The Merging of Two Worlds: The Convergence of Scientific and Religious Thought

By Roy E. Bourque

SCIENCE is a left-brained subject. It sees the world in mathematical models. It is all built on logic. RELIGION is a right-brained subject. It sees the world in associations. It is all built on symbolism. Misconceptions are what prevent us from reconciling the associations with the mathematical models. Once the misconceptions are revealed, the problem goes away.

The teachings of Eastern Philosophy are interwoven throughout the Old and New Testaments. What they have to say explains a great deal about what the Holy Bible is trying to say to us. It reveals much of the symbolism used in religion so that it can be understood. It takes you beyond the realm of faith and into the realm of knowing.

The Mayan Calendar and its apparent connection to end-time prophecy is also reviewed. The evolution of consciousness that it reveals is leading us on a very definite path. Taken collectively, evolution, split brain, Eastern Philosophy, Christianity, and the Mayan Calendar are interwoven to present a worldview that is equally fascinating and very promising.

• Language: English
• Publisher: WestBow Press
• Release date: Sep 27, 2011
• ISBN: 9781449722944

Roy E. Bourque

Roy Bourque was trained in the nuclear power field of the US. Navy. He further conducted independent research into scientific and religious studies spanning over twenty-five years. Having had mystical experiences, Roy was able to integrate religious concepts with scientific facts that brought them to a whole new level of understanding. He blends evolution, Judaism, Christianity, and the Mayan Calendar in a manner that is truly enlightening. Having served as the control room supervisor for Norwich Public Utilities, Roy is currently retired as a homeowner in Norwich, Connecticut. He has a wife and two stepchildren. He is a licensed private pilot and an active member of the Civil Air Patrol. His hobbies include photography and theatrical lighting design.

Book preview

Copyright © 2011 Roy E. Bourque.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

ISBN: 978-1-4497-2294-4 (e)

ISBN: 978-1-4497-2295-1 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4497-2296-8 (hc)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2011914902

WestBow Press books may be ordered through booksellers or by contacting:

WestBow Press

A Division of Thomas Nelson

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN47403

www.westbowpress.com

1-[phone]

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

WestBow Press rev. date: 8/28/2012

Contents

Preface

Introduction

CHAPTER ONE:       One World—Two Views

CHAPTER TWO:       We believe …

CHAPTER THREE:      Religious Experience—The Kingdom Within

CHAPTER FOUR:       Demons of the Mind—The Effects of Abuse

CHAPTER FIVE:       The Evolution of Genesis

CHAPTER SIX:       Exodus—The Rise of a Nation

CHAPTER SEVEN:      Evolution and the Kingdom Within

CHAPTER EIGHT:       The Nature of Good and Evil

CHAPTER NINE:      Mind Dynamics—How the Mind Sees Things

CHAPTER TEN:       When Time Runs Out

CHAPTER ELEVEN:       Jesus, the Christ

CHAPTER TWELVE:       Where Do We Go from Here?

Acknowledgments

About the Author

Bibliography

ENDNOTES

Preface

Imagine finding yourself in a mysterious place. You discover a box, and upon dusting off the cover of the box, you find on the cover an inscription:

GOD

I am what I am

You open the box and find the pieces of a puzzle. You somehow know that if you put the puzzle together, you will have a deeper awareness of who or what GOD is, only you have no image to guide you. All you have are the pieces. What do you do?

Knowing how to assemble a puzzle, you rely on the general rules of how a puzzle is built. First, you dump out all the pieces on a table. Then you turn them all face-up. And then you examine the pieces to see how they fit together.

On first inspection, you find that some of the pieces are damaged or smudged. You clean them up as best you can. Having done that, you look for the pieces with straight edges because you know the general location of where those are supposed to go. Then you start the painstaking process of putting all the pieces together.

In a sense, that is how this book came to be written. The mysterious place is mystical experience. The box is our own personal conception of the world around us. The pieces of the puzzle are all the bits of information that lead us to a deeper understanding of how the universe works. The damaged or smudged pieces are the distortions and misconceptions that cloud our understanding of what is true. It is in searching for the truth that the pieces are cleaned up. The pieces with the straight edges are those bits of information that have a very definite place in our understanding of how the universe works. These become the starting points upon which all the other pieces will be added.

The fact that all the pieces are somehow connected is not apparent at first. It is through mystical experience that the connections become known. Once enough pieces have been put together, we step back and begin to realize who or what the creator is. That is when we realize that, although we may have created our own conception of who we think God is supposed to be, the very basis of that conception has a reality of its own, which runs deeper than any idea we could have come up with.

This is my story, a world torn between religious and scientific ideas—and the miracle that pulled them all together.

