Unification Theology In Comparative Perspectives - Edited by Anthony J. Guerra - 1988

The Creation-Evolution Controversy and Unification Theology by Jonathan Wells

The controversies which erupted with the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 are far from over. The continued vitality of the creation-evolution controversy in the United States, in particular, is symptomatic of an unresolved conflict over the religious implications of Darwin's theory of evolution. The precise nature of the conflict, however, remains a matter of dispute. Is it a conflict between the divinely revealed chronology of the Bible and materialistic pseudo-science? Is it a conflict between enlightened modern science and crude backwoods fundamentalism? Or are there more subtle issues involved which are obscured by the well-publicized battles between partisans of these two positions?

The first two parts of this essay are an attempt to answer these questions by distinguishing various meanings of "creation" and "evolution," and thus to demonstrate the complexity of the conceptual issues involved in the controversy. The third part of this essay attempts to sketch a Unification position on creation and evolution, and to locate the Unification position in the context of the general controversy.

All three parts of this essay are exercises in conceptual clarification: "conceptual," in the sense that my primary concern is with ideas rather than with the historical or sociological aspects of the controversy; and "clarification," in the sense that my primary concern is to identify areas of possible agreement or disagreement rather than to determine the truth or falsity of any particular position. In other words, although I write as a Unification theologian, it is not my purpose here to defend the truth of Unification theology against opposing views, but merely to clarify its relationship to some of the issues involved in the creation-evolution controversy.


Generally speaking, to "create" is to "bring into existence"; and to call God the Creator of the universe means, at the very least, that God somehow brought the entire universe into existence. Someone who is a "creationist" in this general sense, however, could take any one of several different positions with respect to the origin and diversification of living organisms. These various positions can be broadly divided into two categories, "deistic" and "theistic," depending on whether they consider God's creative activity to cease or continue after the initial creation of the universe.

Deistic positions attribute the initial creation of the universe to God, but maintain that everything thereafter is left to the operation of created but autonomous laws. The origin of life is general and the origin of species in particular (assuming they do not coincide with the origin of the universe), would then be due to the ordinary forces of nature, operating independently of God's guidance or intervention. Among the adherents of deistic positions are those who believe in God as the Creator but maintain that all events subsequent to the "big bang" are explicable solely in terms of natural laws.

Darwin's position, at least in his Origin of Species, seems to have been basically deistic, with one significant exception. Although he was willing to attribute the origin of the universe to a Creator, and although he assumed that the present diversity of living organisms is wholly explicable in scientific terms, without any reference to divine action, he exempted the origin of life from this assumption. Instead, he assumed that life was "originally breathed into a few forms or into one," perhaps by a Creator; and his theory attempted to account only for the subsequent modification of those primordial forms.1 Almost all modern Darwinists, however, take the more consistently naturalistic view that the origin of life was due solely to natural causes.

Another position which can be considered basically deistic maintains that all natural events subsequent to the origin of the universe, including the emergence of Homo sapiens, are explicable solely in terms of natural laws; but that when Homo sapiens first appeared, God bestowed a supernatural and immortal soul on each individual. In other words, God did not guide the evolutionary process but was content to let it take its natural course, and merely awaited the emergence of an organism suitable for the reception of a soul. According to this position, however, the rudimentary forms of intellect, emotion and will which are found in "lower" animals are produced solely by natural causes. Presumably, then, the intellect, emotion and will which have traditionally been considered attributes of the human soul are likewise produced by natural causes; and the necessity for God's involvement in the origin of the human soul seems to be limited to the bestowal of supernatural attributes such as immortality.

Positions which historically have been called "theistic" to distinguish them from the basically deistic views described above consider the origin of life, in general, and the origin of the major kinds of plants and animals in particular, to be due not to the autonomous operation of natural processes but to God's direct control over, or periodic intervention in, those processes. According to theistic creationists, God's creative activity is a necessary factor in the emergence and development of living organisms, especially at crucial junctures marked by the appearance of significantly new organs, adaptations, or life forms. The difference between deistic and theistic views is analogous to the difference between a machine which is programmed to perform according to pre-determined instructions and a device which is controlled by a human operator.2

It is possible to distinguish two types of theistic creationism, depending on whether God's activity is interpreted as control or intervention. The former implies that natural processes are such that God can use them without suspending them; in other words, the chain of natural causes is connected, in some sense and at some level, to God. The latter implies that God chooses to suspend or ignore natural processes and to act supernaturally or miraculously instead. The former might be considered analogous to the use of tools by a human agent; the latter, to the extent that it is conceivable at all, might be considered a sheer act of will, making no use of any natural means. The distinction between control and intervention is not as sharp as it first appears, however, since in the former case God would presumably set the chain of natural causes in motion by something like a sheer act of will; and in the latter case God's act of will would have to impinge on natural processes at some point if it were to make any difference in the world. The two types are alike, moreover, in implying that natural science would be unable in principle to give a full explanation of the origin and diversity of living organisms, since no explanation would be complete without taking God's agency into account.

