No serious scientist today, nor any other knowledgeable individual, would question that the mathematical formulae of chromosomes determine the characteristics and features of biological creatures, including man. Scientific evidence accumulated over the past century, especially in recent study of genetic structure, is extensive and weighty.

We also know from massive scientific data that life has progressed in successive stages through time from the earliest single-celled protozoa to the complex biological structures called man. Sedimentary rocks all over this planet show the most simple forms of life at lower level of deposited strata, more complex forms above them, and so on. It would be contrary to common sense to believe that life did not evolve through a continual chain from the most elementary to the most complex. Such evolutionary sequence not only is attested in the physical record of our planet; it also is a sequence which appeals to the logic of our minds. For more than two billion years some force has been at work to create an upthrust in biological development which brought about the complex ecological system we enjoy today.

But the cause of genetic change is subject to great controversy. Many postulates have been offered for mutations, including cosmic radiation, chemical forces, alterations in environment, and so on. There is no general consensus of scientific opinion concerning the processes which led to the continual changes in the chain of creatures. A fairly broad spectrum of scientific opinion among biologists in recent years is slowly coming around to the view that Darwin's original concept of slow drift through environmental influence is not sufficient to explain the sudden appearance of new species, although it does explain how species adapt to environment -- which we observe, for example, in the long-term development of the horse, and which was so evident to Darwin by the many specie adaptations on the Galapagos Islands.

But Darwin jumped too far, too fast. His theory was a tautology, a theory that proved itself.

Man early recognized that the planet seemed to be organized on a grand scale. One readily identifies discrete forms of life; insects, fish, birds, and mammals. Furthermore, each type shows distinctive differentiation; frogs, alligators, and snakes. There is no close overlap from one animal to another; a beaver is different from a fox, which is different from a raccoon. Each contributes to a variety of expression in the total portraiture of living things. This evident variety among discrete creatures led prior generations to believe the world was a special creation, designed not only for variety, but also for beauty and pleasure. The diversity among living things is a striking fact.

The evolutionist will tell you that natural conditions could not support a blending together of species, that variety was a natural consequence of evolutionary forces. When a new specie appeared it made a niche for itself in the ecology and eliminated all its near specie neighbors through competition. When the distance between specie relatives widened sufficiently each became comfortable in its respective ecological niche. Natural processes produced the many families and genera, to build the ecology of the planet, in mutual life and support, well-balanced, thriving in stability.

If one looks upon this phenomenon as due entirely to natural evolutionary processes, without intervention by intelligent agencies, all is happenstance, purely the result of accident in the mighty flow of undirected time. Not only are the mutations pure accident; the upward thrust to ever more complex forms is also a continuing chain of accidents.

I am not qualified to calculate the probabilities of happenstance, and perhaps no man is qualified because of the many unknowns, but they must be utterly remote, in a series of amazing coincidences from the first formation of living substance, to the mutational series, and on through the entire chain of lifeTIU.

But if one considers this fantastic process as the handiwork of intelligent agencies one can perceive a totally different and far more acute view of the accomplishment of some divine purpose. Evolution is a technique used by far-seeing intelligence for fostering not only the unique being we call man, but also for building him a beautiful garden home. Such process entails the formation of life and the development of species in a womb of creation which derives not only from the planet but also ultimately from the solar system and the stars, in temperature, atmosphere, water, and numerous other factors. The development of man is tied to a schedule that involves the formation of the galaxies, the origin of the sun, the spawning of the worlds, and the slow unfolding of geophysical time to the far-off days when, according to common views, the sun will slowly fade and death will come to this grand miracle. On the other hand, if a master intelligence is behind the formation of the universe, creation will continue to those far-off days when God will bring all evolutionary processes into master stability to endure through the untold reaches of future eternity.

On the planet more elementary forms come first. They develop an ecology which makes the environment suitable to support the next step of life. They also serve as a food source for the more complex forms to follow. When the environment is ripe a sudden burst of mutation produces a new level of life with many competing varieties. This is evidenced by the sudden appearance, in succession, of fish, reptiles and mammals. New forms which cannot adjust to the competing pressures from their fellow mutants become extinct until only a few of the new species remain. In turn the new forms help condition the environment for the next step up.