Introduction

This book was written for the purpose of opening lines of communication between science and religion. It provides explanations and interpretations of a multitude of issues to help weed out misconceptions or stimulate discussion. It contains many references, both biblical and nonbiblical. The nonbiblical references can be divided into four classes:

•   To clarify or define terms and concepts.

•   To provide cross-references within this book. These only list chapter and subhead.

•   To provide supporting material to back up the issues being considered or specify where the information was obtained.

•   To provide sources where more information can be found.

For the biblical references, some provide the source material for the basis of the claims being made. Others are for reflection. They are related to yet distinct from the source texts. I cite them for the purpose of comparisons only. It is up to the reader to decide whether they are relevant or not. To my mind, they have similar meanings but often from two different points of view. The reader is free to agree or disagree with my interpretation.

For those not familiar with biblical references, the format is as follows: Name x:y-z. The name is the book (in the Bible) in which the passage is found. (x) represents the chapter, and (y-z) represent the verse numbers within the chapter. For example: Matthew 22:29-33 = the book of Matthew, chapter 22, verses 29 through 33.

All written biblical references are taken from the King James Version.

CHAPTER ONE:

One World—Two Views

THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN religion and science is a perception. It is all based on misconceptions. Many people persist in it because they do not understand either the nature or the cause of the conflict. Once the misconceptions are revealed, the problem goes away.

Summary of the Science Versus Religion Controversy

We live in a complex universe, full of creative processes that range from the simple to the grand, all seemingly independent of each other, yet all interacting in various ways to bring about endless chains of events. The result has unfolded into a majestic universe, one that we are just beginning to come to know.

We are a product of those creative processes. The secrets they hold run deeper than most people know.

We have been endowed with extraordinary capabilities, which are guided by a consciousness of unknown origin. Through that consciousness, mankind has wondered for centuries about who we are and about our relationship to the grand universal scheme. In this quest, civilizations have pondered many issues and engaged in many activities in search of clues that explain the vast mysteries of life.

Today, only remnants and pieces remain of those who went before us. Some clues have withstood the test of time. Some have vanished forever, while still others remain as dimly lit candles flickering somewhere in the distant past. Until recently, the most prominent of those clues was ancient writings, and among those writings is a collection of books called the Holy Bible. These books are held by some to be the divinely inspired Word of God handed down through the ages as a revelation of an Omnipotent Creator, the absolute authority upon which all things depend. But times have changed, and so has our understanding of what the Word of God is actually trying to say to us.

The time of the Renaissance marked a critical period in which mankind’s view of life underwent drastic changes. Prior to the Renaissance, man viewed himself as the product of a grand universal design in which we were all subject to the vast array of supernatural forces that molded daily life. After the Renaissance, mankind began to realize that we could learn about, and interact with, the forces of which we are a part. The supernatural began to become the natural, and mankind awakened to the idea that we were more that just puppets in a grand arena, that we could exercise control over our destiny. This was the dawn of modern science.

Mankind’s view of life was not the only thing that changed. Early views of the cosmological order also went through a transformation.

Because the focus of the Bible centers on humanity, it supported a long-held belief that the earth was the center of the universe. Although the Bible never explicitly stated this, it appeared to support this claim in Psalm 93:1, which states that the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

For centuries, the ordered structure of the Catholic Church was built upon this belief. Aristotle’s crystal spheres created a cosmological model of the universe: the earth was at the center, and the sun, moon, planets, and stars were all held in place by crystal spheres in the heavens. Beyond the outermost sphere was the invisible presence of God.¹ It all fit into a neat little package that kept everything in its place. Only it was all wrong.

When Galileo Galilei began publishing news of his astronomical observations, the church sternly warned him to be cautious on how he presented his arguments. Their concern rested on the fact that Aristotle’s crystal spheres formed the basis of a theology that had persisted for centuries, and now it was being questioned. If Galileo was right, then the church had been wrong in adhering to Aristotle’s idea of crystal spheres.

The church knew what effect such a position could cause. They had allowed the torture and killing of witches for centuries. They weren’t about to admit that they hadn’t always been right. Such a claim could have put the Vatican at risk. They needed time to sort things out.

Galileo refused to budge from his conviction that his work should not be criticized or restricted. As a result, he was forced to recant his theory under penalty of torture and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. The church also issued a decree that no hypothesis could be presented that would in any way challenge the scriptures.² Science and theology have been at odds with each other ever since.

