Created in the image of God or Lucy?

Who are we?  Where did we come from?  These are some of the most important questions we could ever answer.  Secular science, religion and the Bible attempt to answer these questions, however each answer leads to radically different conclusions.


Secular science proclaims we are the offspring of the evolutionary process, a long series of random accidents starting with the universe.  We are the winner of the cosmic lottery.


The Bible, the book of Genesis, on the other hand, from the very first chapter proclaims that humanity is made in the “Image of God” after His likeness.  Further, Genesis says, “mankind” was given dominion over the earth, including life on the land, sea and air.   According to the Bible, our creation was with purpose and intention.

This debate of “who we are?” rages throughout the education, media, politics and religion.  Why is this debate so important?   Well if we are just accidents, who then determines what is right and wrong[1].  If there is no “Creator”, we are free to do what we want, because we will never answer for our life, because we are just accidents.  On the other hand if, we are intentionally and purposely created, then there would be a standard of “Right and wrong”.  Will this external standard, God, judge us according to the standard?  So to sum up the matter, if there is “No God” then there is no judgment.  If there “Is God” then judgment might follow according to the standard. According to the Bible, there is a judgment. 

Secular science claims “Evolution” and the fossil record prove their case.  However when we examine these claims, we find the conclusion are not based on science, but rather faith and presupposition. We will examine the fossil record of “Human evolution” shortly if the evidence is as clear as “Secular” science claims.

In Genesis chapter one, we read man was created on the sixth day, in the image of God.  He was created perfect in all his ways and given dominion over God’s creation.  No one was there to witness the event of creation, other then the “Creator”; we need to ask is this account in Genesis

Lets contrast the Biblical record from the secular claims, the following is the biblical account of man; later we will examine the secular account.


The Biblical origin of man



26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." Genesis 1:26


After God had created the universe, the earth, sun, moon, stars and animal life, then God created humanity.  Man was the pinnacle of His creation, because man was created in the image of God.


Let Us:  God not only created the universe and its contents, but He tells us in Genesis chapter one the details of what happened, since God was the only witness who could proclaim the events and their order.   We know the nature of God through revelation.  Here in the very first chapter we see the triune nature of God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, discussing the ultimate creation, “man” in the image of God.  The details of God’s nature is revealed in later parts of scripture as the Creator unveiled more of his nature through time, through the prophets.


Our Image: What’s God like?  According to the Bible, we are “like” God, we are made in His image.  We have his “attributes”, except we are in a fallen condition.  When God appears in scripture he appears many times in Human form.  For example we are told in Genesis 3, that God “walked in the cool of the day”  God appeared in human form to Adam and Eve before the fall, its in this form humanity was created.  Even when Moses asked God to reveal Himself, God revealed Himself in human form.  He coved Moses eyes with His hand and to Ezekiel God appeared as a man on a throne


21 And the Lord said, "Here is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock.

22 "So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by. 23 "Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen." Exodus 33:21-23


26 And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it.

27 Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around. Ezekiel 1:26-27



Jesus also took upon Himself human flesh, Jesus being fully God, was incarnated into humanity, so it would not be wrong to say, we were made in the image of God, the image of Jesus, since God would one day dwell in human flesh.   The angels themselves are also appear in human form.  Daniel describes the first appearance of the angel Gabriel (Daniel 8:15-16), the “appearance of a man.”


Our Likeness: Adam and Eve were not only made in the image of God, but they were like God.  They were models of God.  Man loves to create things, because he is modeled after the Creator.  The emotions of love and hate come from God, God loves righteousness and hates sin.  We establish rules of order, because we are made in the image of the “Lawgiver”.

Dominion over:  hdr Radah , to have rule or dominion, to tread.  The Garden of Eden was only the beginning of man’s residence on earth, Adam and Eve and the rest of humanity were to rule this amazing planet of life, as God’s representatives, since they were created in His image. 

All the Earth:  This rule extended to all aspects of the created world, air, land and sea.  For this reason when we fell, Satan obtained dominion, Jesus calls him the “ruler of this world”. In the Millennium we will fulfill this aspect of creation.


27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

God created: This information is repeated from verse 26 for emphasis.  God directly created man; we did not evolve from other animals. We are created in His “own image”, every human is an image of God.  

Male: This applies to both sexes, God was not sexist.  Both male and female are in the image of God.


28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

God blessed them Genesis 1:28


Be fruitful: God plan for Adam and Eve was to fill the earth; we were not to be limited to the Garden of Eden.  To be fruitful means to bear fruit.  The fruitful does not only apply to offspring but to other aspects of our existence, such as the fruits of the spirit, how we treat our fellow man and the animal world.  Our ability to create, the offspring of our time, is the product of bearing fruit.


