Creationism vs Pure Darwinian Theory

[Loup Solitaire]

Surely advocating either of these two extremes has become cliché. Where are intelligent minds on debating where the balance is? There are so many perspectives to take when considering God. Does God care? Does he/she interfere? Could mankind be a result of both evolutionary and divine development? If God communicated with man in the beginning, does he/she wish to continue this dialog? How else could mankind continue to develop as a species if God did not interfere or communicate? Does mankind contain a blue print embedded?

One of the issues I have with established religions is that they assume that their Prophet or Messiah was the last one. I can not accept that if God once communicated with Man that he/she would not continue the dialog whether on an individual level or through a Prophet. I feel strongly that as long as I am listening, I am being spoken too.

[Loup Solitaire]

And Speaking of Darwinian Theory......

Here is something to contemplate:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1026152816.htm

[Mario]

The inherent problem on both sides of the debate (so far) lies in the fact that both sides think they can prove they are right.

For certain physical phenomena whose behavior can be described or predicted to a high degree of precision — using mathematical expressions (Newtonian, relativistic) — or in terms of probability of occurrence (quantum mechanics) it's basic: "in math we trust."

But I dare anyone to prove to me — mathematically — Why we exist. And I mean the BIG WHY.

And until we can prove the "BIG WHY" behind our existence, we cannot discount the existence of a higher intelligent force that created us.

Why? Simple: if WE can exist, so can ANYTHING higher and loftier than US. And the fact we cannot perceive it does not negate its existence (following strict scientific rules — established by the scientists themselves).

But I agree with you: where are those intelligent minds?

Marketers (and so the legend goes) apparently have no problem making the assumption they have a can opener anytime they are stranded on a deserted island with canned food and no can opener.

When will a brave and brilliant scientist come forth and say "how about we assume God exists" and develop an elegant theory that combines intelligent design, evolution through reincarnation, and Universal Jurisprudence.

Kindly note that is not to suggest that Darwin himself set out to prove the non-existence of God as those who came after him did by using his work. Darwin was a man who made observations and designed a theory based on whatever tools and methods he had at his disposal. For all we know, Darwin was sent to annoy the Church and shake up the system ... despite his best efforts.

I can only imagine what Darwin might have thought if only he knew of relativism and quantum physics. For all we know, he might have declared that while we seem to have evolved from apes, there is a high probability that we didn't in a way we believe according to our limited linear view on account of his belief in a multidimensional universe. Had he been introduced to these concepts (and others, such as string theory) and of course Spiritual Fluids, he might have thought that Apes and Man were indeed linked... but not in a linear fashion that any diagram can represent.

He might have even considered the possibility that when Ape looks at a Man, he thinks to himself "what a moron!"

[Loup Solitaire]

The inherent problem on both sides of the debate (so far) lies in the fact that both sides think they can prove they are right.

For certain physical phenomena whose behavior can be described or predicted to a high degree of precision — using mathematical expressions (Newtonian, relativistic) — or in terms of probability of occurrence (quantum mechanics) it's basic: "in math we trust."

But I dare anyone to prove to me — mathematically — Why we exist. And I mean the BIG WHY.

And until we can prove the "BIG WHY" behind our existence, we cannot discount the existence of a higher intelligent force that created us.

In addition to the "Big Why?", there is another question I find intriguing. Is man unique on this planet because he has the highest level of creativity? Yes he/she has an opposing thumb and fingers, but is that enough to give our species such dramatic advantage over all other species. Creativity, will to thrive, strong desire to dominate and on and on. Were these gifts due to some quirk in natural selection. Or are they spiritual traits? Something beyond simply evolutionary forces. I do not doubt that life on earth is like an artist's painting. The artist has a good idea of what he wants to put to canvas, but what falls upon it is affected by random occurrences. Each creation is part intended, part chance. Creativity has a lot to do with maximizing the advantage to random acts or knowledge gained through chance.