The discovery of dinosaur bones added to the growing controversy. Until this time, mankind never took seriously the idea of extinction. But the evidence was conclusive: creatures that once had lived could not be found to be living anywhere on earth today. As more dinosaur bones were dug up, many questions were raised. Did dinosaur extinction occur before the biblical flood or after? One hypothesis suggested that the dinosaurs might have been sea creatures, for there were far too many of them to fit on Noah’s Ark. But as the evidence kept pouring in, it became clear that a majority of the dinosaurs were land creatures, and the hypothesis crumbled.

It seemed obvious that the dinosaurs could hardly be overlooked, and yet the biblical story of creation made no mention of them. As more questions surfaced, the biblical story of creation began to encounter skepticism, at least from many of the believers in science. As a result, religious zealots began to hold science in contempt. Some even went so far as to regard science as the work of the devil.

But it didn’t stop there. Along came a man named Charles Darwin, who presented his view of creation in The Origin of Species. Before long, archeologists were scrambling everywhere, searching for clues pertaining to the origin of man. And finally, amid all the evidence, the theory of evolution emerged. This really riled up the religious zealots, for if God created man in his own image, then evolution makes God out to be a monkey’s uncle, or so it seems. But as time passed, the overwhelming accumulation of scientific evidence and its implications could no longer be dismissed. As a result, theologians adopted a new approach, scientific Creationism and its recent stepchild, intelligent design.

In scientific Creationism, theologians have attempted to use the evidence of science to prove that the words of the Bible are true. This, however, has created its own dilemma, since it attempts to use the evidence of science to discredit many of the teachings of science without truly examining all the evidence, which is a violation of the whole scientific process. The result is a series of claims that may appear credible to the average churchgoer, but the claims can also be disputed by experts in the field, leaving us with no concrete conclusion other than to concede that scientific Creationism (or i ntelligent design) is not scientific at all. So where does that leave us?

We know from the fossil record that life developed in stages and that we are a recent arrival. We also know through research in mitochondrial DNA that humans living today may all have descended from a common ancestor. But that same research places the timeline for that common ancestor some 200,000 years ago.³

Although evolutionists cannot prove that the transition between stages is regulated purely by random changes, they can prove that life wasn’t created all at the same time. It was a process that spanned millions of years. What then does this have to say about the biblical creation story in Genesis? I will attempt to show that both viewpoints are correct in their own way. But they deal with entirely different issues and use entirely different formats, which makes comparing them impossible until you know what the issues and formats are all about.

Understanding the Role of Faith

The present controversy between religion and science (if one is right, then the other is wrong, and vice versa) is only a few hundred years old. In that time, science has reshaped the world at large in such a drastic way that few now question the effect that science has on our daily lives.

In areas where the church totally failed, science has taken the lead. We no longer fight disease by trying to cast out evil spirits. We understand the role that bacteria and viruses play in the process, and we deal with it accordingly. We no longer appeal to the church to inquire why God allowed natural disasters to befall us. We understand their cause, and we prepare for it in advance.

In many ways, science has answered our questions in terms that we could both understand and verify. Unlike the answers of the church, where understanding was always put off to faith, which is spiritually based, science explains how and why it knows what it claims to know through repetitive results. Yet despite all this, people still challenge science with religious faith. Why?

Part of the reason for this is psychological. I remember the day that I learned that Santa Claus was only a myth. It was such a shock. Not that Christmas wouldn’t go on, but rather, the illusions that I had created in my mind around the whole affair had died. There was no magical land at the North Pole. There was no mystical journey on December 25. There was no immortal being that brought joy to millions of children each year. I had devoted so much time just imagining what it might be like. And then suddenly it was gone. I felt such emptiness inside.

Many people in the church have similar feelings about their religion. They see God as an immortal being who controls every move of the cosmos. He metes out justice without regard to rich or poor. He has established an eternal kingdom where the good people of the earth will live forever in paradise. He will punish their enemies. In the end, everything will be as it should be.

Throughout their lives, they have imagined what it must be like. They have made sacrifices in order to be worthy of its glory. Every prayer, every ritual, every event devoted to their worship of God renews and strengthens their faith. It gives them hope in times of despair. It drives them on even when life is hard. It simply can’t be any other way. Discredit their beliefs, and many would be totally lost.

This is where I was in the summer of 1973. Knowledge of nuclear and conventional physics and chemistry, along with conversations regarding the evolution of the cosmos, had created for me a workable alternative to the biblical creation story. And with that workable alternative came a sense of despair as I had not known it before. The worldview I had formulated in my mind around my religious upbringing no longer seemed to be based on anything real; it seemed illusory.

For several days I felt depressed. I didn’t know what to believe. Everything that I once thought was true was now being brought into question. How would I regain my sense for the meaning of life? All along I had been doing what I thought was right in anticipation of some great reward in the end. And now I was no longer certain of anything.