But at each step the new species remain and never more evolve, except to adapt. The insects have been around for millions upon millions of years; they have remained essentially the same since their first appearance. The frog appeared suddenly from his near predecessors, as a frog, and has ever since remained a frog. The dinosaurs attempted to contribute to the growing wealth of life but their adaptation was inadequate to a changing environment; they disappeared from the world scene. Thus we observe the development of new species at each stage which, if adaptable, remain to round out and help perfect the total ecological system. This process continues until the time is ripe for man.

Man appeared on the scene as did all the species before him. Those near simian neighbors who were directly competitive disappeared until only a few remained. Even now we may be discovering the stages of competitive pressure of variant man along the Great Rift in the heart of Africa, for it is along this valley that man appears to have first become the tool user, and the progenitor of the following million years of mankind.

The evolution of man offers as much mystery as do the lower animal creatures. We have no adequate explanation for the differences we see in the human races. Arguments rage around the mechanisms which may have been responsible for racial differences but again there is little consensus of scholarly opinion. The time frames are much too short. Unguided and accidental mutation seemingly is not sufficient to explain the phenomena.

Did the mutations which produced the colored races occur at different times with one coming after the other over the past million years? Did they all occur at one time? Is it possible there is a designed association of skin color with the natural spectrum of light? Red and yellow and indigo are present but where are the blue, the green, and the orange? Is the white a blend of all colors? Why did white come last and not first (as far as we know)?

A strong tradition of blue comes out of Europe; the social customs cannot help but make one pause over the possibilities. We all know the blue bloods are the nobility of Europe. This high social class maintains a blue book, a register of its social superiority. Do you know a friend who is true blue? Do you get the blues when you feel despondent? Why did the ancient Kelts paint themselves blue before going into battle?

Is it possible the skin colors are not an accident and that the struggle of time has eliminated the oranges, the greens and the blues? Or perhaps the infiltration of purple blood has absorbed all the blues and turned them into white.

Instinctively white is a superior color, the blend of all other colors. White is light. It is associated with life. But black is the least of all colors. It is associated with night and darkness and death. There is a deep psychological bias to skin color we cannot suppress. That reaction is natural and instinctive. White man feels superior while black man strives to imitate the white man. One does not observe the opposite process. But black man still is endowed with dignity. Today he wishes to preserve that dignity against the oppression of white man. He wants a culture that is the expression of his black heritage. He wants to associate with his own kind, just as the white man wants to associate with his own kind. Birds of a feather flock together; robins do not associate with starlings.

Perhaps God created differences to develop tolerance among races. Perhaps the purpose is to give us experience in dealing with difference. Perhaps we shall one day, after we leave this world, be brought into even greater diversity among the many beings of the heavenly worlds.

We can believe that genetic codes, the origin of species, and the appearance of man are all accidents of time. Or we can believe there is a grand purpose behind creation. What we believe will depend upon the clarity of our minds unconditioned by the delusions of godless theory. Is it an accident that the calendar now used the world over came out of the life of a white man who claimed to be God? Every day of our lives we acknowledge the influence of that man, whether we pray to him or not, and so does every godless person. We seem to forget where the power lies.

Man is different from animals. He has a spark within him which does not appear in animals. He not only can articulate; he can reason. He has physical attributes which set him apart, including the opposing thumb, upright stature, and binocular vision. But these are not the essential features which make him special. The spark within him is a piece of the divine, a longing to know a Creator, and a supreme desire to have purpose in eternity. He expresses these desires differently, in the creation of myth and in the production of strange religious practices. He loves symbols and symbolic representation, whether these are in Last Suppers or in golden calves. Because he feels lost and alone he also looks for reassurance that his life has continuity and meaning. He not only explains the cycles of nature by reference to forgotten gods; he also finds archetypes to tell himself that his daily practices are approved by divine authority. Christians observe the Last Supper because it was given by a God who lived among them.

Mircea Eliade outlined this principle, from his godless viewsMER.