When will a brave and brilliant scientist come forth and say "how about we assume God exists" and develop an elegant theory that combines intelligent design, evolution through reincarnation, and Universal Jurisprudence.

I don't think we can wait for a scientist to rescue our belief in God. Scientist are often myopic. They are so consumed by the minutiae of there field, their power of higher reason is limited by the weight of their struggle with the mass of their subject matter. And those who do look about at opposing theory are ridiculed for wasting their energy on that which can not be proven by scientific principal.
Could it be that the most worthy field of thought is being ignored?

Kindly note that it is not to suggest that Darwin himself set out to prove the non-existence of God as those who came after him did by using his work.

I give here a link to Darwin quotes:
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/charles_darwin/.

I do not think Darwin wanted to leave room in his life for God. He wanted to be the purest scientist. It appears to me that he wanted to codify knowledge, was unable to accept uncertainty and wanted to lower the stature of man. This is not to say that man did not need to be lowered. Clearly, man abused his dominate role. Possibly he was upset by some of the same things we all are, the abuse of power by many religious clerics.

I can only imagine what Darwin might have thought if only he knew of relativism and quantum physics. For all we know, he might have declared that while we seem to have evolved from apes, there is a high probability that we didn't in a way we believe according to our limited linear view on account of his belief in a multidimensional universe. Had he been introduced to these concepts (and others, such as string theory) and of course Spiritual Fluids, he might have thought that Apes and Man were indeed linked... but not in a linear fashion that any diagram can represent.

Amen.

He might have even considered the possibility that when Ape looks at a Man, he thinks to himself "what a moron!"

Amen. This made me chuckle. He who thinks he is the most intelligent is most handicapped.

[Mario]

In addition to the "Big Why?", there is another question I find intriguing. Is man unique on this planet because he has the highest level of creativity? Yes he/she has an opposing thumb and fingers, but is that enough to give our species such dramatic advantage over all other species. Creativity, will to thrive, strong desire to dominate and on and on. Were these gifts due to some quirk in natural selection. Or are they spiritual traits? Something beyond simply evolutionary forces. I do not doubt that life on earth is like an artist's painting. The artist has a good idea of what he wants to put to canvas, but what falls upon it is affected by random occurrences. Each creation is part intended, part chance. Creativity has a lot to do with maximizing the advantage to random acts or knowledge gained through chance.

If memory serves me, there is a story by Doctor Dahesh in "Strange Tales and Wondrous Legends" about a dog who wanted to be a human being. And so it was: he was turned into a human being, and at the end he implored God to make a dog again. In essence, from this and other stories, we get the sense that humans — as a specie — are more prone to fail the tests that are thrown at them than their "animal counterparts."

And as far as the advantage that humans have: whatever these might have been (tangible or abstract) they were indeed gifts.

The Spiritual Fluid that ignited Einstein's "creativity" could have been the same that ignited Newton's and so on and so forth. The same goes for world leaders. Some are gifts and others are sent as punishment.

There is nothing that occurs without it being permitted to do so.

And I know this brings up the following debate (at least in my mind) : "If we have free will then how can destiny exist?"

Once again, I would like to point out that this is the bridge that is missing between science-based knowledge and religious dogma. In other words, the day we can figure out how destiny and free will can (theoretically) coexist will be the day we would have (finally) figured out why quantum reality is so freaking weird and if randomness is actually — truly — random.

But we will never (in my opinion) be able to solve that riddle. And until we do (and we won't) science and "The Church" will be butting heads.

Now, enter Daheshism...

I know that we read of the promise that Daheshism to reconcile the two, and at some levels, it does — provided we remain in the Newtonian Universe (an extension of which is also Einstein's). However, the minute you have a fanatical Quantum Physicist in the room, odds are that all bets are off because no matter how many "spiritual phenomena" a prophet shows a Quantum Scientist, the latter might claim that whatever happened (including the parting of the Red Sea) could have easily been the manifestation of Quantum Weirdness at a macro scale.