Multiply: The plan was for many people from the beginning, Adam and Eve mandate was to fill this planet with people, to have many children.

Fill the earth:  The offspring of humanity was not to be limited, even with 7-billion people today; vast regions of the earth are not inhabited.  This will also be fulfilled in the Millennium, when Christ rules on earth as God and King.  The population of the earth will multiply and fill the earth as the order was given in the beginning. (Isaiah 9:6-7, Zechariah 14:17)

Subdue it: Xbk Kabash Adam and Eve even before the fall had work to do.  They were given the mandate “to subject” to “bring into bondage” the earth.  Forests would need to be cut, houses built, animals trained, all this would have been aspects of subduing the planet.  The nature of the animal world, and the plant kingdom changed with the fall.



29 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Genesis 1:29


I have given:  From the beginning Adam and Eve were to only eat plants.  Eating meat is a result of the fall.  Even the toxic world of flowers and plants such as “Poison Ivy” were the result of the fall, when creation was transformed from a land of righteousness, to fallen, this came about when Adam and Eve sinned.  The whole creation became subject to the fall, as Paul writes in Romans 8.  And all creation awaits redemption from this fallen state.



19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.

20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;

21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.  Romans 8:19-21



30 "Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:26-30


Every beast:  Bird and land animals were only to eat plants; death was not an aspect of the early part of creation.  This only came about as a result of the fall.


So according to the Bible, man is special. We are created in the image of Almighty God, we were given dominion over His creation.  However, when the first humans, Adam and Eve sinned, all of humanity, future generations and the whole earth were impacted.  Now this position of man is contrasted to the “evolutionary” origin of man.


The “Bait and switch” of Evolution, Micro vs. Macro Evolution


The term evolution is a tricky term; it can be compared to the “Bait and switch” method used in sales.  For example let’s image a car dealership offers to sell a Porshe 911 in the newspaper for $9.99.  Thousands of people come to his dealership only to find a model of the, real Porshe 91,  they are then led into a showroom where the “Lifesize” model is then sold to those who were looking for the nine dollar version.

     This same method is used in Evolution; Micro-Evolution is used as the example to support Macro-Evolution, even though they are both two completely different events.  Let’s define these two terms.


Micro-Evolution:  This is the process of natural adaptation based on the genetic variety already existing in the organism.  For example, the African, Indian, and Woolly Mammoth are all within the Elephant Kind, with variations that exist within their genetic code.  Humans have red, black, brown, blond and white hair, all of this is part of the genetic code.  


Macro-Evolution: Macro means large scale changes as opposed to “micro” changes.  Macro would be changes outside of the genetic code, for example a lizard acquiring wings is a large scale change. This change would be passed down through successive generations.  Evolution proposes that these “Macro” changes are the result of genetic mutations since “God” is not part of the process.  This is the method they believe “man” evolved from a “one” celled organism, to four legged animal to “Ape” then to “Human”.  This whole process took millions of years and lots of random accidents.


The “Bait and switch” takes place when students are shown real examples of “Micro-Evolution” also called “Natural selection”, to demonstrate the unproven, “faith” based concept of “Macro-Evolution”.

Most people are not aware that Micro and Macro are completely different concepts.  One is provable and can be demonstrated through “Scientific method” while the other is not science but “Faith” in an unproven concept.  The process of the this method is below, “Micro-Evolution” fulfills this method and is biblical, while “Macro-Evolution” cannot fulfill the requirements of the scientific method, it is entirely based on “faith”.





The Human Fossil Record


When evolutionist point to the human fossil record, several examples among many are proclaimed as evidence.  One does not have to study evolution long to come upon the names of “Lucy”, “Nebraska man”, “Piltdown man” and “Neanderthal man”.   These were and still are cited as “proof” in the evolution of man.


Below are detailed explanations and examples of the fossil record which is not based on fact but pre-suppositions and manufactured evidence.  Manufactured evidence is not really evidence, but created artifacts and visuals to persuade people because “real” and “true” evidence does NOT exist. There are more examples but these provide enough evidence to demonstrate the point of the false evidence presented by “Secular” science.

