate the Second Law
for several reasons. They claim that the creator is eternal, but
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that nothing lasts forever.
The creationist claim that a creator was responsible for the origin
of both the universe and the laws of physics to which it adheres,
thus avoiding this dilemma. The evolutionist questions that such a
statement can be made when there is no evidence that the laws of
physics have ever been violated on such grand proportions. They
also claim that all the current matter was created in an instant.
This is a clear violation of the Laws of Conservation of Mass and
Energy.
     The Biblical Creation Theory claims that the universe was made
in six days. This contradicts most of the evidence science has
gathered.
     The oldest known trees are the bristlecone pines, small,
gnarled trees that grow in the mountains of California. Some living
bristlecone pines are more than forty-five hundred years old. But
dead ones have been found that are much older yet, and by matching
rings in old and recently felled bristlecones a continuous
chronology for these trees has been traced back for approximately
eight thousand years-already much longer than the age of the earth
according to Bishop Ussher. (Godfrey 1983)   
It is accepted that the current dating methods are not very
accurate. Yet, it is a widely held belief that the universe is at
least several billions of years old. "...the six American Apollo
missions and three unmanned Soviet Luna missions all brought moon
rocks back to the earth for direct analysis. Analyses of the ages
of earth and moon rocks lead to a firm estimate of 4.5 thousand
million years as the age of the earth and the moon." (Godfrey 1983)
This assumption is made based on studying the Red Shifts of distant
quasars. Uranium, and plutonium dating methods measure the earth's
age as at the very least several million years old. Many other
dating methods place the earth as much older than the time allotted
in the Bible.
     Another problem the Biblical Creation Theory has deals with
the geographic strata. Although fossils have not been found to be
useful in providing accurate dating or providing evidence for the
Evolutionary Theory, they do provide evidence refuting the Biblical
Creation Theory. In the deepest layers of the fossil record we find
the massive dinosaurs. As one follows the fossil record through
time, it can be seen that the dinosaur fossils diminish and more
mammal fossils begin to appear. This suggests that both modern
mammals and dinosaurs did not exist together. Otherwise, their
fossils would have been found intermingled through at least one
section of the fossil record. It would seem reasonable to assume
that it took more than six days for the dinosaurs to be created and
then destroyed (in several different fossil layers), and than be
replaced by mammals. The Biblical Creation Theory does not allow
for this in six days.
     The Creation Science Theory is the most difficult theory to
refute. This is not because it is any more true than the others,
but because of its ability to be a flexible theory. It is perhaps
less a theory than a description of the truths we know. The
Creationists keep their theory current by constantly revising it to
fit the current interpretations of the universe. Where the Biblical
Creation Theory and the Nebular Theory make predictions about the
origin and fate of the Solar System, the Creation Science Theory
does not. The Creation Science Theory has the least faults and
offers a description equal in detail to that of the Nebular Theory
in explaining the origin of the solar system and as rich as the
Biblical Theory in explaining the origin of the soul. Many
creationist feel that the age of the universe is approximately
10,000 years old due to the rate of increase of entropy in the
universe. However, not all creationist conform to that date. Some
accept a much older date as being accurate while others feel that
a younger date is more acceptable. But, because it fails to predict
a definite beginning and end to the universe, it falls short of
fulfilling the total objective of an origins theory.
     The most perplexing issue in the creation theory is so simple
that many children have surely pondered it: What was God doing
before he created the universe?

Section 12
Resolutions

*12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there
was a great earth quake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of
hair, and the moon became as blood;
*13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree
casteth her untimely figs when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
*14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together;
and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
(The Book of Revelation)

     The following paragraph estimates what would happen if
something six miles across fell from space and smacked into the
earth. Not only is such an occurrence possible, but many scientist
expect it to happen sometime in the future. 

It comes screaming out of the sky like the Scud from hell bigger
than a mountain and packed with more energy than the world's entire
nuclear arsenal. It hits the atmosphere at 100 times the velocity
of a speeding bullet, and less than a second later smacks into the
ground with an explosive force of 100 million megatons of TNT. The
shock wave from the crash landing, traveling 20,000 miles an hour,
levels everything within 150 miles. Simultaneously a plume of
vaporized stone shoots up from the impact site, blasting a hole
through the atmosphere and venting hot debris. The vaporized rock
cools, condensing back into hundreds of millions of tiny stones. As
they streak to the ground over the next hour, they heat up, and
soon the very air glows hot pink. Steam hisses from green leaves;
buildings and even trees burst into flame. Nitrogen and oxygen in
the atmosphere combine into nitric acid; and surviving life
crawling out of a burrow or cave, gets pelted with a rain as
caustic as the acid in a car battery. (Dr. Kohl 1992)

     Both evolutionary and creationary theories begin with a
definite beginning at a definite point; a singularity in the Big
Bang Theory and God in the Christian Story of Genesis. The above
excerpts suggest that the two theories may converge somewhere in
the future. Throughout the research for this paper most resources
demonstrated how their theory was correct and the opposing was
incorrect. It is surprising that such intelligent people can't see
that both science and religion will progress much more quickly if
people try to find where the two converge rather than diverge.

Two roads
                           Diverged in a wood
                             And I - I took
                        The one less traveled by,
                            And that has made
                           All the difference.
                                    
                                    
                              Robert Frost