That's why, for example, I often write (over and over) about the issue of "belief and proof."

It's one thing describing to a person with an average college education a Spiritual Phenomenon involving matter being destroyed and then perfectly restored (to an "as-it-was" state) and borrowing concepts from modern physics in order to demonstrate the validity of the idea of Reincarnation, and butting heads with hardcore physicists who will reject the arguments on the basis of their being ... "quaint."

In this day and age, if a Daheshist wants to be shredded alive, he or she would dare to claim that Daheshism "Scientifically Proves that such and such..."

It's that "Scientifically Prove..." which is the "comedy killer." Or, actually, the "comedy rouser"

Ironically: Science is (actually) LIMITED and CANNOT (in terms of its current language) address that which Daheshism brings to the table. That's why, for example, when I (now) use the verb "prove" I also imply the following caveat "that is, at a highly intuitive, holistic level, that no current scientific language can represent and thus modern physics becomes an ... allegory... and is no longer the law."

In my case, I've spent way over half of my life pondering this issue and I gave the first (and still only) lecture about Daheshism in the USA (at MIT, with David Michael Johnson) at 25 — where, incidentally, a couple of our colleagues did challenge us with questions that later set the tone for all this "pondering."

And here is what I found: We either (in the final analysis) BELIEVE or we don't.

Yes, physics can help and it is categorically thanks to advances in physics that we discuss certain concepts (relativity, multi dimensional universe, arrow-less time.. ) but, again, we need to know where to depart physics and delve into a totally different way of being, seeing, feeling... basically, "to surrender yourself to God" and to stop trying to prove anything beyond what the language of physics can provide as a tool.

Now that I have said all this, I will address this issue of creativity "having to do with maximizing the advantage to random acts or knowledge gained through chance."

Theoretically, yes.

In truth, however, there is no chance, there is no randomness, everything has a reason for being even when it appears we created it "by chance" and there is no way I can explain that which I believe at a deeply intuitive level.

All I can say is this: "if we merit it, it shall be."

Incidentally, I used to spend a lot time "during my youth" trying to reverse-engineer "creative spurts" ... in order to replicate the process. I failed miserably and my work suffered a great deal in the process.

Result? Utter disaster.

Now? I just do it and I don't look back with the belief that if the next one is meant to be, it will be. If not, then it is not meant to be and it is up to me to suffer the consequences because I am, ultimately, the Architect of my own destiny.

[Loup Solitaire]

........are more prone to fail the tests that are thrown at them than their "animal counterparts."

This may well be true because the test for humans is more complex. Then of course if humans could dedicate themselves to a single purpose as their animal counterparts, would not the end results not come out better. We are faced with numerous daily challenges. Therefore we need daily guidance in pursuit of our purpose. And this is where the need for God and daily contemplation begins. Our game is far more complex than achieving a single task.

[Loup Solitaire]

Once again, I would like to point out that this is the bridge that is missing between science-based knowledge and religious dogma. In other words, the day we can figure out how destiny and free will can (theoretically) coexist will be the day we would have (finally) figured out why quantum reality is so freaking weird and if randomness is actually — truly — random.

I wonder if this is where reincarnation plays a part. With multiple attempts comes the likelihood that the desired results will eventually be achieved. Chance and destiny are allowed.

[Mario]

This may well be true because the test for humans is more complex.

From Doctor Dahesh's stories: In Greenwich Connecticut, there exists a tree — which I have seen — that has a double personality. One part of it is good while the other is evil.

How evil is it? I'll tell you:

A Tree has the ability to send signals to snakes which, in turn, causes them to climb its trunk.

Nice, no? Imagine Corporations having this power... Or maybe they already do...

Anyway, the tree coaxed a snake up its trunk in order to reach the birds' nest nestled up its branches. As a result, the reptile snacked on the chicks.