Human acts, their meaning, and their value are connected with the reproduction of the primordial act, the repetition of a mythical example. If a garden is planted in the spring it was first planted by a god. If a house is built it is dedicated to the god who first built houses. If a baby is born it is consecrated to the

god who first created man. All human institutions were consecrated in the beginning, illo tempore, "in those days," by the gods. Archaic man did nothing without justifying it on the basis that it had been done first by the gods who came down out of the sky. Neither the objects of the world, nor human acts, had an autonomous intrinsic value. They acquired value and became real because they participated in a reality that transcended them; they belonged to an hierarchy that originated first in the heavens. The symbolism of the center, whether Mt. Olympus, Mt. Manu, Mt. Sumeru, Mt. Zinnalo or Mt. Zion, was always the origin of all things. All objects and all things were referred to that center for it was the source of all.


But Eliade cannot accept that gods came down to this earth. When contact was terminated, the gods, as we like to call them, were not forgotten. They were remembered not only in myth story but also in social custom. Olden people clung to those memories; they continued to imitate that which was handed down in ages past. However, if we do not have memory of superior beings preserved in our religions and social celebrations we will create them. We will create them because man has an innate longing for the lost gods. Comic books, movies and television offer adequate demonstration. Scholars fail to appreciate that hero-making is an important human function. It is not the foundation of myth but a secondary phenomenon deriving from loss of living contact. Man will invariable substitute for such loss. He will make heroes out of human mortals and he will dedicate the nearest mountain to the gods.

Another principle outlined by Eliade is profane history. Historical time, devoid of active contact with the gods, becomes profane because it is without destiny, and without purpose. Such history cannot exist for man in any real sense, simply because man inherently needs purpose for both time and history. This planet not only must have a meaningful past, it must also have a meaningful future. As Eliade expressed it, "...modern man feels himself diminished by the possibility of impersonal survival." Archaic humanity "defended itself against all the novelty and irreversibility which history entails."

Eliade could not perceive that olden peoples retained their traditions, not because they had to defend themselves against the irreversibility of history, but because they were attempting to remember the former ages. They clung desperately to the hope of a reality which actually belonged to their remote ancestors.

A third principle, deriving out of profane history, concerns the regeneration of time. As a consequence of the ancient loss, archaic societies attempted to recapture the time of long ago. The division of the year was determined by rituals which guaranteed the continuity of life and of the community in all its forms. The cycles of the years were held constant by rituals repeated throughout the year, year after year. Easter, the celebrations of mid-summer, Halloween, and Christmas held time stable for all of us. This periodic regeneration of time is an attempt to abolish history, to prevent the ever onflowing changes of the world from denying the proper meaning of time. But Eliade and other godless persons do not perceive these traditions as due to loss of contact with higher realms, since those realms do not exist for modern godless man. Nor are they perceived as blind evolutionary attempt to relate the cycles of life to divine destiny. Modern man has no knowledge of ancient celestial associations; he knows only undirected time without purpose. Thus godless history is understood only on its own terms devoid of function within destiny. From godless views all actions of men are spurious, random, and without purpose. Now, indeed, all things are profane. Without a framework built by God there can be no purpose and no hope. History can only be sinful because it has no relationship with God, the source of all history.

Godless scholars built their fanciful theories; they thereby helped seal the desperate fate of man. As Eliade expressed it:  

It matters little if the formulas and images through which the primitive expresses "reality" seem childish and even absurd to us. It is the profound meaning of primitive behavior that is revelatory; this behavior is governed by the belief in an absolute reality opposed to the profane world of "unrealities." In the last analysis the latter does not constitute a "world" properly speaking; it is the "unreal" par excellence, the uncreated, the nonexistent; the void.


Hence it is more probable that the desire felt by man to refuse history, and to confine himself to an indefinite repetition of archetypes, testifies to his thirst for the real, and his terror of "losing" himself in the dark void of eternal nothing. Man is overwhelmed by the meaningless of profane existence; he will reestablish purpose, if only to give it to the One who brought this profane condition in the first place, that great Rebel.

While we agree with Eliade's assessment of mythological acts as a fact, we greatly disagree with his reasons. Primitive man rejects profane history because he knows it does not have the blessing of God; it is the result of a great default. Therefore he attempts to keep alive that which once had God's blessing and hence had meaning. Man is terrified of being lost in the long and lonely night of eternal oblivion. Man knows he has meaning; he craves to be brought back into the fold of purpose and destiny. His only recourse is to keep it in memory through ritual, whether it is the ritual of new planting in the spring time, or the ritual of the body and the blood of the God who once lived on earth.

