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

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

Kairissi and Elenchus:

Summary and Conclusion

return to "Evolution Controversy" contents page

THIS PAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Kairissi. Elenchus, I think what bothers me most about this entire subject is the bold-faced lies from the Darwinists. They have no shame, no conscience, and many of these persons of science live on the lowest levels of consciousness. So much of what they say is little more than "the failed attorney's last resort tactic."

Elenchus. It is absolutely shocking, and disgusting. We always thought that science was an objective search for the truth. But, in so many quarters, it's nothing more than political gamesmanship.

K. How can we offer any semblance of summary to this vast body of information?

E. Why don’t we start by recommending that our readers see the movie "Darwin's Dilemma."

K. It's very well produced and offers a masterful overview of this topic.

E. And we should comment on the very term “evolution” and recap what it means.

K. Today, the popular meaning suggests gradual change over long periods of time.

E. But this modern definition is a product of the Darwin Lobby’s propaganda. The actual word “evolution” leads us to something else.

K. That’s really interesting, but it’s how propaganda works: if you tell a lie, enough times, over protracted duration, the lie becomes the new definition.

E. It’s quite Orwellian.

E. There is no genetic drifting of one species into another - otters don't become birds. But what is possible is development within a species.

K. In other words, there is growth, or potential growth, within the boundaries of a morphogenic "blueprint" governing the evolvement of each species.

E. Yes, within the species, but not to transgress its borders.

K. This constitutes the real definition of "evolution." Before we proceed here, however, let’s remind ourselves that there’s a big difference between “microevolution” and “macroevolution.” The former we have no problem with, is quite valid, and what we see in the natural world speaks of extensive variation within a species.

E. That’s why we have hundreds or thousands of different kinds of dogs, cats, horses, cows – we could go on.

K. But, in all of these cases, the great diversity does not lead to a new species. There may be hundreds of different kinds of dogs, but, at the end of the dog show, each one remains a canine.

E. But “macroevolution” is different. This is the real battleground area. Here we find the purported contention that, over long periods of time, one species might genetically drift beyond its boundaries and become something new: the fish in the water eventually becomes the bird in the air, that sort of thing.

K. Pigs will fly one day.

E. As Father Reginald Foster would say, "it's a nice story but with little basis in fact". We've seen, in a hundred articles, there’s no evidence for the macro-gradualism of Darwinism, and plenty to discredit it.

K. And while we’re on the subject of degradation of word definitions, I’d like to point out something about the term “species.” I once thought that a species was defined by mating ability: if all members of a population can interbreed, this means they constitute a species.

E. Is there anything wrong with this definition?

K. It’s good, as far as it goes, and it’s a well known definition of “species.” What isn’t generally known, however, is that biologists – depending on which school of thought they abide by – offer several definitions of “species.” This is alright, as well, because there are many variables, and certain biologists like to favor some over others; but, what isn’t alright is that these definitions might be used as part of Darwinian propaganda – meaning, a particular definition might be chosen if it strengthens the case for Darwinism in a particular instance, while other definitions are conveniently shunted to the side, as if they didn’t exist.

E. But, let us not stray too far from our main point. We want to offer ourselves a sturdy and well-conceived definition of “evolution.”

K. Right. Sometimes word origins are not helpful at all, but for a history lesson; for example, the word “atom” literally means “not divided,” as it takes us back to the ancient Greeks who knew nothing of sub-atomic particles. But, in the case of “evolution,” etymology is a very useful guide to us. The root concept of “evolution” presents the idea of an “unfolding.”

E. That’s very interesting, isn’t it? And we readily see why the Darwin faction would hate that definition.

K. “Evolution” as an “unfolding” brings up for consideration an array of new questions. What is it that requires unfolding? Who or what served as source of the original packing? Was there an inceptive “folding”? Does the unfolding suggest an archetypal intention, plan, or blueprint? If so, would this not lead us to purpose and design?

E. With "purpose and design," it’s easy to see why this etymological view of “evolution” is never mentioned.

K. Ellus, the author’s evolution report, as we've said, is comprised of a hundred sub-articles; representing, probably more than a thousand pages of text. There’s too much too summarize. But one item, I think, needs to be emphasized. The Darwinists offer no mathematics to substantiate their claims. It’s all conjecture and wishful thinking. As many biologists have pointed out, all major precepts of science are backed up by a rigorously-constructed mathematical basis.

E. But not for Darwinism. Instead, the only math involved is supplied by critics - we have probability calculations which demonstrate that Darwinian theory is utterly errant. It could never have happened in the way that they say - random gene mutations married to natural selection - not even in a duration equal to trillions of universes!

K. That truly is an inconvenient fact; little wonder that Darwinists become angry when the subject of math improbabilities is brought up. And so, where does this leave us?

E. “Evolution” as “unfolding” may be the very best summary concept. Morphic fields contain the hidden blueprints of the universe. These primordial plans have been baked into the pie, "enfolded" within the nature of things.

K. And at certain junctures of cosmic history – wham! kaboom! – these enfolded blueprints burst forth with perfectly-constructed material form. Think of the "Big Bang" or the "Cambrian Explosion." And this "instant entrace" is the highly suggestive message of the quantum “Double Slit” experiment.