The so-called "Scientific Creationism" which currently figures so prominently in controversies in the United States can be considered a variant of the "intervention" type of theistic position. According to Scientific Creationism, living organisms were not created at the same instant as the universe, nor did they evolve over a long period of time; instead, the major kinds of plants and animals were created by the direct intervention of God during the six days following the creation of the universe, and have persisted essentially unchanged ever since.3 Significant features of this view include: (a) its emphasis on the immutability of the major kinds of plants and animals; and (b) its reliance on a literal interpretation of biblical chronology.

The "immutability of kinds" involves at least two conceptual difficulties, the first of which is the difficulty of defining "kinds." Some religious critics of evolution have, at times, equated kinds with biological species, asserting that all species have been specially created by God and that they have remained essentially unchanged since their initial creation. This simple equation is problematic, however, partly because the biological definition of species is itself problematic, and partly because there is scientific evidence that some species (at least, according to some definitions of species) have arisen solely by natural means. But if kinds do not correspond to species, they do not clearly correspond to any other taxonomic category, either. No precise definition is found in the Bible, which includes vegetation, plants, fruit trees, fish, birds, cattle, creeping things, beasts of the earth, and human beings among the divinely created kinds. Many religious critics of evolution, therefore, have not attempted to offer a precise definition of kinds; instead, they have confined themselves to asserting that the basic kinds (or types, or forms) of living things were created by God, while acknowledging that their diversification into what are now designated species by biologists may have resulted solely from the operation of natural causes.

A second conceptual difficulty involved in the "immutability of kinds" is the notion of "immutability," or changelessness. The difficulty stems from a logical dilemma: can one kind (defined as a group of organisms which are essentially similar) change essentially into another, or does the first kind merely cease to exist once all extant organisms have become essentially different? In other words, is immutability merely a logical consequence of the definition of kind, and therefore tautological? If it is not, then presumably it amounts to the claim that all kinds are original (i.e., that no kind is derived from any other kind), and possibly to the additional claim that all kinds are permanent (i.e., that no kind ever becomes extinct). If immutability were defined in terms of underivability (with or without permanence), and if kinds could be suitably defined, then the immutability of kinds might conceivably be both meaningful and true. But it is not necessarily implied by the general concept of creation: permanence of biological kinds is not required by either deistic or theistic creationism, and underivability would be required by theistic creationism only if derivability were defined in such a way as to exclude divine control and intervention. In other words, a person may be a creationist and nevertheless consistently maintain that major kinds of plants and animals were derived from other kinds (which may now be extinct), though a theistic creationist would want to add that the process of derivation requires God's control or intervention.

A second significant feature of Scientific Creationism, and the one which most sharply distinguishes it from other creationist positions, is its reliance on a literal interpretation of biblical chronology. Despite scientific evidence that the earth is billions of years old and that living organisms have been evolving for hundreds of millions of years, Scientific Creationists interpret literally the six days of creation in Genesis and the genealogies in the Old Testament which seem to fix the age of the earth at about six thousand years. The major difficulty with this chronological fundamentalism is that it can be maintained only at the expense of ignoring or discounting a considerable body of scientific evidence to the contrary. The most common way Scientific Creationists discount such evidence is to point out that geological dating methods are based on the principle that processes such as erosion, sedimentation, and radioactive decay have been occurring at a more or less uniform rate since the origin of the earth; and that this principle of uniformity cannot be proved, but must be assumed, like an article of faith.4 Regardless of the merits or demerits of this argument, it should be noted that the chronology issue is conceptually distinct from the issue of creation, and that neither deistic nor theistic creationism necessarily entails any particular chronological claims.