If it were not for religious experience, I don’t know where I would be today. At that time, I was enrolled in a school that was testing my limits, both physically and emotionally. If I could not regain my sense for the meaning of life, I don’t know what decisions I would have made back then. But I remembered as a child having religious experiences that led me to a deeper understanding of spiritual matters, and there was no better time than the midst of confronting this alternative model for me to put my faith to the test.

Things haven’t been the same since. Within the following weeks, I had several religious experiences that helped me see things in a whole new way.⁴ Since that time, I have found myself guided to the answers that would help me reexamine everything that I once believed.

Today, the Bible remains as the focus of my faith. Science also remains for me the avenue that helps us understand the nature of the physical universe. But they are no longer in separate worlds. The insights that I gained in those two weeks began a thought process that has opened doors to a whole new way of understanding the universe. And with that understanding came a transformation of ideas that put old traditional beliefs into a whole new light.

The Key to Understanding Religion

Before we can begin to dispel the controversy between religion and science, we must first understand why the controversy exists at all. How can two worldviews be so different if they are both supposed to be the truth? Either one is right and the other wrong, or vice versa, or so you would think.

The fact is this is only true when you are comparing apples to apples. When you are comparing apples to oranges, it complicates the matter a great deal. Thus looking at how and why science differs from religion is the first order of business.

Mystery of the Split Brain

Recent psychological studies in the field of split-brain research have revealed that the two hemispheres of the brain actually act as two separate minds in a single brain. There is a nerve bundle called the corpus callosum that connects the two hemispheres and allows them to communicate. In certain patients, the corpus callosum was cut for medical reasons,⁵ giving psychologists the ability to isolate and identify the kinds of thought activity that occur in each hemisphere. It turned out, surprisingly, that the two hemispheres of the brain don’t think alike at all.

The thought activity that occurs in the left brain hemisphere is math, language, writing, science, and logic, all roots of the scientific method. The thought activity that occurs in the right brain hemisphere is music, art, dance, sculpture, perception, and fantasy, all roots of associative thinking.⁶ It is these two types of thinking that are the root cause of why science and religion can’t seem to come to terms with each other.

Science deals with tangible issues, things with physical parameters, things that can be directly measured. Science is concerned with the structural buildings blocks of the cosmos, the relationship of these building blocks, and the manner in which they interact. The information of science is presented in a mathematical language. The theories of science are all generated through a logical progression. This is clearly a left brain-oriented subject.

The history of religion, on the other hand, exposes a very different picture of early cultures. Here we find their temples adorned in art and sculpture. We find their writing rich in iymbolism and pictographs. We find their educational system rooted in mythology. Clearly these are all right brain-dominated functions.

Religion deals with intangible issues involving personal growth and development, social interaction, emotion, mystical experience, morality, and ethics. As such, religion incorporates allegories, parables, and myths, all pertaining to spiritual matters. To pick a spiritual message apart and use the information as a basis of evaluating scientific data would be no different than going through an old box of keys in search of one that could unlock the way to someone’s heart. It simply doesn’t compute. You cannot directly compare science with religion.

This distinction in thought is a major psychological barrier that lies at the heart of the debate between religion and science. We are trying to compare two different kinds of evidence without properly distinguishing the type of evidence that each one deals with. If the Bible seems to say one thing and science seems to say another, we cannot weigh one against the other until we understand where each one is coming from. It is similar to looking at an object from two different angles. The descriptions will be different, but it is still the same object. It is not until you realize that the two angles are different that you begin to understand why the descriptions don’t agree.

A Matter of Interpretation

When Columbus set sail on a discovery mission in search of new lands, it was widely thought that he would never return. One reason was that many believed the earth was flat. Why? Because the Bible said it, they believed it, and that settled it—or so they thought.

The specific biblical reference was to the four corners of the earth (Isaiah 11:12; Revelation 7:1). Four corners implied square, which was interpreted as flat. However, it was obvious that you can’t circumnavigate a flat earth. So when Columbus did return, claiming to have found new lands, the interpretation had to be revisited.

Today, we know that these verses refer to the four cardinal points of the compass. However, the Bible doesn’t say that. It definitely does say four corners. So here we must distinguish between what the Bible appears to say and what it is supposed to mean.

The same is true with our interpretation of the biblical creation story. Many people regard it as fact without understanding what kind of fact it is. As a result, it conjures up the idea of spontaneous creation even though no support for spontaneous creation has ever existed, aside from belief.

