George Grebens, Evolution or Creation Debate: Key to Understanding the Issues. Page 1 of 23
EVOLUTION OR CREATION DEBATE
Key to Understanding the Issues
By George Grebens
Introduction
The Evolution-Creation debate, which has been increasing with intensity rather than diminishing with clarity, must, without a doubt, be resolved at the level of definitions and concepts. On the one hand, as it will be shown below, the Evolution-Creation debate is actually a debate between Pantheism vs. Supra-monotheism. All other positions, arguments and views inevitably fit between these two key positions. On the other hand, this issue bears on determining what constitutes the scientific method, and what effect do these contrasting views have upon social and political life? Can these issues be discussed in scientific terms?
This debate is not conducted somewhere in the corner. Formidable forces re-entrench and re-emerge to sway public opinion and national policy. The Evolution-Creation debate had been running for decades, but recently additional forces jumped into the debate in an attempt to balance, synthesize, or provide new evidence to help reexamine the issues. The additional players - theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and Intelligent Design (ID) groups are well financed and have quickly gained significant “market share” in the debate. Where previously this had been a 60-40% debate between the Evolutionists (long-age uniformitarianism) and Creationists (young age universe and world Flood catastrophism), today the pie is divided into smaller pieces among a greater number of players.
Who are the scientists that staff these movements? All of these scientists:
- Are highly qualified, degreed, certified and leading scientists who have graduated from some of the most prestigious American universities?
- Have access to, examine and evaluate the same scientific data and information
- For the most part, understand each other’s literature, research and concepts.
- Have constructed workable scientific models to allow them to interpret and predict scientific data and information.
- Create theories that explain current data, evidence, measurements, trends, and extrapolations made in, and into the past.
It is at the theoretical and hypothetical levels that ideological theory is introduced to confound scientific theory and hypotheses. It is clearly ideological theory that tends to lead scientific theory towards a limited descriptive method that is used to arbitrarily connect the random data. Inevitably, many of the scientists, policy makers and the public confuse ideological theory with scientific theory. This confusion is done innocently, as well as, in a pre-meditative manner to gain political rather scientific advantage.
1.Definition of Terms
When an academic decides to publish an article in a local paper on the issue of the Evolution & Creation Debate, the first question that an newspaper editor is most likely to ask is: “Do you think that teaching evolution goes against religious beliefs?” Perhaps, this question is as good as any to examine the Evolution - Creation debate here.
Upon closer examination, the editor’s first question contains at least fourteen (14) inferences - that:
1)A clear contrast between evolution and religion
2)Evolution is not a religion
3)Evolution and Religion are antonyms in their basic concept
4)Evolution is scientific
5)Religion is not scientific
6)Religion may or may not include Evolution
7)Religion is not linked to reality as evolution is
8)Religion is potentially anti-evolutionary
9)Evolution is realistic, scientific and rational, whereas,
10)Religion is abstract, unscientific and potentially irrational
11)Evolution is potentially anti-religious
12)Evolution can be included in religion, but is not a religion itself
13) Evolution is a new reality, whereas religion has deep historical and cultural roots, in mythology, folklore, work of fancy, or is a substitute for down to earth reality in the absence of evolution.
14) Religion, in order to acquire a realistic foundation, must embrace evolution.
These fourteen notions help us determine whether the evolution-religion question is a scientific or an ideological question. It will also help us determine whether this question should be re-formulated in some other way in order for it to meet scientific criteria?
As it stands, the question suggests that we must first define the following terms: evolution, religion, scientific method, and scientific theory vs. ideological theory.
1.1Definition of Evolution
The generic[1] meaning of evolution simply means directional consistent change:
a)Regardless of its direction – upward, sideways (laterally), or downward (i.e., de-evolution) - the term simply means directional consistent change internally and/or as an adaptation to changes in an environment.
b)Implies structural cohesiveness that is potentially changeable (mechanical wear & tear, organic life cycles, process adjustments, alignments) within an environment. In other words it implies the existence of a framework, design (e.g., aircraft, bird, plant, material) and has a potential for application and function.
c)Applied force(s) to the structure results in directional, as well as, potentially phased movement (e.g., acceleration, deceleration). Both the force and the structure may undergo variable change while the displacement occurs.
d)Single or multiple forces may impact the internal structure (motor or dynamic); or external (influential, proximity, density).
e)Forces can result in micro-changes [i.e., compounds and molecules can adapt only within the limits of their existing (programmed, genetic) internal conditions]; or, hypothetically, macro-changes (i.e., change from one compound into another, or from molecules to others outside the limits of existing internal conditions – programmed, genetic).
Creation scientists may also be evolutionists because they recognize all of the above evolutionary changes, except the last one - macro-change. Needless to say, all except macro-change are reproducible in the lab. Yet, Evolutionists have literally redefined the term “evolution” to mean macro-change, which implies qualitative and in most cases an upward moving change.