1. Lucy



When Lucy first arrived on the scene, newsmagazines such as Time and National Geographic noted that she had a head shaped like an ape, with a brain capacity the size of a large chimp’s—about one-third the size of a modern man’s. In an article that appeared in New Scientist, evolutionist Jeremy Cherfas noted: “Lucy, alias Australopithecus afarensis, had a skull very like a chimpanzee’s, and a brain to match” (1983, 93:172). Adrienne Zihlman observed: “Lucy’s fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp” (1984, 104:39). It should be no surprise then, that in Stern and Susman’s 1983 analysis of afarensis, they pointed out:

These findings of ours, in conjunction with Christie’s (1977), observation on enhanced rotation at the tibio-talar joint in AL 288-1, Tardieu’s (1979) deductions about greater voluntary rotation at the knee in AL 288-1, Senut’s (1981) and Feldesman’s (1982a) claims that the humerus of AL 288-1 is pongid in certain of its features, and Feldesman’s (1982b) demonstration that the ulna of AL 288-1 is most similar to that of Pan paniscus [a chimp—BH/BT], all seem to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that the Hadar hominid was vitally dependent on the trees for protection and/or sustenance (60:311).

All of these characteristics led inevitably to the conclusion that Lucy was simply a chimp-like creature. And yet, more than a decade earlier, Charles Oxnard, while at the University of Chicago, already had passed judgment on these creatures. His multivariate computer analyses indicated that the australopithecines were, in fact, nothing but knuckle-walking animals (1975).                              


You might well be asking yourself why this charade has been allowed to go on this long. The answer—woven around power, fame, and money—can be found in Johanson’s own words.

There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it.... In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age.... Logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain (Johanson and Edey, 1981, pp. 257,258, emp. added).

He went on to admit: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence” (p. 277).

Some are asking if A. afarensis is more primitive than A. africanus, or if they are one and the same? Others point to the many chimp-like features, and question whether Lucy ever walked upright at all? But, in the March 1996 issue of National Geographic, Donald Johanson himself admitted: “Lucy has recently been dethroned” (189[3]:117, emp. added). His (and Lucy’s) “fifteen minutes of fame” are over. As Lee Berger declared: “One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree” (as quoted in Shreeve, 1996). Fascinating, how often the hominid family tree is pruned!

2.  Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii)

In 1922 a single tooth was found in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. Dr. Henry Fairfeild Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, determined that this tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. From this he concluded that this was a missing link. In England Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, fully supported Osborn (Bowden 1977, 46).

At the time a politician from Nebraska, W. J. Bryan, was campaigning in the courts against man being descended from the apes. Osborn stated;

...the Earth spoke to Byran from his own state of Nebraska. The Hesperopithecus tooth is like the still, small voice. Its sound is by no means easy to hear... This little tooth speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man's descent from apes. (Bowden 1977, 46)

In 1922 the Illustrated London Times ran an artist's interpretation of Hesperopithecus and his wife, all from the remains of one tooth! A few years later more evidence was found and the tooth was determined to be from an extinct pig! Little publicity was given to the error.

In this case you see some of the ingredients of the pre-man game. A discovery is made, a prominent scientist(s) interprets the data in the framework of current scientific thinking. The popular press bridges the gap between the scientist and the lay person, and in the process "fills in" a few details. The man on the street is presented with an image, that will be retained, that man arose from apes.

In this case, how many people read the Illustrated London Times and were influenced by it? Probably many









3. Piltdown Man[1]

also called Dawson's dawn man (Eoanthropus dawsoni), proposed species of extinct hominid whose fossil remains, discovered in England in1910–12, were later proved to be fraudulent. Piltdown man, whose fossils were sufficiently convincing to generate a scholarly controversy lasting more than 40 years, was one of the most successful hoaxes in the history of science.


 In a series of discoveries in 1910–12, Charles Dawson, an English lawyer and amateur geologist, found what appeared to be the fossilized fragments of a cranium, a jawbone, and other specimens in a gravel formation at Barkham Manor, on Piltdown Common near Lewes in Sussex. Dawson brought the specimens to Arthur Smith Woodward, keeper of the British Museum's paleontology department, who announced the find at a meeting of the Geological Society of London on Dec. 18, 1912. Woodward claimed that the fossils represented a previously unknown species of extinct hominid (E. dawsoni) that could be the missing evolutionary link between apes and early humans. His claims were eagerly and uncritically endorsed by some prominent English scientists, perhaps because the Piltdown fossils suggested that the British Isles had been an important site of early human evolution. 