Spontaneous creation is the belief in the creation of the heavens and the earth by an all-powerful God in a relatively short time span. No explanation of how it all came about is given, nor is one needed, say the believers, for God is not to be questioned. All that is required is to believe in God and to follow God as presented in the Word of God. Yet the argument is not about believing in the Word of God but about accepting a questionable interpretation of the scriptures on blind faith alone, without any validation whatsoever.

The whole concept of spontaneous creation comes from a literal interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis. From this, the theological date of creation is found by tracing the genealogy in Genesis, from the estimated time of the Exodus, back to Adam and Eve.⁷ If it were not for this unbroken lineage, no biblical date of creation could ever be determined. Yet are we to conclude that this unbroken lineage actually brings us back to the very beginning of creation?

Questioning Genesis as a Literal Story

If you accept the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, then you must account for its discrepancies as well. In the first two chapters, two different accounts of the creation story are given. The order of events is not the same in these two accounts.

In Genesis chapter 1, God creates the fish of the sea followed by the fowl of the air. Then come the beasts of the earth, and finally, the creation of man.⁸ In chapter 2, God creates man first, then he creates the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air.⁹ If we are to accept that these two accounts are true in a literal sense, then we are dealing with a contradiction right from the start.

A second discrepancy involves the nature of the fall of man. We are taught that God is all-powerful, all knowing, and all merciful, and that he is everywhere. The book of Job reveals that Satan can do nothing that God does not allow.¹⁰ A literal view of the story of Adam and Eve creates numerous conflicts in light of this knowledge. It goes something like this:

God created the heavens and the earth and all that was contained therein, and God saw that it was good. Now we have the serpent in the Garden of Eden. The serpent is evil, which means not good. God knows he’s there. God knows why he’s there. God is allowing him to be there. Most crucial of all, God is his creator.

Adam and Eve are given a warning not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God then leaves Adam and Eve alone in the Garden of Eden (which couldn’t have happened in a literal sense, since God is everywhere!), knowing what they are about to do. What is the outcome? An all loving and merciful God casts Adam and Eve out into a perilous world under a curse. We are told that this is justified because we are all given free will. But the principles of free will are in direct conflict with the principles of predestination, which is a long-held belief of the church. The more you look at it, the more you realize that there is something wrong with this picture from a purely literal perspective!

A third discrepancy involves the case of Noah and the flood. The Ark itself is quite large (approx. 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 30 feet high). But this doesn’t even begin to account for the magnitude of the task necessary to accumulate two of every living thing (animals, birds, and insects—Genesis 6:19—20), plus multiples of seven of every clean beast and birds of the air (7:2—3), plus food to accommodate them all (6:21; recall that many animals are carnivorous), for a period of one year and eleven days¹¹ (7:11—12, 24; 8:13—16). Add the time it would take to reestablish the ecological continuity of life after the flood. If you count all the species that have been discovered, past and present, unless you count evolutionary changes as a factor, the ark sinks.

We are told that God can do anything and that we must accept the story on faith. But what kind of faith are we talking about here?

In Genesis 6:2—4, it says that the sons of God took wives of the daughters of men, and their offspring became mighty men of old. This leads to an earth that is full of wickedness and corruption. We are told that God is omnipotent, that he is everywhere, that he is perfect, that he can do anything. Yet we are reading about a total failure among the beings that he created in his own likeness. And what is God’s response? Destroy them all!

If the literal interpretation of the creation story is the only possibility available to us, then we are left with accepting or denying the Word of God as true or not, based on this interpretation alone. However, not only is the literal interpretation not the only possibility, it is most likely not the correct one, since the biblical creation story was written in the age of mythology by a right-brain oriented culture that differentiated between exoteric (simplistic) and esoteric (expanded or metaphysical) levels of teaching.¹² Let us therefore look at other possibilities.

In a right-brain oriented literature, association is the key to understanding its message. In the book of Genesis, the story of creation is presented as a series of stages. The period of each stage is put forth as a day. Are we given any reason to believe that these are literal days?

Look at how the days are described in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, and so forth: and the evening and the morning were the first [second, third, etc.] day.

Now look at Psalm 90:4: For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

There is a distinct correlation between the evening and the morning and as a watch in the night which needs to be taken into consideration.

One of the definitions of the word day is a period of time; era; age.¹³ When looked at in this perspective, the days of creation could have any length of time associated with them, and it would still lend itself to the wording of the story.

The fact that so many ignore, is that the emphasis of the Genesis story is on God as the key element in the creation of the heavens and the earth and that a great fall has occurred in man’s spiritual connection with God. Any attempt to elaborate on how God created the heavens and the earth would only interfere with the real purpose behind the writing of this story in the first place. This is not a scientific document. The story deals solely with man’s spiritual decay. Any other interpretation impedes our ability to unlock its secrets.