The preceding list of positions, of course, is nor exhaustive. Other combinations and permutations are possible. It is not necessary, however, to list all possible variations on these themes. It is sufficient to note that there is a whole spectrum of views which could, in some sense, be called "creationist," and that there are important distinctions between them. In particular, it is important to note the distinction between deistic and theistic creationism, and the fact that theistic creationism does not necessarily imply either the immutability of biological kinds or a literal interpretation of biblical chronology.


Similarly, there is a whole spectrum of views which could be called "evolutionist," some of which are quite compatible with some of the creationist views presented above. Etymologically, "evolution" means "unrolling," and it was first used in biology nearly two centuries ago to refer to the development of any embryo. Partly because of its embryological connotations, and partly because of its close association with the philosophy of Herbert Spencer, Darwin rarely used the term, preferring instead the phrase "descent with modification." As used in modern biology, however, evolution refers in its most general sense to the series of more or less orderly changes exhibited by the origin and diversification of living organisms, in which later stages are somehow derived from earlier ones.

It is possible to distinguish several different levels of evolution. First, evolution may refer to inheritable changes within a single species which develop over the course of several generations, such as the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, or the evolution of certain color patterns in moths which make them less visible to predatory birds. Second, evolution may refer to the origin of a new species, marked by the first appearance of a morphologically different organism in the fossil record, or by the establishment of permanent reproductive isolation between two previously interbreeding populations. Third, evolution may refer to large-scale changes which transcend the origin of any particular species, such as the emergence of complex organs (e.g., eyes), or the origin of major new taxonomic groups. The first level (sometimes called "microevolution") is much more accessible to direct scientific observation, and is therefore better understood, than the second and third levels (sometimes called "macroevolution").

The concept of evolution embraces both the temporal and spatial patterns which are the effect of change, and the processes which are the cause of change. The patterns of organic evolution are so well documented by the fossil record, geological dating methods, and the geographical distribution of extant species, that this aspect of evolution might justifiably be called a "fact." The processes responsible for evolutionary change, on the other hand, are not so well understood, and it would be more accurate to describe the current state of understanding of such processes as "theory" rather than fact. These distinctions between pattern and process, and between fact and theory, must not, of course, be pressed too far: pattern and process, as well as fact and theory, are inseparably related, and cannot be understood in isolation from each other. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that far more is known about when and where new forms of life evolved than is known about how they evolved.

Theories about the processes of evolution, if they are to be considered "scientific" in the modern sense of the word, must attempt to explain those processes in terms of natural causes, without referring to divine activity. Since a scientific theory must be testable (which usually means that observations obtained by one experimenter must be reproducible by others), and since an act of God (even if it were observable as such) would presumably be reproducible only by God, references to divine activity are methodologically excluded from scientific explanations. It should be noted, however, that the methodological assumption that references to divine activity must be excluded from science does not require the much stronger metaphysical assumption that God never acts in nature. It may be that some natural phenomena do, in fact, depend on God's activity, and that only some aspects of such phenomena are accessible to scientific investigation and explanation.

Although some philosophers and scientists have questioned whether Darwin's theory is scientific in the sense of being testable, it is certainly scientific in the sense of attempting to explain the evolutionary process (at least, subsequent to the origin of the first primordial form or forms) solely in terms of natural causes. Those causes, according to Darwin, are natural selection and random variation. Arguing by analogy from artificial selection, whereby a breeder selects for reproduction only those plants or animals with the most desirable characteristics, Darwin attributed changes within wild species to "natural selection," whereby the struggle for survival permits the maturation and reproduction of only those plants and animals which possess the "fittest" characteristics in a given environment. Then, arguing by analogy from changes within species, Darwin attributed differences between species (and all higher taxonomic categories) to the same process extended over longer periods of time.5

One conceptual difficulty with Darwin's theory is the notion of "fittest": sometimes fittest is defined retroactively by observing which organisms happen to survive, in which case "survival of the fittest" is a mere tautology; though it is possible to avoid this tautology by defining fittest in terms of specific capacities in a given environment. Another difficulty with the theory is what many critics consider to be its overly simplistic assumption that the same process which may account for microevolution is also capable of accounting for macroevolution. Scientifically, Darwinism has difficulty accounting for the fact that new species generally seem to appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, whereas the theory predicts gradual transitions between species. It should be noted, however, that these are difficulties with Darwin's particular theory about the process of evolution, not with the concept of evolution per se.

