was young, I was taught a lot of the
Bible and its version of creation. In
college and graduate school, I learned
about science’s version of the creation
of man. It is easy to find conflict
between these two versions of creation.
But if the Bible is telling us what
happened, and if scientists understand
what happened, there should be no
conflict. Both versions of creation
should be telling us the same story.
If you compare
the two versions of creation, you will
find places where they seem to fit
together. However, there is a major
discrepancy: Science does not have an
Adam and Eve. If I could find an Adam
and Eve that were acceptable to science,
it would be much easier to piece the two
versions of creation together.
I went back to
Genesis to read about Adam and Eve, and
tried to understand who they were.
Genesis tells us that they lived
900-year life spans and talked directly
to God; the Talmudic literature further
says that when they died, their bodies
did not decay. They were not the same as
you and I; they were superpersons of
some kind. I could not find any place on
the earth where such people could have
originated, and ultimately I began to
wonder if they had come from another
place in the universe.
scientific method, I hypothesized that
Adam and Eve were extraterrestrials who
had come here to upgrade the human race;
that when they arrived they found an
indigenous stone-age civilization. Their
offspring then crossbred with stone-age
people to create a hybrid, whose
descendants we are. This idea became the
major concept of a book I wrote entitled
First, Man. Then, Adam! It was
published in 1977.
After your book is published, you
receive lots of letters ranging from
high praise to vehement condemnation.
But several letters told a different
story. They said there was another book
that claimed Adam and Eve were
extraterrestrials: the Urantia Book.
I found a copy
in a local library and started to read.
A month later I bought my own. The
history of man as recorded in the
Urantia Book is very similar to the
assumption I made in my book. I had felt
that it would never be possible for me
to prove my hypothesis about Adam and
Eve because the available records are
not detailed enough. But the existence
of the Urantia Book might just offer the
opportunity to prove that my theory was
Now I needed
to show that the information in the
Urantia Book was valid. Because of my
science training, I concentrated on the
science part of the UB and wrote three
analytical papers on the science content
of the Urantia Book. One dealt with the
scientific predictions; the second with
the cosmology or large-scale structure
of the universe; the third with the
range of energy manifestations described
in the UB.
Book was published in 1955, and some of
the science it contains disagreed with
our science at that time. Since then our
science has revised some of its theories
and concepts. In about half a dozen
subject areas where science originally
disagreed with the Urantia Book, current
science now agrees with it. In other
words, some of the UB science
predictions are coming true.
Furthermore, astronomy’s very latest
discoveries using the most modern
telescopes are starting to show a
large-scale structure of the universe
which may be similar to the structure
described in the book.
scientific validations of the UB have
begun to suggest that the rest of the
information is valid, and I hope that
science will one day prove that the
assumption in my book is correct.