Humor menu
Recipes menu
Poems menu
Bits and Pieces menu
Science and Spitit Menu
Science Menu
Health Menu
Other Authors menu
Story's by O.Frank

Creationism/Darwinism Evolving Toward a Compromise.

If you are a devious individual and like to start arguments then I can give you a "never fail to start a heated argument subject." All you need to do is to put evolution and creationism in the same sentence. Likewise, you can drive down any business street in America and you will not fail to see, on the rear of a car in front of you, eather a Jesus fish or a Jesus fish with Darwin/evolution added to the fish. Then for the true extremist you will see the Jesus fish eating the Darwin fish or vise versa.

The point should be obvious here, one of the most-heated debates in America today is the Creationism/Evolution debate and it seems to be heating up. So why is this and is there an end in sight for this debate? I think there is an end in sight and think that I am uniquely qualified to look at this subject. Why? Well, I had a Darwin fish on my pickup for many years until my paradigm shift in 1994. Since then I can rationally and emotionally see both sides of this debate.

It has been my experience in my fifty eight years that any time there is this heated of a debate the truth lays somewhere in the middle, and I think that I can see the middle to this debate coming within about ten to fifteen years. Why Ten to fifteen years? Well, first it seems clear that we are in a paradigm shift in which science and spirit are beginning a dialogue of cooperation, and this includes movement to the middle on both sides of the creationism/Evolution debate. Then historically it is the young people that are willing to look at both sides because they are in the process of seeking out what they believe, and looking for their identity. These young people will begin to have an influence in about fifteen years.

To seek a middle ground in any debate it is critical that both sides understand that they have both begun with an assumption. Then to begin a dialog each side must look at the beginning assumption of the other side and see what can be modified to bring the assumptions to the middle. This is always the hard part because both sides do not want to believe that their side begins with an assumption. But there has never been a case where, if one looks rationally at a belief, a beginning assumption was not found.

I can hear some groans out there now at this last sentence, especially from the scientific side. It is generally believed that science is based on facts and not assumptions. But scientific research over the last 100 years has shown that not only did science have beginning assumptions, every assumption has been shown to be wrong. But if the creationists are gloating over this fact they need to be very careful because their beginning assumption is in no better shape.

Science began with the assumption that the world was made of solid matter making it a predictable machine, and that everything was bound by time which was just one event happening after another. Then in 1905 Einstein showed that this was wrong. Time was not just one event happening after another, but was some type of illusion. Then in 1925 it was shown that matter itself was also some type of illusion and not solid and predictable, i.e. not a machine.

The creationists began with the assumption that there was a creator that made the world and that the Bible is a factual account of the how this creator created the world. But this assumption has also run into many problems. To begin with there are two very different, contradictory, creation stories in Genesis and not just one. One story goes through an evolutionary type process very similar to the scientific version ending with humans both male and female alike being created. The second creation story then begins at chapter two verse four and begins with the creation of man in a garden and then the creation of animals and then ending with the creation of woman from Adams rib.

We do not have time here to go into any more details than this but a rational study of the Genesis creation stories shows that they were not intended to be a modern twenty-first century account of how God created man. It was intended to give an ancient people a sense of roots and teach some lessons.

Now that we know that both sides have a beginning assumption and that both assumptions have problems, what is right about both sides that each could accept? In other words what is most important to both sides.

Well clearly for science that would be the ability to put together the natural process that leads to the creation of man and to understand how nature works. After all even God had to have used some natural process to bring about the universe. Just look around you, everything in our world works through some natural process, why should the creation of the universe be any different.

What then is most important to the creationist? Would it not be the fact that God was the one that created this natural process? That science officially states this so it could be used in public schools?

This is already happening. There are a growing number of people from the life sciences that now believe that the Neo-Darwin natural selection is wrong and that indeed life is irreducibly complex and had to be purposefully made, i.e. God made us. Then likewise there is small, but growing number of fundamentalists that are saying they are willing to accept a limited version of evolution if science will except that there is a God and God created us.

Keep in mind that this is only a beginning and both sides will have to move slowly to save face. My money is on an official compromise by 2020.

Return to top


copyright 2005 O.Frank