Darwin was convinced that the process of natural selection (i.e., survival of the fittest) acting upon random variations (i.e., the slight differences between individuals in any given species) could account for evolution without invoking any sort of divine guidance or design. Although he was willing to concede that the laws of nature (including the law of natural selection) were designed by God, Darwin differed from many nineteenth-century biologists in claiming that specific organs and adaptations were not designed by God, but were merely by-products of the struggle for survival. For example, an animal does not possess eyes because God designed it to be able to see; instead, an animal possesses eyes because its remote ancestors accidentally acquired a rudimentary sensitivity to light which gave them a slight advantage over their competitors in the struggle for survival, and because this same interaction of random variation and natural selection gradually produced increasingly complex and more efficient organs of sight. Darwin rejected the suggestion that some variations might have been designed by God, or that God guided the evolutionary process in any way. Variations are accidental, and natural selection has no "design" other than survival. Therefore, although God may have ordained the evolutionary process, according to Darwin's theory no particular outcome of that process is foreordained.6

It is clear from this discussion that the relationships among the concepts of creation, evolution, and design are fairly complex. First, the relation between creation and evolution seems to be that 1) deistic creation is compatible with evolution; 2) versions of theistic creation which admit the derivability of biological kinds are compatible with evolution, so long as evolution is not defined in such a way as to exclude God's control or intervention; but 3) the particular version of theistic creation known as Scientific Creationism, with its emphasis on the immutability of biological kinds, is not compatible with evolution. Second, evolution may be related to design in such a way that 4) evolution is undesigned in any sense; 5) evolution is undesigned except perhaps in the general sense that natural laws are designed (Darwin's mature position); 6) some particular products of evolution (e.g., some organs, adaptations, or organisms) are produced by design; or 7) every particular detail of living organisms (right down to the number of hairs on a head) is produced by design. Finally, design and creation are related to the extent that 8) deistic creation presumably implies that natural laws are designed by God, though particular products of the evolutionary process may or may not be designed; while 9) theistic creation, with its emphasis on God's guidance of the evolutionary process, implies that at least some particular products of evolution are designed. According to 1), 5), and 8), a deistic creationist who believes that the process of evolution is designed, but that the specific pattern resulting from evolution is undesigned, can be a Darwinist; 3) indicates that a Scientific Creationist cannot even be an evolutionist, much less a Darwinist; while 2), 5) and 9) lead to the conclusion that a theistic creationist who is not a Scientific Creationist can be an evolutionist, but not a Darwinist.

It is possible, of course, to argue that the distinctions outlined here are too simplistic. For example, some people might maintain that there are versions of Darwinism which do not exclude design as rigorously as the version I have presented here. The most important point, however, is that creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Between the extremes of Scientific Creationism and Darwinism there are numerous positions which are compatible with both creation and evolution. Of particular relevance is the position taken by a creationist who accepts as fact the pattern of evolution (and who thus rejects Scientific Creationism), but who maintains that the process of evolution is guided by God (and who thus rejects Darwinism as well).


Defining a Unification position on creation and evolution is not a simple matter, partly because the sources for doctrinal authority within the Unification movement are still undergoing development, and partly because the interpretation of such sources inevitably leaves room for a certain amount of disagreement. In fact, I have met some members of the Unification movement who could be called Scientific Creationists, and others who could be called Darwinists, though the vast majority belong to neither extreme. What follows, however, is not based on a survey of the opinions of members of the Unification movement; instead, it is based on my understanding of the teachings of the movement's founder, Sun Myung Moon, as reflected in some of his own statements and in various books written by his Korean followers. Among the latter, I rely in particular on Divine Principle (1973), an English translation of Wol-li Kang-ron (1966), by Hyo Won Eu; The Divine Principle Study Guide (1973), by Young Whi Kim; Unification Theology and Christian Thought (1976) and Unification Theology (1980), by Young Oon Kim; Outline of the Principle: Level Four (1980), by Chung Hwan Kwak; and Explaining Unification Thought (1981), by Sang Hun Lee.

