Creationism vs. Evolution?

Lets Stop Bullshitting Each Other

by Carl Golden

The clash between religious fundamentalism and science over the theory of evolution is a
product of ignorance and arrogance on one side, disingenuousness on the other side, and idolatry
on both sides of the divide. The religious fundamentalists fail to understand the mythic and
mystical language of Genesis, as well as all of the other books that comprise the old and new
testaments, because they misinterpret the metaphorical nature of religious language as the literal
"word of God", making an idol of the bible. Then, in their self-imposed ignorance, they proceed
to arrogantly claim interpretive authority over all of creation while denouncing science,
generally, and evolutionary theory, specifically, as godless endeavors promulgated by the
minions of Satan to confuse the children of God (meaning Christians, of course, since all other
religious beliefs, including Catholicism, are considered by literal fundamentalists as pathways of
the damned). They have assumed knowledge, and have made idols of their assumptions. While
on the other side of this contentious chasm, science, as an institution, neither affirms nor denies
the existence of God since proof cannot be found that substantiates belief in the existence of a
universal deity who created the cosmos. I would agree that there is nothing to warrant belief in a
universal, creative deity.

However, we aren't really talking about a deity, which is to say a divine person who reigns over
all of creation from some celestial realm, are we? Spiritually rooted scientists know this.
Thousands of scientists around the world are practicing Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists,
Hindus, Wiccans, etc., who know that reference to god does not necessarily mean "deity". They
understand that such deific, or theistic, language is metaphor for a state of being that is
extraordinarily subtle and aware, while at the same time fundamentally, powerfully, and
mysteriously creative. So, why don't they just admit professionally that there is something more
to this material universe than meets the eye?
The fact is that science has uncovered quite a bit of evidence of a universe that "self" organizes,
"self" directs, "self" corrects, and "self" adapts in many ways that seem to exhibit characteristics
of "consciousness". Also, there are non-temporal and non-spatial phenomena that defy
conventional reason, necessitating a more holistic model of understanding. The fields of quantum
physics, biology, medical science, psychology, psychiatry, parapsychology, and consciousness
studies have uncovered and collected an extraordinary amount of data that supports a reasonable
hypothesis of a fundamental state of being that is the "ground" of everything. There are
subatomic synchronicity events that simultaneously link and behaviorally influence subatomic
particles that are separated by hundreds of miles as described in Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle. There are unimaginable energy potentials of space itself hypothesized within Bohm's
Implicate Order. Sheldrake's Morphogenetic Fields postulate biological (and perhaps social)
energetic fields that contain "blueprints" for the formation of organisms (and social phenomena)
as part of any organism's epigenetics. Then, there are the psi phenomena of remote viewing
(clairvoyance), telekinesis, Extra Sensory Perception (ESP), Near Death Experiences (NDEs),
and psychic healing, that have been abundantly documented and that profoundly implicate an
order of reality that is non-dual, holistic, and conscious. In fact, when one considers the trend in
evolution towards increasing orders of complexity across the kingdoms of life, then the idea of a
purely material world as rich as ours derived by random associations is quite ludicrous. It
appears that even life forms as simple as bacteria use chemistry to actively communicate about
and intelligently respond to environmental necessities in order to adapt and survive. So, why
deny the obvious? The cosmos seems to operate at differing orders of complexity and sentience.
So, couldn't all of this information provide substantial and reasonable ground for hypothesizing
the existence of something that people throughout the ages have related to as god?

Science has provided humanity with theories and hypothesis that have opened our minds,
extended our senses, and explained more about our world and the cosmos than any one of us
could have ever imagined. Yet, despite brilliant and mind blowing hypotheses, such as "dark
matter" and "worm holes", science frowns upon mystical phenomena and spiritual language
because it doesn't fit the scientific model. It makes me laugh. Have you ever sat down with a
theoretical mathematician or an astrophysicist talking about "superstring theory" or "black holes"
or "folded space"? Very metaphysical. Apparently, scientific esotericism is acceptable whereas
religious esotericism is not. In other words, God does not fit the institutional dogma, whereas
gluons and muons do. So, science has made the same mistake as the Christian fundamentalists by
only recognizing "sanctioned evidence" as the literal truth while ignoring "challenging evidence"
that supports the deeply sentient, spiritual, and metaphorical nature of the cosmos. Science is
biased towards relatively simple material explanations, and has made an idol of its bias.

The problem for both religious fundamentalism and institutional science is their respective
myopic commitments to literal linguistic models of reality that are threatened by ambiguity and
paradox.

Oddly enough, however, ambiguity and paradox have been the mother and father of most of our
deepest insights into the nature of the human soul and life itself. People of real faith and
knowledge live every day with metaphor, ambiguity, and paradox, because we know that life is
such, and we wouldn't have it any other way because contemplating the questions and the poetry
of life deepens and enriches our experience of living by enabling us to touch the mystery of life
in each other, in birth and death, in the world at large, in Nature, and in our explorations of the
cosmos. We know that any idol, be it religious or scientific, is false because idols inherently strip
away depth, ambiguity, and paradox, creating a pretense of reality that is utterly and disastrously
superficial and predictable. Idols chain the mind and promote arrogance because they provide a
false sense of knowledge and security; whereas, faith in the metaphorical nature of life—
paradoxical as it often is—liberates the mind, ennobles the heart, and promotes humility in the
face of great questions and uncertainties.

Many, if not most, persons of faith believe in a creative genius (or intelligence, or principle, or
force) underlying all of creation, and that this genius is non-spatial and non-temporal, as well as
transcendent, transpersonal, and deeply and mysteriously powerful in its nature. Unlike
fundamentalist Christians, we do not believe in a divine person ruling and regulating all from
some heavenly promontory. We know that god and the universe are one, and that religious
language and scientific language are just different ways of talking about the same thing from
different vantage points. So, what harm is there in recognizing that evolution is simply a
scientific description of the divine creative process—as we have come to understand it—that is
occurring all the time. Let's stop bullshitting each other over the differences recorded in the
biblical and geological records, and start focusing on the implications of both the religious and
scientific insights.

To do so, a new synthesis of religious truth and scientific truth needs to emerge. Creationism is
not going to suffice, and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Genesis was a story written
approximately five thousand years ago for a culture as far removed from the modern world as the
African pigmies are removed from Microsoft. Although Genesis still retains useful insights into
human nature, which really has not changed very much over the millennia, it simply will not
suffice as an explanation of the natural history of life as we know it in the twenty-first century.
The fundamentalist notion that God put fossils into the Earth's crust just to test our faith is insane
and blasphemous.

However, on the other hand, the idea that the biosphere evolved to its present state of complexity
purely by random material events is foolish because the statistics of random events on a large
scale over long periods of time inevitably tend towards a predictable mediocrity. Well, the
biomes, ecosystems, niches, and plant and animal species of this world are anything but
predictable and mediocre. No doubt there are random events occurring all the time, but these
accidents occur within an extremely complex milieu of intelligences, all of which are emergent
phenomena within a fundamental field of awareness and creative potential, which is just another
way of talking about God.

So, let's give credit where credit is due. The theory of evolution needs to be given dual status as
scientific theory and sacred story taught both in schools and churches alike. Perhaps in doing so,
the age old occidental schism between the sacred and the secular would begin to heal, and
humanity could begin to envision a future where the institutions of religion and science work
with each other as partners mutually dedicated to understanding the whole cosmic order, both
materially and spiritually.

Now, wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air?