To better understand the almost alchemic macro-change it is better to examine five types of change in flowcharted formats (see Figure 1), which help identify: 1) no change (copy); 2) change (adaptation); 3) improvement (self-re-engineering); 4) innovation (self-re-design); and 5) invention (executive purposeful change). This type of flowcharted analysis and concepts of change are daily considered and implemented in industrial processes for quality improvement and re-engineering; in IT; and in cybernetics.
Figure 1: Studies of the Types of Change.
# / TYPE / FLOWCHART / OBSERVATIONS1 / NO CHANGE, Copy / Environment
1st copied in 2nd / First unit is copied within an environment. Minimal quality feedback
2 / CHANGE –
Adaptation (micro-change) /
Changed
product
Changing environment – leads to changed processes / Second entity is changed, adjusted due to feedback on quality within environment.
Value-neutral change. Adaptability, significant & consistent feedback.
3 /
IMPROVE-MENT
Self-re-engineeringmacro-change /Improved product
Supervisory
Changing environmental condition require for self-re-engineering – a supervisory system with strategic capabilities / Third entity improved due to second level feedback (supervisory) that utilizes existing resources in the first and second area, to meet environmental challenges. Value-based change – requiring various degrees of self re-engineering
4 / INNOVATION
Self-re-design
Mega-change
Some evolutionary theorists suggest mega-changes to explain data. /Improved Innovated
Supervisory
Conscious
Changing environmental internal and external conditions require self-re-design (processes & supervisory systems) – through ‘awareness’ of the environment (internal, external) & the competitive forces. / Self-awareness (consciousness) -selects from existing and other resources to modify processes and supervisory systems to overcome real and potential internal/external environmental changes.
5 / INVENTIONRevolutionary change / Include INNOVATION + random and semi-random application to meet new Purposes, Objectives and Strategies. Discovery of new laws of nature.
Invention
Executive / Re-examination of all environmental, processive, supervisory and conscious systems. Executive faculties set purpose, objectives and strategy.
Scientists who promote the Evolution and Creation models agree on no change(#1) - copy;micro-change (#2) – adaptive change within the scope of existing resources and processes. But Creation scientists begin to disagree on the issue of macro-change (#3, #4 and #5) – which implies self-improvement, qualitative increase in information and complexity, self-re-engineering, self-redesign, and purposeful change. These macro-changes have not been observed, nor reproduced neither in the lab nor in nature. Creation scientists, specifically, differ with those evolutionists, who get carried away in their zeal to indirectly suggest that even (#4) mega-changes - with its supervisory and conscious levels – provide the scientific data, fact and proof for evolution.
For over 170 years, evolutionary theorists have included the alleged macro- and mega-changes into their scientific hall of fame. These macro-changes were initially supposed to have occurred through ‘natural selection’ and ‘struggle for existence.’ However, as early as 1957, the Dean of Evolution, Julian Huxley has recognized the fallacy of this view. In his book "Evolution in Action," Julian Huxley wrote that: “the mysterious agencies ‘natural selection’ and ‘struggle for existence’ had been ‘highly metaphorical terms.’” He then clarified his view by stating that based upon empirical data, he ruled out all evolutionary agencies, orthgenesis and every other means that lead in an upward direction:
"With the knowledge, which has been amassed since Darwin's time, it is no longer possible to believe that evolution is brought about through the so-called inheritance of acquired characters - the direct effect of the use and misuse of organs, or of the changes in the environment; or by the conscious or unconscious will of organisms; or through the mysterious operation of some vital force; or by any other inherent tendency. What this means is the technical terms of biology, is that all the theories lumped together under the heads of orthogenesis and Lamarkism are invalidated, including Lysenko's Michurinism, which is now the officially approved theory of genetics and evolution in the USSR. They are "out"; they are no longer consistent with the facts. Indeed, in the light of modern discoveries, they no longer deserve to be called scientific theories, but can be seen as speculations without due basis of reality, or old superstitions disguised in modern dress.[2]"
Understandably, since 1957, Evolutionists have been updating the ‘natural selection’ and ‘struggle for existence’ concept by promoting mutations at the cellular and genetic levels. However, even evolutionists have found that this mutations path lead to a dead end.[3] Evolutionists have also concluded that molecularhomologies also lead to anything,[4] and that studies in genetics - the DNA/RNA complex - become more chaotic with increasing understanding.[5]
It is easy to recognize that Evolutionists have a desperate craving, if not an addiction for macro-, mega- and revolutionary changes because they embrace the ideology of uniformitarianism.
James Hutton (1785) and Charles Lyell (1830 “Principles of Geology”) proposed the concept of uniformitarianism as a way of interpreting geologic evidence in terms of long ages that put to question the original catastrophic worldwide Flood interpretation of geologic evidence. The uniformitarian rule suggested that past reality should be viewed in terms of existing natural a) processes, b) systems and c) rates of change. In other words, we should determine or deduce that since we now see evidence of complex life, brains and systems, and we can observe and measure some rates of change (?) that occur in our present world, we should then simply postulate, extrapolate, estimate, theorize, and hypothesize that the current rates of change projected over millions and/or billions of years (through chance mutations) would ascend the evolutionary ladder of change (adaptation), improvement (self re-engineering), innovation (self-re-design), and even invention (executive decision-making) to reach the present condition of complexity.
