Jason * John,

thank*you both so very much for this wonderful exchange, prompted by my posting. To see the clarity of loves message acting and interacting within others at such a level of sharing and understanding is one of the great*joys which keeps me returning.

* * *
Sticks & Stones

Sticks and stones will break my bones, and words cut so deeply, after all is said and done only love can heal me*.

©Bruce Larson*Moore
Love*Rulz - (Available on DVD ;) - @
Timeless-ink-Press.com

No conflict here. Although, I feel inclined to observe that the Christian and Muslim concepts of being "damned" stem not from a bizarre choice to condemn others, but from a Biblical or Koranic system which suggests we'll all be judged. We are not to judge one another, but we believe God will judge our conduct. If there is indeed a God, and if He really did lay down rules for us to follow, then my rebellion or self-confidence that those rules are inapplicable would be folly. Again, I cannot prove the existence of these unseen laws, though the historical evidence of the reliability of the witnesses of Jesus, etc. (see Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ) is indeed very powerful and persuasive. It also makes amazing logical sense (Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis) If God created us so that we could choose, then we will be held accountable for our choices. Anyone who says others are damned is misapplying Scripture, for Saddam Hussein can be saved, and I and all Christians have the capacity to fall.
And I like to think all of us are seekers, but that our culture and values lead us to put our spiritual investigation on hold. My perspective on these issues has changed over the years, and will no doubt change again. But as a foundational matter, I respect your freedom to exercise your intellect and conscience in those directions they lead you. If I were to "judge" your views, I'd be quite the hypocrite, having shared those views for the larger part of my life. Through my faith, I pray that you may find undertsanding and peace in your life's journey. Amen and right on!

It has been my observation that many of the greatest scientists were also deeply spiritual or religious. The scientific truths they uncovered filled them with an awe for the designer of those truths. It revealed for them how much more the designer had built that remained undiscovered. For them, scientific inquiry was the quest to "know God's thoughts" (Albert Einstein) or to "know the mind of God" (Stephen Hawking). And they fully realized that they hadn't even come close!

Spirituality for me is so much more simple than what I have experienced of the Christian faith, which isn't much by the way. In my view there is simply a mystery that unravels before us. Thus there is the known and the unknown, and the unknown becomes known moment by moment through the process of awareness. And there might even be a third classification: the unknowable. But how would I know? :) Truth seeking is the process of developing, tuning and expanding awareness.

However, I firmly believe that the truth seeking of Christians and practitioners of other faiths is completely valid and appropriate. Seeking is more a matter of personal intent than it is of any particular custom, ritual or mythological system. However, those things probably provide a strong framework, a point of reference, peer support and advice of masters. And I'm not at all threatened or fearful of some faiths' bizarre insistance that I am damned. I'll go about my seeking regardless. So, then, all good, right? Right on!