The Creation Story versus the Perception of Time

With reference to time, if we are to accept that God always was and always will be (1 Timothy 1:17), then theoretically, time has no limits. No matter what point in time we choose, there would always be an infinite amount of time before and after any point of reference.

(Even the theoretical start of the big bang would not be a beginning of time, for there is no evidence that indicates that nothing existed before. All the big bang is in relation to time is a reference point from which time can be measured. Before the big bang, there is no means of quantifying a measure of time. But this does not negate that anything existed prior to this point; it simply can’t be defined.)

If this be true, then no matter what point in time we choose, it will always be in the midst of eternity! Think of what that means!

Nevertheless, to every event or age in history, there is a beginning, so the question is, does the theological place and time of the biblical creation story mark a beginning that has any special significance?

As far as history is concerned, the area described as the location of the Garden of Eden marks the place where one of the first advanced civilizations originated, and it corresponds somewhere around the time frame of the biblical date of creation.¹⁴ So the place and time of the biblical creation story marks a significant beginning as far as modern man is concerned, providing us with a reference point from which the biblical story progresses. But what can we say of the whole of creation itself?

The story of creation in Genesis is literally quite vague. It makes no attempt to describe the processes involved. This does not however, negate there being any. Take the story of the creation of man for instance: and the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground … (Genesis 2:7). Is this a true statement? In a manner of speaking, it most certainly is.

The study of ecology indicates that the sun’s energy provides all the energy consumed in the life processes of this planet. A plant, which is the beginning of the ecological life cycle, draws moisture from the ground. Contained in this moisture are minerals, which are nothing more than infinitesimal fragments of earth—dust, if you will. When the sun’s energy reaches the plant, a process known as photosynthesis transforms the moisture, minerals, and carbon dioxide into a molecular structure that becomes part of the plant with the sun’s energy locked into it.

A pregnant mother then eats grains, fruits, and vegetables, all of which are derived from plants. The digestive system breaks up the plant material into its constituents, of which some are excreted as waste and some are transferred as nutrients into the bloodstream. Some of this blood travels through the umbilical cord to the developing baby. Through a cell multiplication process, the nutrients are then processed to release the energy stored in them (which is how we all receive energy), and the minerals and associated chemicals are utilized in the manufacture of new cells. By this whole process, it can be seen that we are all formed from the dust of the ground. So the scripture is definitely true in this respect. But because scripture does not describe the event in detail, we create our own illusion as to what we believe took place in order to fill the void in our understanding.

The story of the creation of the heavens and the earth is no different. We create our own illusion as to what we believe the scriptures are saying to us. And when science tells us something different, we argue to protect our illusion against the evidence of science without realizing that we are setting two entirely unrelated thought processes in opposition to each other. There are no scientific facts in the book of Genesis, nor can there be since it is right brain-oriented. Therefore, you can’t debate with Genesis in the terms of science, since they deal with entirely different issues.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics versus Creation

Another factor that Creationists use to challenge the theory of evolution is the second law of thermodynamics. Basically, the second law states that energy always flows from a higher potential to a lower potential and that it is the natural tendency for everything in a closed system to gradually break down and seek its lowest form. This is said to invalidate the concept that anything in nature can follow a path that leads in the direction of increasing order and is one of the primary arguments against the theory of evolution.

If this argument were true, how then is it possible for a baby to form in the womb of its mother, when in fact the elements presented through the umbilical cord are a random mixture of simple molecules, and the baby turns out to be a highly developed organism? The same principle can be applied to the growth of a plant. Simple compounds are somehow manipulated into complex structures that become part of the plant’s structure, and remain stable until some later time in life when the plant will undergo a natural death (decay) or be consumed as a fuel source for the animal kingdom. Just what is this creative element and where does it come from?

The Elusive Atom

The atom is the smallest structural component of the physical universe. The atom, however, is not a stagnant building block. It is highly dynamic and behaves in very specific ways.

The atom is comprised of three particles: neutrons, protons, and electrons (See illustration, next page). Neutrons and protons make up nearly all of the atom’s mass and are contained in the central region of the atom, the area that is known as the nucleus. The protons are positively charged particles, while the neutrons are neutral, carrying no charge. The electrons are negatively charged particles that are held in orbits around the nucleus by an electrostatic attraction to the nucleus (unlike charges attract).

Electrons have very little mass in comparison to protons and neutrons. As a result, the nucleus acts as the center of the atom, while the electrons orbit around the nucleus (similar to a miniature solar system). The speed of the electrons in their orbits is so high, relative to their orbital diameter, that they appear to be omnipresent throughout their orbits, creating an apparent electrostatic spherical force field surrounding the nucleus. This apparent sphere encloses the total volume that the atom occupies, which is in fact, mostly space (take the electrostatic charges away, and theoretically the atom ceases to occupy any space at all).