There can be no reasonable doubt that the Unification position is creationist. In the most general sense, to call God the Creator is to assert that the universe owes its existence to God, and that God's existence is independent of the universe. According to Divine Principle, "God is the Creator of all things," the "First Cause of the world of creation," and "the source of the energy which enables all things to maintain their existence"; yet God remains "eternally self-existent, transcendent of time and space." Some theologians have objected that the Unification doctrine of creation is incompatible with the traditional doctrine of creation from nothing, since in the Unification view matter is derived from God's "Universal Prime Energy," and the relationship between God and the universe is compared to the relationship between mind and body. The theological function of the doctrine of creation from nothing, however, is to affirm God's creatorship in opposition to cosmogonic dualism and pantheism. Cosmogonic dualism, which maintains that matter is distinct from and co-eternal with God, denies that the universe owes its very existence to God; and pantheism, which identifies God with the universe, denies that God's existence is independent of the universe. The Unification doctrine of creation, on the other hand, consistently affirms these essential elements of God's creatorship, and thus is neither dualist nor pantheist, but creationist.7

Furthermore, there can be little doubt that Unification creationism is theistic rather than deistic. Explaining Unification Thought maintains that the origin of life cannot be accounted for on the basis of natural laws alone, since "life can only be created by God." According to The Divine Principle Study Guide, "the transition between lower beings and higher beings" on the evolutionary scale "indicates the continuous addition of God's creative energy, heart, intellect, will and creativity." A 1976 speech by Sun Myung Moon asserts that the "stage-by-stage progression" whereby living things "developed into more complex and higher beings" would have been "absolutely impossible" without God's creative energy, and that living organisms have evolved rather than deteriorated only because of the periodic addition of "outside energy" by "the first causal being." Clearly, the Unification position is that God did not leave the origin and diversification of life to autonomous natural laws, but either controlled or intervened in the operation of those laws to create the biological realm.8

The Unification doctrine of creation also maintains that at least some specific aspects of the biological realm were created by design. According to Divine Principle, God's "original purpose of creation" was to establish a heavenly kingdom, physical as well as spiritual, inhabited by human beings who reflect God's character in such a way as to bring God joy. Therefore, the plan to create human beings in God's image preceded the actual creation of the universe. In some 1965 remarks on creation and evolution, Sun Myung Moon stated that "the whole being, physical and spiritual, is created in God's image," in the sense that "the body is created to conform with the mind, and the mind is created to conform with God." Unification Theology also interprets God's image as being, in some sense, physical as well as spiritual: part of the purpose of creation "was for God to be able to express Himself in a physical way," and "we could say that God created man to be His body." God's design, however, is not limited to human beings. Furthermore, the 1976 speech referred to above calls the human organism "the model of the existing world," after which all other aspects of the universe were patterned. Expanding on this theme, Explaining Unification Thought maintains that after conceiving the image of human beings, "God conceived the images of animals, leaving out the spiritual aspects of the image of man. Next He conceived the images of plants, leaving out the instinct and nervous system of the animals. Finally, He conceived the images of minerals, leaving out the life, tissues, and cells of the images of the plants." God then created the simplest building-blocks first, progressing stage by stage to the creation of human beings.9

Both in its claim that the origin and diversification of living organisms require God's creative energy, and its claim that at least some aspects of the biological realm are specifically designed by God, Unification creationism is incompatible with Darwin's theory of evolution. In his

1965 remarks on evolution, Sun Myung Moon agreed that Darwin's theory may explain change "within a certain formula or plant or animal" (for example, "within the family of chrysanthemums"), but denied that it could account for all aspects of evolution (for example, the creation of human beings). Explaining Unification Thought similarly rejects the modern version of Darwin's theory which attributes all aspects of evolution to natural selection and genetic mutations.10

Although the Unification view rejects Darwinism, however, it affirms the general concept of evolution. Sun Myung Moon's position in 1965 was that "on the whole, the process of creation was evolutionary," and lasted "perhaps millions of years." Divine Principle accepts the fossil record and geological time scale as a more or less accurate reflection of the pattern of evolution. According to Unification Theology and Christian Thought, the six "days" of creation in Genesis were "epochs of indeterminate time"; and Outline of the Principle: Level Four acknowledges that the six days "were not actual twenty-four hour days," but interprets them to mean that "the universe did not come into being instantaneously, but was created through six gradual periods." Therefore, the Unification doctrine of creation accepts the spatial and temporal pattern of evolution, and thus rejects Scientific Creationism as well as Darwinism. Just as Darwinism is incompatible with the Unification view that the process of evolution required God's purposeful, creative activity, so Scientific Creationism is incompatible with the Unification view that the pattern of evolution extends over hundreds of millions of years.11