So-called primitive man had good reason to cling to the memory of those old days. Those beings exhibited miraculous and magical powers. Superior technology is demonstrated as magic to primitive people, but all human minds are primitive on a relative scale. Our science and technology would be magical to primitive man. But our current level of scientific achievement is primitive also. If technologies exist which are vastly superior to us we might express open skepticism and derision about those celestial powers, especially if they do not make themselves openly known. Our scientific pride, exhibited in intellectual arrogance, will not accept what all mythical history says is true.

1) Superior beings with advanced technologies once were intimate with the management and operational affairs of this planet.

2) A great fault occurred which forced those beings to retire to their celestial habitats while other plans are formulated for the future of this world.

3) They now maintain an observant eye, and a secret management of affairs which are left mostly to unfold toward some higher evolutionary objective.

4) The isolation of our world, and the secrecy with which the intelligent agencies now operate, has caused man to engage in much speculation, mostly in delusion.

5) God, through his agencies, relates to the material worlds in a manner we can understand in a technological sense, with precise control of the material world of atoms, biological mechanisms, cultural trends, and planetary physical status. After all, technical abilities are a matter of relative power. What we have learned here on this planet is only a faint shadow of that higher source.

6) There is a divine plan which covers eons of time. The belief in a millennial cleansing of the earth, the coming of Messiahs (planetary managers), and the unfolding of the future toward planetary beauty and health, are simplistic formulations of grand designs for the world and a coming future administration.

Our feeble memories of times past came down to us as folklore, legend and myth, conditioned by the psyche of poor, lonely man, but founded in a reality which we perceive now as only a shadow of its former glory. Adam and Eve are only part of a great body of folk memory. If the reality of that divine pair can be demonstrated then other elements of myth must have a similar origin in a reality which is buried in the darkness of remote antiquity.

People remembered Adam and Eve but their memory was faulty. They attempted to preserve the essentials of the Adamic fall by embodying those essentials into stories. The stories were vehicles for maintaining the memory consistent with the cultural environment of their days. Hence myth has two major components: details derived from actual events, and flavor derived from man's spiritual longings and inner psyche. The memory may be poor, the writer may be inventive, but the attempt is to preserve those ancient realities. Myths do not derive exclusively from the human psyche; rather they reflect human psyche as men use the remote realities for their source of inspiration. The folktale or literary composition is a record, a means of capturing that which came from the past. First it was preserved as an oral tradition; later it was put into written form as men recognized the need for maintaining it against the erosion of time. If myth patterns are universal they come from more than a common expression of human psyche; they derive from events remembered everywhere.

Given the fortitude to rigorously examine the wealth of folklore we can approach myth and the old folk memories with far greater insights. The data becomes much more instructive, in reality and not in fanciful theory. We open new vistas into the history of mankind and into our status on this world today. We truly begin to learn.

As isolated phenomena the myths of the Near East are just that -- myths. As an isolated case the biblical story is just that -- a story. The ancestral claims of Europe are not any more revealing than the myths and the stories of the Near East. Details in each case are missing for clear understanding. But when we show the living evidence used yet today, in cultural practices of nobility, in names and titles, in religious rituals, and in the details of stories compared against one another, we see a pervasive influence which underlies all racial belief. Our study shows an amazing number of connections among seemingly unrelated and even disparate data. When we draw the connections from one area to another, from one era to another, and when we outline the name and myth patterns, we achieve an integration of knowledge which otherwise remains incoherent and unintelligible. We initiate new and profound understanding.

We would be negligent as serious and intelligent people if we disregarded the impact of this material upon our beliefs. We are faced with new and surprising levels of vision. Our minds are awakened to new perspectives of planetary history buried for untold millennia. We become privy to knowledge hidden for thousands of years. The knowledge is brought into sharp focus; we border on revelation.

We shatter conventional views. There is a reality to the life of a pair of personalities who were mortal and who left their mortal stamp upon all of us, and yet who were divine and left the imprint of their divinity upon mankind. We have not been able to forget Adam and Eve; they haunt us from untold millennia. The stories may be distorted, they may be mythological, but they are remembered. And somehow this memory is unique to the people of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Father and Mother of mankind are uniquely preserved by both Jew and Christian gentile.

It is a powerful legacy that we probe.