Aside from the electrostatic fields, there are other forces that are generated at the atomic level. These forces are magnetism, gravity, inertia, nuclear binding energy, and electromagnetic radiation. All of these forces interact with those of the surrounding atoms to create the multitude of physical properties that we observe in the natural world.

(I have deviated from the four forces generally presented in science for the following reasons:

•   The electromagnetic force can be divided into four forces that create effects that can be used independently.

•   The weak nuclear force appears to be an instability in the strong nuclear force, whereby it breaks down at predictable rates. The term weak nuclear force provides a means to express the mathematics.

•   Inertia is a force that exists in nature that isn’t accounted for in the other four forces. Yet it is apparent at the atomic level.)

Image366.JPG

The flow of thermodynamic energy always travels from a source of higher potential to a source of lower potential. This is a valid law. But while it is en route, it interacts with atoms and molecules, raising these substances to higher energy states. While these substances are at higher energy states, molecular recombination can occur that locks some of that energy into new molecular structures. This principle is typical of the processes of photosynthesis. It is also typical of the processes of cell metabolism. Through these processes, growth occurs out of the flow of energy as directed by the atomic forces. The first cell was formed by a long-drawn-out process, but it relies on the same dynamics, which is why it took so long in the first place.

The Octet Rule

In studying the nature of atomic structure, one would naturally assume that an electron should be able to occupy any orbit level ranging from a set minimum (the point at which the electron collapses into the nucleus), to a set maximum (the point at which the electron reaches escape velocity and flies off) and that this range should be able to be divided up into an almost infinite number of possible orbit levels. In reality this is not the case. Experiments have shown that electrons exist in specified orbit levels, which have been classified and divided into shells and subshells, and that each shell and subshell can only contain a specified number of electrons. How or why this is so is unknown. It is one of the mysteries of science.

Furthermore, the stability of the atom in nature is determined by how many electrons exist in the outermost shell. When atoms combine, they redistribute (share or transfer) the electrons in their outermost shells. As it turns out, atoms will always tend to form molecules in patterns that result in a final number of exactly eight electrons in their outermost shell (with exception of the first shell which can only contain two). This is known as the octet rule, and it plays a very prominent role in the field of chemistry, which deals with the formation of molecules. Throw atoms together, and they will naturally tend to form into specific patterns and groups as guided by their own internal forces. Again, how or why this occurs is unknown.

Atoms and their atomic forces, therefore, are the watchmaker of the cosmos. They contain the code that directs how molecules are assembled. Unlike a child’s building blocks, which have no dynamic forces acting to manipulate them (other than us), atoms do have dynamic forces acting between them that manipulate them into the vast multitude of elements, molecules, and compounds that make up the visible universe. The second law of thermodynamics merely establishes the pathway that energy takes. But as long as the energy supply remains active, the cosmos will continue to grow and develop as guided under its own internally regulated mechanisms.

Evolution—Haphazard or Regulated Progression?

Before we venture into an analysis of the theory of evolution, there is something that needs to be said. The theory of evolution does not negate, deny, or somehow render superfluous the reality of God. What the theory does is shatter preconceived ideas of who or what we think God is supposed to be.

If we were to imagine God as a powerful celestial being (regardless of what form) existing somewhere out in the heavens, let’s say in some supernatural dimension, then this tends to imply that the workings of nature are somehow being manipulated by an external influence of some sort, an unseen force, you might say.

If, on the other hand, it could be shown that nature is completely self-regulated in its workings, acting and reacting through internal mechanisms and processes (nuclear, chemical, physical, and electromagnetic properties), the notion of external manipulation can no longer be sustained. And if this former notion formed the basis of your belief in God, then your belief in God is going to come under question.

This is essentially what the theory of evolution has done. The belief in the spontaneous creation of heaven and earth by an all-powerful God assumes the idea of an external God, distinct and separate from creation itself, whereas the theory of evolution describes a system that is self-running, self-governing, not dependent upon any outside influence. These two ideas are obviously in direct conflict with each other, which makes the theory of evolution look like an effort to undermine the reality of God to anyone who accepts the former belief. Yet the manipulative forces of nature acting on the atomic and subatomic level are everywhere, they are invisible, they are all-powerful, and they are the beginning and ending of everything that has ever or will ever exist. The very forces that run the evolutionary process have the exact same qualities that religion attributes to Almighty God.