As far as the tree was concerned, It was evil for pure evil's sake and it hated itself for it.

In fact, the tree felt so guilty of its evil side that it eventually caused itself to physically be split into two main trunks.

Other stories clearly show that animals believe in God and pray to Him.

And you might remember my conversation with The Doctor when I asked him if animals had prophets...

We have another story where the onions were chanting a song of thanks to their creator as they were dying...

To summarize: animals as well as inert objects (and to varying degrees) apply knowledge, wisdom, and faith and have to work within the confines of their limitations. For example, a cat-prophet (dare I assume) can only teach cats within a range of the local neighborhood... Humans, on the other hands can reach more people to deliver "the good news."

And there is the instance of the sheet of plywood that wanted to kill the little boy out of revenge in order to settle an old score from another incarnation.

That sheet of plywood (which I have seen as well) is stored somewhere until it is pulverized as punishment for its deeds ( in this lifetime — as a sheet of plywood— and from the time when that same "evil" spiritual fluid was operating from within a tree branch ).


But let me cut to the chase:

I would say that the reason for which (some) humans are more prone to fail the "loyalty" exam (for example) than — say — Dogs (or other fellow humans) is because they are "rigged" from the get-go with a stronger propensity towards disloyalty.

Why? Their actions from another incarnation. And by the way, and here I refer you to the story of Zola the Black Cat, we (at least) know that felines can remember who they were in another reincarnation, what they did, etc.


But let's stick to the subject of dogs: All things being equal, and putting aside puppy mills and inhumane treatment of animals which — in turn — would severely distorts their personalities, the worst dog among dogs is more loyal than any man could ever dream to be. And not because dogs are dumb or naive. They are so because as far that trait (or the S.F. of loyalty) is concerned, they are loftier than man.

Again, my opinion.

And since I'm already on the soap box...

Humanity was allowed through countless "gifts" to advance so that humans can have better, more comfortable lives. In a perfect world, humans would have spent far more of their waking day genuinely thanking — in one form or another — their Creator for these gifts.

Then of course if humans could dedicate themselves to a single purpose as their animal counterparts, would not the end results not come out better. We are faced with numerous daily challenges. Therefore we need daily guidance in pursuit of our purpose. And this is where the need for God and daily contemplation begins. Our game is far more complex than achieving a single task.

Ah, and therein lies the crux of the matter!

On the one hand, we have contentment and on the other we have ambition. Without ambition or the desire to grow and ... tinker... and build... and discover (which, incidentally, is why we all ended up on this plane to begin with) we would not have the advancements which — for example — can (theoretically) benefit humanity (as well as bring its demise).

I don't think we will ever answer that question. Still, I believe it is important to rack our brains pondering it... as a rite of passage... for a while...

[Jorge]

From Doctor Dahesh's stories: In Greenwich Connecticut, there exists a tree — which I have seen — that has a double personality. One part of it is good while the other is evil.

How evil is it? I'll tell you:

A Tree has the ability to send signals to snakes which, in turn, causes them to climb its trunk.

Nice, no? Imagine Corporations having this power... Or maybe they already do...

Anyway, the tree coaxed a snake up its trunk in order to reach the birds' nest nestled up its branches. As a result, the reptile snacked on the chicks.

As far as the tree was concerned, It was evil for pure evil's sake and it hated itself for it.

In fact, the tree felt so guilty of its evil side that it eventually caused itself to physically be split into two main trunks.

This tail reminds me of my childhood into early adolescence. I lived in a rural area where there was a many open fields, woods, streams, lots of birds and snakes. For reasons that would be difficult to explain, I spent a lot of time in those places and not in the house or company of other people. I can't remember the number of injured wild rabbits and birds I tried to save. Most of them died, but a couple did live. One such bird was a hawk that got badly mangled when it attacked, of all things, a rooster. This was not a very smart hawk.