Well said! Now we're talkin'!
I completely agree that science and spiritual searching can intermingle. In fact, it's impossible for them to be bifurcated, for the religious cannot very well ignore scientific proof, nor can science really ignore morality, except at its peril. I'm not sure what parts of Darwinism can be proven in the scientific sense. As a theory it's fascinating, but the empirical evidence just isn't there. The real debate for Christians should not be to prove intelligent design, but to subject evolutionary theory to the rigors of scientific inquiry -- there's plenty there to legitimately question, remaining entirely within the realm of logic and science..
I completely agree that extremism on both sides is counterproductive and often disrespectful. For me, the theory of evolution is not a threat to my faith, because an omnipotent God could easily design things already evolved, already ancient. This is not just trite theological dismissiveness but a valid perspective from the concept of an omniscient God who, because His memory is perfect, lives in the past as clearly as today; and because He can see the logical outcome of all he has created (not determinism, just foresight, like throwing a rock off a cliff and knowing it will land), the future is also equally clear. From this perspective, God lives in all time equally, and the measurement of time is a simple product of limited and mortal human awareness. Again, this is not fantastical but just the logical corollary to omniscience. It is our insistence on seeing the universe from our narrow perspective in time, space, logic and science that leads to our lack of comprehension -- we try to view the world through our understanding, which is constantly being revealed to be deficient (the world is flat!). And we are no different than the medievals who scoffed at those who claimed the world was round, for we always think we know more than we do, instead of looking at things from the perspective of admitting how very much we don't know.
As to our design leading to "truth" and improvement, that would not prove the existence of a higher power, for the Christian faith holds that we are designed to be dependent on God, that God foresaw that we would instead turn to our own understanding, that we would fail, and that He would rescue us. This is the recurrent theme of the Old Testament, wherein God's people turn away from him toward evildoing, pay the price, crawl back for forgiveness, God shows mercy, and then the people turn away from Him again -- over and over and over and over again. America has become intensely confident of its own understanding -- of its own scientific and technological resources, of its ability to "control" its economy (it can't), of its military prowess, of its righteousness, even of its superiority to other nations and cultures (the greatest country in the world!). As this once great empire falls, these delusions will be revealed, but this realization will offer no respite from the consequences of our longstanding ignorance and selfishness, and millions will encounter foxhole religion as the things (money, technology, safety, government, comfort) in which they placed faith are shown to be cold and unreliable. We will have repeated the Old Testament story in the modern world, but on such a grand and final scale that civilization will be threatened. This is Armageddon, and I do not base this view on Scripture, but on scientific reason -- it was this logical realization that led to my fascination when I learned that the Bible had so clearly foretold of our modern plight. I did not come to view the world this way because of the Bible -- I came to the Bible when I was able to look at the truth of the failure of modern existence. I am not a doom and gloomer, but a realist -- our oil dependency alone is an impending economic and social disaster, let alone our debt implosion and our deteriorated social bonds. Modern America's imminent decline will make the fall of the Roman Empire look like a Cub Scout picnic, not because I want it to be so, but despite my fervent wish that it not be so.
And this outcome has everything and nothing to do with Darwin, for if mankind succeeds, Darwin will be "proved" correct that the fit survive. But if mankind fails, Darwin will be "proved" correct that the unfit don't. This is the tautological disfunction of Darwin's theory: it proves nothing, and explains everything.
Thus, the success of mankind will not prove intelligent design -- its failure will. The "world" offers faith that it will never fail: God offers hope when it does. What is suffering for a lifetime, if we live eternally thereafter? And what is living life with comfort and surplus, if we suffer eternally thereafter because we chose self over others?
The conflict between Darwinism and faith is by no means a conflict to the death, and I welcome and enjoy such stimulating exchange. Thank you. There must always be mutual respect, even when we disagree. If we evolved from a physical world, and have no souls, I won't know about it when I die, but neither will I be aware of regret. But you see, I would have no regret anyway, for giving up drugs, alcohol, looking at women other than my wife, or living with anger and fear were not sacrifices but greatly improved my enjoyment and comprehension of life. It was partly this process, this relief from the illusion that such things offered pleasure, that demonstrated to me the truth of Christ's teachings. On the other hand, if there is a God, and we live in denial, and get what we embrace -- eternity with self (Hell) -- then when we pass from this world and have a continued consciousness, there will be ample regret. For truly embracing the Christian faith is like raising your own food -- it's a win-win scenario, for if the world declines and our food is no longer on the grocery shelf (this would take four days of oil/trucking interruption), then my children still eat. But if it doesn't, I learn where my food comes from, I appreciate the land and the miracle of creation/life, and the quality and flavor of my family's table is unavailable in any modern store. Is this sacrifice? My faith rewards me and enriches my life in life or death, and this is the joy of following Christ. But it is not a choice between the victorious and the vanquished, because true Christians feel victory over death, but not victory over the fall of others -- we feel intense compassion for those who don't have this joy, and we wish to share it: not by being pushy, but in love and compassion. Because I truly believe in what I've discovered, I feel no victory over "the other side" -- victory over evil is achieved when others are similarly relieved from sorrow, but I seek to vanquish no person. But to the extent that I believe that good is better than evil, that God is real, I do believe there is a grand battle unfolding, and I am a warrior in it -- but my weapons are God's weapons, of His word, the spirit of truth, of love and mercy, forgiveness and humility. I try to silence my tongue of bitter words or angry dispute, though I am sometimes "tempted" to failure. But if I walk the walk, my battle with Darwin is not to defeat Darwinism, but to save my opponents through Christ. I don't need to defend my faith, but I seek to win others over to share this victorious joy, not for money, or intellectual supremacy, or ego or pride. Just because Christ has given so much to me and my family, and He will give the same to all who knock sincerely at His door. I try to win over others because I want to give them peace. I think this is "evolving" from antiwar to propeace....
As for vanquishing, I have a lifetime of vanquishing to do within my own heart, not in self-condemnation, but in liberation: the process called "progressive sanctification." It's extraordinarily challenging, but indescribably rewarding. And it's a struggle 'til my death, not "to the death."

The gist is this as I read it: Are we so intelligently designed? Perhaps. Or are we actually "highly developed weapons of mass destruction"? Time will tell. If our design leads to the embrace of truth, as Rainbow Brain suggests it will, then I would heap praise upon that "undeniable higher power" that is responsible for existence itself, including ours. I'll bet there is general agreement here that we should continue to work toward that end.

Not to imply any more or less validity to your interpretation or mine. Just noting this curious effect of poetry.

...but happy to discuss this anyway.

