I've read 3 Bibles cover to cover, and, I am a science addict.
I hear often about Creation verses Evolution, Religions seeking to disprove Evolution, and Evolution seeming to represent disproving creation. I would like give some time (though not equal in the stated environment) to discus a third possibility, that both, are describing the truth.
 So I would like to introduce a hypothesis inclusive of both, to post the hypothesis, with evidence that supports it, and let that stand on its own merit.
 While leaving it open for discussion, of one opposing the other, please post such supporting arguments with out trying to close the discussion,  how this may not be the case that both are right, looking for cause to substantiate the hypothesis, rather than only negate it. 

 Religion and science may have the same origins, both, wanting to understand the truth
I would like to include one of many examples, Adam and Eve.
 In the Bibles I've read, Cain (son of Adam and Eve) went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain new his wife.... hypothetically for the sake of question, what if Nod was a human (though perhaps not yet, to Adam and Eve) community, were he met his wife (rather than just married his sister).
 I'm entering this, because at what point in the course of human evolution, did someone realize they were not just an animal, but something a bit different, like, no longer a chimpanzee?
 Could this not be responsible for the huge proliferation of ancient stories where each claims they are the first people? If all come from a common ancestry, and this lineage is no longer a chimpanzee (or living like one), lacking DNA testing equipment in that time to make such a statement, is it not possible all these different stories of being the first "humans" of our kind, entirely accurate?
 To further this, When a deviation of a certain species reaches a certain point, is it not then called a new species? On the earth for the first time? What where the very first of this new species? Or if gradual, at what POINT was it a new species?
 Could not humans being self aware, be simply declaring to the best of their knowledge, the truth?
A bird can change color, size etc, from its predecessor, the human, being different not due to feathers but due to brain and hands, could then (aside from the DNA standpoint) change and become a new species, through conscious effort by changing its perspective and then using its hands to change the world to match that. Spontaneously, re-create, what it means, to be a human being, say from being a cave man, to a civilized one, sufficiently to qualify (in their minds) as a new species, from its own perspective.
 And again, I'm sure there are plenty of holes in this theory, but that would be against the theory, rather than evidence of its correctness.
 Its just that as a peace activist, I tend to look at both sides, and see the common ground.
A holistic perspective, is one that unites the world, rather than divides it. Rather like taking a cave mans stand, taking a step outside of civilization, to see it not in its divisions, but as a whole.
 
 I did not come to the conclusion of a creator, through religion, but it was science and math that has led me to become more, not less convinced. If there is a creator, and the creator is truth, and evolution is truth, who I am I to say the creator, did not also create evolution?
 So to me, the study of human evolution, going back millions of years, and that of a creation story saying the first humans where here 4000 years ago, do not dispute each other, other than perhaps the objective view, of the definition.
 It is perhaps that Religions, and scientists, could improve their 'interpretations' by studying both, without bias that only one, is the correct one.
  This is to give some air time, were so much is 'one or the other' to the possibility, of both, being very highly accurate.
 Not looking for an argument, but to open a path to end one, through the truth itself, on the premise that the more we learn about the truth, the more the truth itself becomes self evident, and that it is perhaps our perspective of it, that may need some adjusting, if we accomidate the new information or, possiblities.
 This blog is not stating fact, so much as, entering a hypothesis I dont hear very often.
 Objective of Peace and clarity through unification, rather than division.
Is it not possible, both, are telling the truth?