I kept him in a parakeet cage my older brother had built. We fed him ground beef. He was easily held and managed as long as a leather glove was used. Oh yes he would bite. But he soon realized the futility of this. His injury was either a broken or badly bruised wing. After a couple of months he was released and after a brief hesitation took off. And wouldn't you know it. He went after that same rooster again. As I said this hawk was not very bright. Again, he was rescued, and again I kept him in the cage. Maybe he just liked the ground beef. After a couple more months, he was released again. For some time after that I would see a hawk and I thought it was him resting in a tall tree. My guess was he was waiting for some unsuspecting bird or mouse to provide him with another meal.

Hawks the size of my hawk, as snakes do, live off smaller birds, mice, and baby rabbits. But there were a few dumb ones that would go after larger game. I never thought of him as evil. I never thought of snakes as evil. At least I didn't think of black snakes as evil. I was always concerned about the intentions of poisonous snakes. But black snakes were considered the farmers friend. Although they did occasionally eat baby birds, they more often ate mice and baby rabbits.

Because I spent so much time in the woods, I never considered that a tree could be evil. In summer, they provided protection from the sun. In the winter they blocked the cold wind. They provided a retreat where a boy could build a tree house. The branches they shed was firewood for a camp fire. A place to roast hot-dogs, or cook a hamburger, or simply a source of heat in the cold times of the year. Their stout trunks became a place to carve graffiti.

If I had considered them evil, I'm afraid my childhood would have been terrifying.

[Mario]

One such bird was a hawk that got badly mangled when it attacked, of all things, a rooster. This was not a very smart hawk.

Wow... I know you're not making this up. So you'll forgive me for asking if the rooster was named "Foghorn Leghorn!"

Talk about life imitating art!

I kept him in a parakeet cage my older brother had built. We fed him ground beef. He was easily held and managed as long as a leather glove was used. Oh yes he would bite. But he soon realized the futility of this. His injury was either a broken or badly bruised wing. After a couple of months he was released and after a brief hesitation took off. And wouldn't you know it. He went after that same rooster again. As I said this hawk was not very bright. Again, he was rescued, and again I kept him in the cage. Maybe he just liked the ground beef.

Or ... maybe ... he had a score to settle with the rooster.

I never thought of him as evil. I never thought of snakes as evil. At least I didn't think of black snakes as evil. I was always concerned about the intentions of poisonous snakes. But black snakes were considered the farmers friend. Although they did occasionally eat baby birds, they more often ate mice and baby rabbits.

I am not sure if we covered that part somewhere else on Daheshville, but there is another story by Doctor Dahesh that teaches us the following:

As far as humans are concerned, snakes only bite (and kill) those for whom the venom is intended. In other words, think on snakes as "executors" as well as "executioners."

That being said, you'll never catch me getting near a Black Mamba or any venomous snake.

Also, you are absolutely right (in the context of Daheshism) in not considering these animals (or any animal) as intrinsically evil. True, while, some are more or less "evil" than others within their own ranks — when viewed as a specie, they are not evil. Of course, some are... and others might seem evil where in fact they are carrying out divine justice, such as venomous snakes.

And here is another story for you: a mother throws her baby son and daughter to the wolves in order to save her own skin. She reincarnates as a lovely individual and on her wedding night, she is shredded to pieces by two wolves... (again, from Doctor Dahesh's books — and I am grossly summarizing the story and potentially killing the suspenseful tension and drama in his prose... It's a chilling story in fact, one of which I was reminded when I read of the demise of the young Canada singer who was mauled by coyotes while taking a stroll in the forest... I know it is very hard to look at such tragedies and try to look beyond the tragic occurrence and the need to seek revenge against the coyotes. Furthermore, and just so that we're clear: I am not saying we should let ourselves be attacked by animals... anymore we should let a tyrant reek havoc in the world — regardless of whatever true reasons there are for his existence. In other words, just because certain spiritual fluids merited to be born and suffer under a tyrant, due to their behavior, that does not justify letting the crimes against them go unchecked.
I am sorry, I think I am opening a tangent here, so I'll revert course and remain on topic.

