How did life on earth begin? Was it simply a matter of chance or does order predispose an intelligent planner? Is man a mechanism of a higher order? What explanation does scientific information support? Attempts to answer these and other related questions have proposed many theories and beliefs. The two most widely accepted explanations are creation, as told in the book of Genesis of the Bible, and the theory of evolution as told by men like Charles Darwin. In this paper I will be proving that both Genesis and Darwin are both different in their telling of existence. However, both accounts for existence are vague which need faith, leading them to be similar, and thus allowing them to compliment on one another giving us better understanding of where we came from.
             Darwin and Genesis are often seen as personifications of two contradictory views of the universe. Darwin symbolizes an evolutionary and naturalistic view of the universe from which God is excluded. Genesis symbolizes a world-view where everything is created by the direct creative act of God. If Darwin is taken seriously then Genesis is ignored and God is gently squeezed out of existence. If Genesis is to be taken seriously, then Darwin and all of his works are seen to be fundamentally flawed, and a creationist position is adopted, leaving evolution to be rejected, "holding humanity back from its findings of geology and astronomy" (Darwin 144). This dilemma is echoed both by people who say, "I don't believe in God, I believe in Darwin" and think that is the last word, and by loyal Christians who feel that they must take the story of Genesis literally.
             The Bible begins with the marvelous double account of creation. I say double because Genesis two differs from Genesis one. Genesis one is the best known with is structure of creation on six successive days. Approach it literally and you are in a mess. Attempting to tie it into scientif...