Modern evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology, astronomy, and cladistics, and archaeological studies, classical studies, Oceanic studies, studies on Antarctica, studies on civilizations, geographical studies, Life sciences studies, climatic and environmental studies, and studies on world religions, historical studies, and language studies have become meaninglessly homeless and thus are all roaming in wilderness of human thoughts like the nomads of the ‘past’ whose sole aim was then to guard the flocks under the open sky. A homeless approach to human studies brings no unity of purpose and makes all academic disciplines move in different vehicles of approach on different roads to one destination where the destination does not exist at all. Science is ‘home’ of unify of humans’ ‘past’, ‘present’ and ‘future’ on one common ground of origin; there is no science to find and produce different fruits in one tree of knowledge. Christians are neither own fundamentals of human origin nor Hindus have credible depth to prove along with others that they are a unified historic group descended from one ‘father’. Academically we have been separated by our own ‘products’ and science bears no fruit of reason to clarify its stand on its own origin. American scientists are a group not ancestrally defined on a different etymological table to recognise others as Darwinian stocks, and put Abrahamic creation theory as different from theory of ‘brahma’ that thrives on science of ‘Void’.

‘Void’ is not the property which can be owned by a human or by a group of humans; it is not a play ground of human thoughts at all. To recognise divine and its science of purpose, a ‘land’ is necessary for human knowledge and thereafter a tree is to be planted to see what fruit it bears. It is not work of a scientist to watch the sky for all his life and tell before his death that the sky is there for billions of years before humans were born on earth.

As long as a ‘land’ or a ‘house’-theory is not felt as ‘absolute’ to put creation theory inside it, differences are bound to exist among various knowledge-players in this field. It is not that a group of people sitting in America can only say what the creation means to them and others are there to believe in what sky they own over their heads. Base of creation science is ‘independent’; we cannot change the ‘beginning’ and the ‘base’ which like the womb of a mother defines and holds an origin and an identity. The mother is dead does not mean ‘land’ of the mother has disappeared. Reason of birth of a baby is not under the control the mother herself. So creation story does not belong either to science or to religion as both are the geographical ‘products’ of a particular ‘land’.