Because I spent so much time in the woods, I never considered that a tree could be evil. In summer, they provided protection from the sun. In the winter they blocked the cold wind. They provided a retreat where a boy could build a tree house. The branches they shed was firewood for a camp fire. A place to roast hot-dogs, or cook a hamburger, or simply a source of heat in the cold times of the year. Their stout trunks became a place to carve graffiti.

If I had considered them evil, I'm afraid my childhood would have been terrifying.

That is a wise observation. For sure, there are things we should not tell children, including the fact that some Clowns are also evil: they drink too much and beat their spouses... And how about Santa...

But think about it: you could have been perched on a branch of tree that happened to have a dark side... or that might have had a score to settle with you...

The world is a dangerous place and it ain't no Warner Bros. Cartoon!

[Jorge]

Wow... I know you're not making this up. So you'll forgive me for asking if the rooster was named "Foghorn Leghorn!"

Talk about life imitating art!



Or ... maybe ... he had a score to settle with the rooster.

Actually, I have no recall whether the rooster had a name. It belonged to a neighbor and roamed the neighborhood. No I couldn't have made this up, I don't have that good an imagination. I just think that this variety of hawk is not very intelligent, or maybe, this one was retarded. Or maybe you are right, he had a score to settle with the rooster. Whatever the case, it was a bad choice.

I am not sure if we covered that part somewhere else on Daheshville, but there is another story by Doctor Dahesh that teaches us the following:

As far as humans are concerned, snakes only bite (and kill) those for whom the venom is intended. In other words, think on snakes as "executors" as well as "executioners."

That being said, you'll never catch me getting near a Black Mamba or any venomous snake.

Also, you are absolutely right (in the context of Daheshism) in not considering these animals (or any animal) as intrinsically evil. True, while, some are more or less "evil" than others within their own ranks — when viewed as a specie, they are not evil. Of course, some are... and others might seem evil where in fact they are carrying out divine justice, such as venomous snakes.

It's good to note that not all snakes are venomous. And those that are not seem to have less of an attitude.

And here is another story for you: a mother throws her baby son and daughter to the wolves in order to save her own skin. She reincarnates as a lovely individual and on her wedding night, she is shredded to pieces by two wolves... (again, from Doctor Dahesh's books — and I am grossly summarizing the story and potentially killing the suspenseful tension and drama in his prose... It's a chilling story in fact, one of which I was reminded when I read of the demise of the young Canada singer who was mauled by coyotes while taking a stroll in the forest... I know it is very hard to look at such tragedies and try to look beyond the tragic occurrence and the need to seek revenge against the coyotes. Furthermore, and just so that we're clear: I am not saying we should let ourselves be attacked by animals... anymore we should let a tyrant reek havoc in the world — regardless of whatever true reasons there are for his existence. In other words, just because certain spiritual fluids merited to be born and suffer under a tyrant, due to their behavior, that does not justify letting the crimes against them go unchecked.
I am sorry, I think I am opening a tangent here, so I'll revert course and remain on topic.



That is a wise observation. For sure, there are things we should not tell children, including the fact that some Clowns are also evil: they drink too much and beat their spouses... And how about Santa...

But think about it: you could have been perched on a branch of tree that happened to have a dark side... or that might have had a score to settle with you...

The world is a dangerous place and it ain't no Warner Bros. Cartoon!

For certain, in my childhood, I was innocent. And I always felt protected. Although at times I was fearful of the dark, the unknown, I always felt that through positive thinking I could overcome evil no matter where it came from. In fact, I have come to feel that the many positive benefits that I have enjoyed in this life must be due to Divine protection. And for this I am truly grateful.

[zionic]

Great discussion.