The acceptance that God exists does not depend upon a God who is distinct and separate from the cosmos. Nor does it rest on the spontaneous creation of the heavens and the earth, for these two presumptions are merely an interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and certainly not the only ones possible. We have to differentiate between God as a being separate from reality and God as the life force of the cosmos—that is, very much a part of it.

To conceive of the cosmos as a whole as God¹⁵ does not diminish in any way the numerous biblical references pertaining to the character of God, nor does it make us any less responsible to what God is. The more you learn about the cosmos, the more you come to appreciate just how powerful, majestic, creative, and wonderfully interactive it really is. And the more you interact with it, the more you come to realize just how unyielding it can be to those who go against its principles. So the blessings and warnings of God as presented in the scriptures are not just made-up ideas. The cosmos does in fact work that way. Work in harmony with the cosmos, and all things are possible. Work against it, and it will cause you a great deal of grief. And this is very much in harmony with the teachings of the Old and New Testaments. God is not to be mocked, and God is not to be tempted, the scriptures warn. Interchange the words God and cosmos, and nothing has changed in the overall scheme of things except that you have gone from a right-to a left-brain thought process.

Evidence Supporting Evolution

Long before Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, geologists, zoologists, and botanists were all debating ideas on evolution. It was the subtle differences of species in varying locations noted by the zoologists and botanists, and the time line being uncovered by geologists, that raised the questions. As they sifted through the information, observations were not fitting in with the accepted interpretations of Genesis. This caused them to come up with a theory that could account for the evidence being uncovered.

Many Renaissance scientists attempted to manipulate the data so that they could present it as a creation of God. But their image of God was so distinct from the ideas of science that no connection could be made to the raw data. Attempts to reconcile this discrepancy are still in progress.

The theory of the evolution of life is based on evidence that made it clear that life is transient, ever changing, and progressively developing. More specifically, the ability of mankind to manipulate desireable changes in domestic livestock through selective breeding—and in cultivated plants through selective pollination of desired varieties—eventually led to the much larger question as to whether or not mother nature was doing the same thing through natural processes. And the more the evidence was examined, the more it appeared that indeed it was. However, it wasn’t until after the principles of extinction became known and understood that the theory of evolution was finally accepted, for only then was the theory able to account for the obvious gaps existing between distinct species.

Today, DNA evidence has all but eliminated any question that evolution occurs. But the ideas of evolution tend to give credence to the cruelty of warring nations (only the strong survive), while leaving us with the concept that life is short and then you die. This is in stark contrast to the promise of eternal life in heavenly bliss that religion fosters. So even though the evidence favors evolution overwhelmingly, people pray to God that it isn’t so because of what it appears to imply.

Facts or Assumptions

The theory of evolution has opened the door to many spurious assumptions that have neither been proved nor disproved. But because they are associated with a theory that has scientific acceptance, all the baggage that goes along with it is taken to be valid as well. One of these assumptions is the belief that evolution is purely haphazard (unregulated by any intelligent influence).

The fact is, the concept that evolution is haphazard is not supported by scientific evidence but rather by the lack of it. When one considers the magnitude of information that would be required to show how evolution is being manipulated and guided by nature, it is easy to see how quite by accident was the best we could come up with. Yet there is plenty of reason to believe that the process is not an accident at all.

To begin with, there is nothing accidental about how an atom works. It acts with a precision that is mind-boggling. Neither is there anything accidental about how a chemical reaction occurs. It follows a mathematical formula on which any well-trained chemist would stake his or her life. Atoms and chemical reactions form the foundation for the entire range of life forms.

To say that evolution occurred quite by accident is an assumption based on limited facts. The facts that are still unknown leave us unable to come up with any more definitive explanation.

To the atheist who says that we are here purely by accident, we can take it one step further and say that the universe itself is here purely by accident. For if the unified field theory just is, then the mere fact that the unified field values are what they are is purely coincidental. And it has been shown that changing the values slightly in any direction yields a universe that either falls apart or never gets started in the first place.¹⁶ This is a vision that has no future, and I will leave it at that for now.

Suggestion of Inner Intelligence

According to the theory, approximately one billion years ago, colonies of cells began to join forces to accomplish tasks above and beyond the capabilities of individual cells. To say that individual cells stumbled upon this ability quite by accident implies that they had no concept of what they were doing. This is somewhat absurd. The only way a collective group of cells could accomplish a common task was to work together to bring that task about. What motivated that process is still not understood. The answer to that question may produce some surprising results.

When an organism first develops, the parent cell divides into exact duplicates of itself, each copy following suit. This process continues for a set number of divisions, creating a globular cluster of cells. Then at some predetermined stage, a remarkable process takes place: the globular cluster of cells performs a coordinated maneuver that transforms itself into a