home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

Kairissi and Elenchus discuss
what we’ve learned so far:
Part I

return to "Evolution Controversy" contents page

Editor’s note: I asked our friends Kairissi and Elenchus to offer analysis on the current state of this evolution-creationism debate.

Kairissi. So, Ellus, what’s your take on all this mayhem? It seems that so much of what each side promotes is fraught with error.

Elenchus. It is amazing. The ranks of the die-hard “6 day, 6000 year” creationists have been thinning out over the years, but Darwinists own the microphone and the airwaves in popular culture and are presumed to offer hard-edged facts.

K. They control the debate by controlling what’s put into biology textbooks in high school and college. But when their famous examples of “proof” are put under the microscope, it all melts away like a snowball in July.

E. Are you thinking of Bugs’s schtick?

K. The details of Darwinism’s famous “proofs” are as convincing as “Well, ya see, Doc, it’s too cold to make snowballs in the wintertime.”

E. And then all the true-believers of materialism nod a mechanical, uncritical assent.

K. There’s a lot of uncritical nodding on both sides of the debate. Creationists feel duty-bound to defend God -- as if an Almighty God needed defending -- and the"infallible" Bible, teaching what seems to be, for them, a literal 6-day creation. Granted, there is much wisdom and inspirational thought in the Bible, but it also contains massive amounts of error, unscientific precept, and dark codes for living, which no civilized person could ever accept.

E. Shocking to most people, Darwinists have their own skeletons-in-the-closet, with blatant attempts at manipulating evidence, fraudulent and conspiratorial presentation of research, laced with cultish adherence to dishonest thinking.

K. Both of these major world-views represent Hoffer’s mass-movement psychology.

E. It’s all a battle for mind-control, for domination of world-paradigm.

K. And at the bottom of that is our old nemesis, the fear of death. It always gets back to that when dysfunctional egos run the show.

E. Krissi, as we read the various sub-articles in this debate we might be left with, nothing seems to be real and true here. Both sides are so riddled with error. Is there such a thing as evolution? How did we get here? Can we know anything about this?

K. The author is waiting for Tom Campbell’s new “double slit” experiments. Quantum mechanics seems to hold the answer for what we’re looking for.

E. It’s wise to wait for the results of the experiments, but we have our suspicions on how this might turn out. Kriss, why don’t you share with our readers “best guesses” at this stage of the investigation.

K. Here’s what I’m betting how this will shake out. Actually, it’s really hard to give a short summary-answer as it’s complicated.

E. The “double slit” is so counter-intuitive.

K. It makes a mockery of common sense, and so, any quick answer here will sound absurd.

E. Let’s try it anyway and “damn the torpedoes.”

K. Alright. We know that gradualism doesn’t work. The math just won’t support it. And so if it’s not gradualism, we’re left with some form of short-term-effect “creationism.”

E. It sounds like the Biblical Creationists have won.

K. Not really. It only rhymes. The answer doesn’t unfold as per Genesis. The salient factor, however, is Universal Consciousness – “God,” if you will – as the Grand Organizing Principle, bringing things into existence in a moment, fully formed, fully functional; and in some cases, over a relatively short time.

E. I'll have to ask our readers to brush-up on "the double slit" to make sense of what I'm about to say, but, in terms of microcosm, we see "short-term creationism" happening in the “double slit” with a fully fleshed-out diffraction pattern at the back-screen. This “creation” in a moment, though possibly years after the original event, occurs when a “measurement” is finally taken, that is, when consciousness directly enters the process.

K. The fossil record offers an account of ad hoc, seemingly instantaneous or short-term, “punctuated” creation of life-forms.

E. We’ll be arguing that the fossil record, in principle, is not so unlike the “measurement screen” of the “double slit.”

K. The key here is Universal Consciousness, an Intelligent Designer, directing everything – not the mindless “upward causation” of sub-atomic particles. As such, things can happen quickly, in a flash.

E. We’ll be laying out a view of reality built upon Universal Consciousness. Its trademark is the “discontinuous jump,” a tendency to debut with no heralding or pre-announcement. We see this “immediacy” not just in the “double slit” or the “punctuated” fossil record but in other manifestations of Universal Consciousness, such as artistic creativity; that is, no lead up; the new, original thought is just dropped into the artist’s head.

K. Or what about electrons changing shells? They don’t move “through” space to get to where they need to go but simply “appear” in the next shell. It’s a “discontinuous jump.”

E. That may be an application, too.

K. Ellus, we need to mention here, in our very brief summary, that Dr. Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" also seems to provide a basis by which evolution might proceed -- but this, in the area of "microevolution," change within species, is not a drift of one species becoming something totally new.

E. Dr. Sheldrake's research is incredibly important, but we can only mention it now as it deserves much discussion. I'll just say that, contrary to discredited Lamarkian theory, there is much evidence that children do in fact enjoy a certain learning-cognitive enhancement based on the experiences of their parents. This is a fascinating area, and we'll look forward to exploring it.

K. And, aren’t we forgetting our favorite example of "quick creation"? – the sudden appearance of true love for Twins?

E. As true love is an expression of a higher level of consciousness, and not just John-and-Mary brain chemicals, it would have to be that way.

K. Gibran said that true love will happen in a moment, and not even years of working on a relationship – a form of “gradualism” -- will mean a tinker’s damn if the two aren’t destined for each other.

E. And isn’t it very interesting that “The Wedding Song” speaks of the coming of true love as “drawing life and giving it back again."

K. In its own way, the song presents an origin of “life.” Sounds like an evolutionary theory to me, buddy.

E. (small smile) Without you, my heart would just be a shriveled vestigial organ.

K. (softly laughing) If you're lucky, we could discuss becoming a "tangled hierarchy."

E. (laughing)