E. The author’s book “Omega Point” prompts us to see that Twin Soul romantic love is the zenith of this evolutionary ladder.

K. That's so interesting, isn't it! It’s the final stage, the ultimate “unfolding” of the "inner riches," the "hidden blueprint." Twin Soul love is meant to replicate the joy, harmony, and peace known to Mother-Father God.

E. Stated differently, Twin love takes us several steps closer to our very reason for being, that of, becoming more and more like Mother-Father God. It’s why the universe was created.

K. (small smile) Oh, that little thing.

K. I think it would be good to point out that “evolution” as “unfolding” is a process that continues in Summerland and beyond.

E. Yes, that’s good; say more on this.

K. We come to this Earth as psychologically-spiritually unformed entities. But we were “made in the image.” This means that we have all those embryonic god-qualities built into our soul-natures.

E. That’s the "packing," the “enfolding.”

K. We have this inherent awesome potential, with “no discoverable upper limit,” as Father Benson likes to use the phrase. But, during our mortal lives, it’s like a horse with blinders. The Spirit-Guide teachers explain that our very brains have been overlaid with a kind of filter; you might say, to purposefully “dumb us down” while on planet Earth.

E. We're given only what we need for the trip. But I’m reminded of what Dr. Peebles said, that in Summerland, we’ll be able to learn “in 1 day” what it takes us “10 or 12 years” to learn here on Earth.

K. How incredible is that! This means that our minds, over there, will have, maybe, a thousand times the brain power that we currently have.

E. And I think the point is, once we get over there, the “filters” come off, and the “unfolding” shifts into high gear.

K. Yes, but, we should add, "begin to come off." As we advance and develop ourselves, we fit ourselves for more and more “unfolding.”

E. There’s so much packed into the soul that we don’t even know what that means right now.

K. It’s an unfolding of the “inner riches,” the quantum morphic fields of potential development, that will unfurl and display over eons to come. Think of Father Benson's report of "the Ruler," billions of years old, and all the power he has. This is our future; the tiny acorn eventually becomes the towering oak.

E. I think it’s valuable that we provide this future glimpse, this expanded context to the subject of “evolution.”

K. What we see, or think we see, here, on our little planet Earth, is only the kindergarten, maybe even just the doorstep, of a boundless immensity of “unfolding” to come.

K. I think I’m not quite willing to lay this subject of “summary and conclusion” to rest.

E. What would you like to say?

K. The “truth” of the matter seems so obvious to me, but we’ve been fed a certain narrative for so long that “up” seems to be “down” and “hot” is considered to be “cold.”

E. What are you really seeing Kriss?

K. Walk outside late at night under the starry cosmic canopy; or stroll in the woods among the singing insects, the chorus of birds, the panoply of flora. What I mean to say is, all of Nature presents itself as a balancing of this-against-that. There’s a subtle accord, a proportion and concurrence, among all participants in the natural world, with no single element as hegemonous enjoying unlimited dominion. Instead, we discover a finely-tuned, interwoven latticework of sypathetic union within the ecosystem, a mutual interdependence, a comingling of interests and shared ownership.

E. This is not often addressed.

K. We’ve spoken of the lack of mathematical support for Darwinian theory. And I think I know what I’d like to say as final word. The vast system of interconnectedness that we see, within all levels of Nature, could not have happened by chance. It’s a statistical improbability. Think back to Dr. Sheldrake’s example of the protein. If one little protein, employing randomness and chance, could not learn to fold itself in a precise and specific manner, without a duration of time equal to trillions of universes, then, what about the grand sweep of Nature at large? Consider the ultra-immense array of “moving parts” in this unitive entity we call Nature that operate with symphonic harmony. To suggest that this enormous interplay of disparate elements could find productive correlation and alliance – via randomness and chance – is not only a statistical improbability, but an utter impossibility. The number of theoretical arrangements among these diverse items invites a combinatorial explosion of unfathomable gargantuan massiveness. Trillions of universes wouldn’t begin to touch it.

E. And there’s actually even another layer to this byzantine complication. Dr. Goswami helped us understand with the principle of entropy, which is a measure of disorder. He pointed out that if natural selection and random gene mutation were the driving factors behind evolution, then the resultant output might lead us either to more complexity or less. Evolution, from this view, is direction-neutral. In the real world, however, evolution does not flip-flop like this, but invariably takes us to greater complexity. This creates a conundrum in that the principle of entropy in physics tells us that the whole universe is running down, is progressing toward more disordered energy. And so, how can we have both? – entropy and complexity.

K. I think that “complexity overcoming entropy” is one of the best scientific points of evidence for Intelligent Design. There could be no advancing complexity in the universe unless some outside force were injecting “creative energy” into the system.

E. To state the obvious here, this means that what we see around us didn't happen by accident. The affinities and associations we observe in Nature, along with progressive complexity, could not have occurred but for overarching design, purpose, and planning. Further, as we noted, the math won't prop up the Darwinian model.

K. This factor alone, Darwinism’s mathematical bankruptcy, is enough to shut down the entire macroevolution debate.