Did the world begin less than 10,000 years ago? The answer is a resounding yes, if you are the recent recipient of a labotomy or if your anatomy is such that your head has somehow become lodged in an unmentionable orifice. Otherwise, the answer is just plain "no."

Some people sit awake in bed at night and think up great questions about life. They ask, "If the world is flat, then how did God make a man in the Garden of Eden without having to travel to Japan for some of the spare parts?" Questions like this fuel debates between modern-day scholars and a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about. The latter subscribe to a theory that I like to call Godvolution. To restate the two sides of this debate, we have one side saying "Look at all the evidence. Let's applaud our science. Here's carbon dating proof. Here are a bunch of bones. Look at these ancient tools, etc." and the other side that says no life existed on earth until then it suddenly did.


Let's look at some items that point to evolution:

• In 1959, archaeologist Louis Leaky uncovered ancient bones at the site called Olduvai Gorge to prove that the Dark Continent was home to human beings two million years ago. A year later, Louis and his wife Mary discovered Homo habilis, or "handy man." It was by far the earliest known human ancestor, and Louis Leakey believed it to be the first true toolmaker.
• A collapsed cave in south central China has yielded evidence that human ancestors inhabited the far reaches of Asia as early as 1.9 million years ago, according to a report in the Nov. 16 Nature.
• Research in East Anglia, and a new analysis of bones found two decades ago in a Somerset quarry, show that human beings have been living in Britain for up to 200,000 years longer than has generally been thought. Mankind's ancestors may have migrated here as long as 700,000 years ago.
• An international team of scientists has unearthed the skeleton of a human-like meat-eating creature that lived in Africa 2.5 million years ago and may be the earliest known ancestor of modern man. Researchers say the newly discovered hominid species, tentatively named "Australopithecus garhi," marks a turning point in evolution. (CNN report)
• Africa's "Eve," the theorized first modern human, may have been preceded by "Jianshi Man," a possible human ancestor recently found in China that lived between 2.15-1.95 million years ago, according to a report from China's Xinhuanet news service.
• Fossil hunters have unearthed the fossil skeleton of a baby who died 3.3 million years ago, marking the first time scientists have discovered the nearly complete remains of a child of an ancient human ancestor.

Now here are some arguments against the above proof:

• A guy named Bob who smiles way too much says God made everything on His lunch break.
• Science doesn't exist.
• Some archaelogists are gay.
• If evolution is real, then how do you explain Karl Rove? (Okay, I will give them this point)
  
• The University of Bibleland says "archaelogist" spelled backward is Satan.
  

One of the biggest problems with the Godvolution crowd is the fear that they may come from the same source as apes. This doesn't faze me in the least. I once had an uncle who was so hairy that my aunt had to take him to the dry cleaners after a day at the beach.

Recently, the archaeological community stated, "Until now, the belief was that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor but went their separate ways around 6.5-7.4 million years ago...the two primates were rather more than kissing cousins: they had sex, swapping genes before making a final separation."

Chimps and people mating? So what? I once kissed a girl with a mustache after a night of drinking in my freshman year.

We come from apes. Is this so bad? It explains a lot to me, like modern television programming, professional sports, difficulties teaching my children table manners, and the way my accountant walks.

Voices of Reason? Think again!
Those creationists who are more moderate often say "Humans got here somehow, even if they evolved. We call that 'somehow' God."

I say we call it evolution, otherwise we have to wonder why God would stop at creating a one-meter-tall man who spent his days eating berries, running from large lizards and looking for parking spaces? What wisdom is there in this? Why would God create a Neanderthal when he could have an Einstein or a Picasso? Why would he say "this is good enough" when Mother Theresa or Eleanor Roosevelt were yet to come? Which type did he create — Hitler or Lhamo Thondup?

Here's what would be going through God's head...

GOD: Oh, Geez. Look what I created. He looks like Bonzo. And he can't even speak. I'll just sit here, read my paper, enjoy the view and sip my coffee for a million years and give it another shot.

(Two million years pass by and God takes another crack at it).

GOD: Okay, I'll call this one Adam, because it's a nice English name. English hasn't been invented, but it will be some day, and because I'm God I'll be the first to use the language, that is, unless English evolves out of German. Wait, what's German? Did I invent German yet? Or does Latin come first? Adam will look pretty normal, not like one of those hairy little sprites I came up with a couple of million years back. And he'll live in a garden with a woman I will call Eve. Also a nice English name. A talking serpent would be another nice touch. Eventually, as evolution will bear out, serpents will lose their ability to speak, as will the hamster and the tit mouse.

Okay, all of this is making me tired, much like any silly debate over evolution. The evolutionists have a boatload of proof because they recognize the validity of science. The creationists only recognize the validity of science as suits them. For instance, they'll sit in a chair in a home made of modern materials produced with modern machinery, turn on the air conditioner, drive a Chevy, talk on the phone, watch television, go to church with stained glass windows, type on a computer, picket schools wearing clothes made in sweatshops that come over on modern ships and rent DVDs that they play on their Sonys — all impressive scientific inventions — but when it comes to evolution they say they don't believe in science. To this my response is that I don't believe in creationists.