I find little that is spiritual about Darwin. Evolving from Darwinism to spirituality seems a non-sequitur to me. A spiritual world view can include Darwin's science just as it can include Newton's science and Einstein's science. I think in general, science tries to answer the "how" while spiritual inquiry tries to answer the "why". Science probably will never answer the "why". But history shows that silly things happen when the two are mixed up, although they can definitely learn from each other. Silly spiritual assertion: the Earth is flat and lies at the center of the universe. Silly scientific assertion: medical childbirth is better than natural childbirth.

Darwin's science is done a disservice by Darwinists who insist that it answers any/all/every question about the "origin of species". No scientific work should ever be held as above question or criticism. In fact, when a scientific community digs in its heels and defends a theorem dogmatically, that is probably a bad sign for the viability of the theorem.

Intelligent Design is less a scientific theorem than it is a spiritual assertion. Nevertheless, I think the Intelligent Design movement is an appropriate call for a review of the robustness of Darwin. Darwinists are annoyed that they are being questioned and criticized by non-scientific thinkers (I'll probably get in trouble for classifying them as such, but I don't mean that in a negative sense), but there are some very good and penetrating questions being raised. It's a good and lively and timely challenge.

After all the dust settles I feel certain that the things that are correct in Darwin's science will form a component or foundation for the new science that emerges out of the review process. And there will be plenty of unanswered questsions left to allow Intelligent Design to exist peacefully where the new science breaks down.

How's it look from your end? How about the peaceful coexistence of the parts of Darwinism that can be proven and Intelligent Design's spiritual wonderment? Or is it a struggle to the death with one emerging victorious while the other is vanquished?

My discussion of evoltion was in response to Rainbow Brain's blog, which referenced both "intelligent design" and "evolution to select", both of which seemed to me to refer to the Darwinian variety. Perhaps Rainbow Brain was referring to the generic variety which you kindly define? Of course, if that is the case, then perhaps you would assert that his use of the phrase "intelligent design" has nothing to do with this generic variety? In both cases, "growth, maturation and change from lesser [sic] to greater understanding" might apply to the transition from a Darwinian world-view to a spiritual recognition of the undeniability of a higher power.... This would relate the two.

The word "evolution" has two meanings. Darwin used this word to label his theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest. But it also refers to growth, maturation and change from lessor to greater understanding.

For example, it is in the latter sense that the tag line of this website is intended, "evolving from antiwar to propeace." Darwin's science has little, if any, relation to this type of evolution.

The intelligent designer didn't design the universe for our personal pleasure, and so worldly peace, tolerance, etc. was not the goal. The design is simple enough -- by being aware of evil, of lack of compassion, of suffering and fear, we have the choice to instead select peace, tolerance, compassion and love. The most important things in life are earned arduously, not structured for our convenience. Is the chaos and evil of mankind the creator's responsibility, or do we have a choice in our moral behaviors? Does evolution offer solutions and hope? To put faith in evolution (which is still, after one hundred-plus years, still only a theory because of the total absence of anything but speculative evidence suggesting it is law) is to give up hope, for why should those whose moral precept is survival have any incentive to embrace love or compassion if those emotions don't improve one's likelihood of survival, which they generally don't?
I spent my life as an atheist, thinking my puny brain could comprehend the universe and my existence through science and psychology. Once I embraced even the possibility that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and read His teachings with an open rather than skeptical mind, the truth of His teachings became self-proving. Millions embrace evolutionary theory (as I did) without subjecting it to the rigors of scientific analysis, but scientific or other proof is demanded of faith in God, by definition an impossibility. Believing in evolution is a form of faith also, for it is a belief in things unseen. God easily designed the species in the exact condition in which we find them, deliberately setting up the grand design wherein science cannot prove that God doesn't exist, and neither can it be proved that He does. The leap of faith leads to spiritual proof, in the complete transformation of one's life that occurs with true faith. All fear and evil are surrendered instead of harbored, hope replaces despair, and we rejoice at the promise offered. Recommended reading: Darwin on Trial, which demonstrates the serious flaws in Darwin's theory; Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis, which logically reflects on the brilliance and sense of God's plan; The American Condition, by Richard Goodwin, which examines the failures of American materialism/capitalism.
Mankind's astonishing science cannot create life on even the smallest scale, but we are to believe that it was accomplished randomly in a mud puddle? That it led to such marvelous diversity and balance as we see in creation? Now that's a far more difficult faith to embrace than trusting God. We have been taught from our youth that man can understand his world, and so we fill in the blanks where proof is lacking. Far greater minds than mine have embraced Christ and His truth, and there is far more about our world and ourselves that we don't know than we do. The moment we stop searching, we're already dead.... It's about free choice.