One final point: the Unification doctrine of the fall is based on the claim that the human species originated with one male and one female, the "Adam and Eve" described in Genesis. At first glance, it might appear that this doctrine is incompatible with evolution. It is certainly incompatible with Darwin's theory, which requires the gradual transformation of an entire population rather than the relatively sudden emergence of two individuals. But is it incompatible with evolution per se. In the Unification view, this original pair did not emerge suddenly as fully formed adults; they were created as babies, and had to grow to maturity just as people do today. According to Sun Myung Moon, in his 1965 remarks on evolution "Adam and Eve were created as a baby is created by humans today," though they were not conceived by physical parents in the same sense that we are, but were formed "through the power of God" and were thus "a special creation," nursed by "God Himself in "a very unusual environment." These statements are perhaps purposefully vague, and Unification doctrine does not elaborate on this point. Nevertheless, it would seem to be consistent with these claims to speculate that God may have molded two human embryos, one male and one female, in the wombs of human-like animals (such as were known to have existed at approximately the same time as the first human beings); and that these embryos then developed into human babies who had a spiritual aspect bestowed and nourished by God, but who were physically nourished and protected by those same pre-human animals (described by Sang Hun Lee as analogous to a "scaffold" used to erect a building.) Whether or not this speculative scenario is true, it serves to illustrate the difference between the Unification position and a biblical fundamentalism which insists that Adam and Eve were created fully formed, with no organic relationship to what preceded them; and it also serves to illustrate the compatibility of the Unification position with a notion of evolution which leaves room for God's control or intervention.12

In the general controversy over creation and evolution, Unification theology thus belongs to neither extreme. The Unification view can be described as creationist, in a theistic sense, since it maintains that God's creative activity was necessary for the origin and diversification of the biological realm, and that at least some aspects of that realm were specifically designed by God. The Unification position can also be described as evolutionist, since it affirms the pattern of orderly changes exhibited by the evolution of living organisms, in which later stages are somehow derived from earlier ones in a process extending over hundreds of millions of years. Therefore, if Darwinism is true, or if Scientific Creationism is true, then the Unification doctrine of creation is false. On the other hand, if the Unification doctrine of creation is true, then the two most publicized positions in the creation-evolution controversy are false.


1. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: John Murray, 1859) 490.

2. See Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1873) Vols I and II. Hodge criticized Darwin's theory for excluding design, in What Is Darwinism? (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1874).

3. At Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974) 91-130, 203-255.

4. Morris, 203-255.

5. Darwin, 490.

6. For a detailed discussion of Darwin's views on creation and design, see Neal C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979)82-156.

7. Divine Principle (New York: HSA-UWC, 1973), 20-28, 44, 76. [Chung Hwan Kwak], Outline of the Principle: Level Pour (New York: HSA-UWC, 1980) 9-14. Young Oon Kim, Unification Theology and Christian Thought, Revised Edition (New York: Golden Gate Publishing, 1976) 11. [Sang Hun Lee], Explaining Unification Thought (New York: Unification Thought Institute, 1981)9-11. Henry VanderGoot, "The Humanity of God and the Divinity of Man: Reflections on Unification's Theology of Creation," A Time for Consideration, edited by M. Darrol Bryant and Herbert W. Richardson (New York: Edwin Mellen, 1978), 275-289.

8. Explaining Unification Thought, 48-51. [Young Whi Kim], The Divine Principle Study Guide (Tarrytown, NY: HSA-UWC, 1973) 36. Sun Myung Moon, "Founder's Address," The Search for Absolute Values: Harmony Among the Sciences (New York: International Cultural Foundation, 1977) Vol. I, 8.

9. Divine Principle 41-46, 105. Sun Myung Moon, "The Master Speaks on Creation," March-April 1965 (New York: HSA-UWC, 1965), 5. Young Oon Kim, Unification Theology (New York: HSA-UWC, 1980), 63. Moon, "Founder's Address," 11. Explaining Unification Thought, 35-36, 68-75.

10. Moon, "The Master Speaks on Creation," 4. Moon, "Founder's Address," 8. Also see Sun Myung Moon, "Our Destined Relationship," trans. Bo Hi Pak, 6 November 1977 (New York: HSA-UWC, 1977), 5. Explaining Unification Thought, 68-72.

11. Moon, "The Master Speaks on Creation," 2-3. Divine Principle 51-52. Kim, Unification Theology and Christian Thought 25-26. Outline of the Principle: Level Pour 27.

12. Divine Principle 66-83. Kim, Unification Theology 119-125. Moon, "The Master Speaks on Creation," 2-6. Sang Hun Lee, personal communication, 23 February 1978. 

Table of Contents

Tparents Home

Moon Family Page

Unification Library