As long as the remains were accorded a high antiquity, Piltdown man seemed a feasible alternative to Homo erectus (then known from scanty remains as Pithecanthropus) as an ancestor of modern humans. In 1926, however, the Piltdown gravels were found to be much less ancient than supposed, and from 1930, more finds of Pithecanthropus, the discoveries of the more primitive Australopithecus, and further examples of Neanderthal man left Piltdown man completely isolated in the evolutionary sequence. In 1953–54, as an outcome of these discoveries, an intensive scientific reexamination of the Piltdown remains showed them to be the skillfully disguised fragments of a quite modern human cranium (about 600 years old), the jaw and teeth of an orangutan, and the tooth probably of a chimpanzee, all fraudulently introduced into the shallow gravels. Chemical tests revealed that the fragments had been deliberately stained, some with chromium and others with acid iron sulfate solution (neither chromium nor sulfate occurs in the locality) and that, although the associated remains were of genuine extinct animals, they were not of British provenance. The teeth, too, had been subjected to artificial abrasion to simulate the human mode of flat wear. 


The first solid evidence regarding the identity of the perpetrator emerged in 1996, two decades after a trunk marked with the initials M.A.C.H. had been discovered in storage at the British Museum in 1975. Upon analyzing bones found in the trunk, the British paleontologists Brian Gardiner and Andrew Currant found that they had been stained in the exact same way as the Piltdown fossils. The trunk apparently had belonged to Martin A.C. Hinton, who became keeper of zoology at the British Museum in 1936. Hinton, who in 1912 was working as a volunteer at the museum, may have treated and planted the Piltdown bones as a hoax in order to ensnare and embarrass A.S. Woodward, who had rebuffed Hinton's request for a weekly wage. Hinton presumably used the bones in the steamer trunk for practice before treating the bones used in the actual hoax.


[1] Encyclopedia Britannica, 2004 “Piltdown Man”

4. Neanderthal Man was fully human.[3]


The first Neanderthal skull was discovered in Gibraltar in 1848. Eight years later the “original” Neanderthal man was discovered in a limestone quarry in the Neander Valley near Düsseldorf in Germany (“Neanderthal” literally means “Neander’s Valley”). The Neander Valley in turn was named after Joachim Neander, a 17th century German theologian who taught Latin in nearby Düsseldorf and preached sermons in the valley which later came to bear his name. 

Three years after the Neander Valley discovery, Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species in which he proposed that all life descended from a common ancestor. This includes humans who were thought to have evolved from some sort of ape-like ancestor. The Neanderthal man was subsequently reinterpreted by the scientists of the 19th century who came to see him as a sort of ape-man, an evolutionary link between man and ape. This view persisted into the 20th century. 

The “Old Man of La Chapelle-aux-Saints,” originally reconstructed by the famous 19th century French paleontologist Pierre Marcellin Boule, was the first nearly complete Neanderthal man skeleton discovered in the modern era. The “Old Man” had a severely curved spine. This combined with his large browridge and his low-vaulted cranium gave him a hunched over ape-man-like appearance. It was later determined that the Old Man suffered from a deforming bone disease. 

In the mid 1950’s American anatomists William Straus and A. J. Cave reexamined the Old Man of La Chapelle-aux-Saints. It was their conclusion that “if he could be reincarnated and placed in a New York subway provided he were bathed, shaved, and dressed in modern clothing it is doubtful whether he would attract any more attention that some of its other denizens” (Quarterly Review of Biology, vol. 32, pp. 348–63, December). 

The anatomical peculiarities of the Neanderthal men are known to exist within the normal boundaries of human variation potential. In other words, the Neanderthals were just regular humans who looked a little different than you and I do today (similar to how Australian aborigines look significantly different than Native American Indians and yet they are all human). 

The Neanderthals were known to bury their dead (whose bodies they covered in flowers), they used tools, worked with animal hides, took care of each other and generally acted like humans act. There is no indication that they were the brutish beasts they are seen as by many today. Their brain cavity was actually much larger than the average brain today. 

It appears that many of the Neanderthals suffered from a Vitamin D deficiency. This caused their bones to grow soft and deformed. This has contributed the popular hunched-over ape-man misconception. The Vitamin D deficiency may simply be indicative of the era in which they lived. Vitamin D comes from fish oils and dairy products and is produced in the body when the skin is exposed to the sun. The Neanderthals obviously had a very poor diet. In addition to this, they appear to have spent much of their time taking shelter in caves. It is believed by many scholars that the Neanderthals lived during an Ice Age. This would explain their poor diets and lack of exposure to the sun. So, while the ape-man perspective has been shown to be false, Neanderthal man was certainly a caveman in the true sense of the word. 




[1] Right and Wrong are two terms subject to a standard.  For example if the speed limit is 55 MPH, then the standard is 55 MPH, if you are above the speed your are breaking the lay (wrong) below the speed you are in the law (right).  So for something to be right, means there exists an external standard by which right and wrong are measured.