Again, as noted above, we find that today even Evolutionists admit that none of these ‘evolving’ conditions and macro-changes are evident anywhere in the world today. Some desperate proponents of evolution have looked at all the evidence and have proposed some adjusted theories like that of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ (hopeful monster); while others speculate about a possible intervention by alien life - which is similar to what progressive creationist offer.
It has become evident that the original English term “evolution”, which generally has been accepted by Creation scientists as having scientific merit, has for 170 years been re-defined and deified as “Evolution” by the latter-day pantheists [see below for specifics]. In their quest to promote their ideological purposes the Evolutionists successfully substituted this new hypothetical meaning of “Evolution,” practically to the exclusion of all other meanings of evolution. Having made this re-definition stick, the Evolutionists then set out to ‘adjust’ all other endeavors: scientific, political, judicial, social, linguistic, historical, educational and religious, so they too would reflect Evolutionary standards and benchmarks. Today, it is these ideologically adjusted definitions and concepts that lay at the foundation of the educational system, judicial and every decision-making exercise.
1.2Definition of Religion
The journalistic question that contrasted evolution with religion on 14 implied points (see above) leads us to study the meaning of religion. The generic definition of religion is simply “faith, ritual, ethics and practices.” As such, this definition includes all religions, ideologies, cults, denominations and mythologies. This definition includes not only the polytheistic, pantheistic, monotheistic and mystic, but also all ideological and non-theistic worldviews.
Libraries contain rooms of books written on the religious-ideological topic. Now, to avoid re-examining the philosophical, anthropological, and theological and other methods I propose that religion be examined from the management approach. This is the most direct approach for examining the subject for the examination here. After all, the definition of religion reflects management principles, and more specifically a decision-making and problem solving approach. This approach is then the more appropriate one for this presentation.
1.2.1 Brain’s Prioritizing Capacity
Myth can be managed. It is conceivable then to have some intellectual think tank in which all myths are created, formulated, procedurized, documented, ritualized, marketed, put to practice by trained leaders and then monitored for quality (customer satisfaction), improved or discarded – as any manufacturing process or product.
The human brain is the media where myth is managed. The human brain is a management and decision-making tool that daily seeks certainty in an environment of uncertainty and paradoxes. Once a level of certainty is attained there emerges a sense of comfort, stability, satisfaction and even happiness. However, in a condition of uncertainty the human brain uses the decision making and problems solving process to help resolve paradoxes and implement solutions. This decision making process includes specific steps, to: 1) define the problem; 2) seek alternatives; 3) filter the alternatives in terms of criteria (values); 4) implement the decisions, and 3) ensure reliability.
In other words, the brain prioritizes information, develops hierarchies of priorities, and having established the highest priority/value, the brain de-prioritized all other values down to the hierarchy’s base. A clear management process emerges. In this decision-making process, it is inevitable that the highest priority/value leads towards establishing an executive purpose, objective and strategy that motivates the person, society and culture to dedicate, or to sacrifice its very life for this highest value. This highest priority is also used to legally define ‘sanity.’ And, the highest priority also acquires an overreaching almost divine character and attributes.
As an information management tool, the brain automatically, converts this highest priority into levels of action:
a)Executive level (which helps formulate the purpose, objectives and strategies)
b)Supervisory level (establishing: policy– functions of the intellect; procedures – functions of the will; and the data/information base, i.e., rules & regulations – functions of the emotions)
c)Functional level (where it can be used to perform research and development; economics; and deliver productivity)
With these management levels and plans, it is now easier to understand the content of the term ‘religion’ - faith (highest priority – purpose, objectives and strategies); ritual and practices (policies, procedures and rules); ethics (a component of the purpose, objectives and strategies);and practices that include managementfunctional level activities – research and development, economics and productivity.
Since all of the highest values/priorities acquire superlative, overriding, executive or ‘divine’ qualities, it is therefore understandable that all ideologies and religions are fundamentally theistic through their management of the highest priority/value. Below, I will provide an even a more compelling proof for the ‘theistic’ nature of the highest priority
We should give credit to the ancients, whom we have underestimated in their ability to identify the highest priority and who metaphorically have identified this highest priority to be a “god” with its derived management levels of sub-priorities. The ancients have recognized a pluralistic and relative meaning of the highest priority/values – ‘gods.’ Their gallery of the highest executive priorities represents total management systems. For example, the epicureans and stoics, or the theory of evolution, which reflects four gods: Chronos (time), Fortuna (chance), Dionysus (chaos) who competes with Apollo (form & art). Each of these, and collectively these gods reflect their corresponding management levels.