I have reread an oldie but a goodie:

The Ascent of Man by Henry Drummond, dated 1894

Drummond had deep insights into the future of man and the evolution within the spiritual life and religion. I was quite impressed by his knowledge and workings within his views on evolution.

http://henrydrummond.wwwhubs.com/ascindex.htm

Quote from The Ascent of Man:

What is Evolution? A method of creation. What is its object? To make more perfect living beings. What is Christianity? A method of creation. What is its object? To make more perfect living beings. Through what does Evolution work? Through Love. Through what does Christianity work? Through Love. Evolution and Christianity have the same Author, the same end, the same spirit. There is no rivalry between these processes. Because the two are one.

Do you agree?, if so share, also if you do not agree.

Amazing this book was written in 1894.

Freebird, I haven't read the book, but I think the quote above about evolution working through love needs much more qualification -- maybe something he does in the book. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection, the spirit of which is very much more like "dog eat dog" than loving cooperation. So I'm not seeing the connection with Christianity, here. Maybe you can explain how you understand him on this point.

Phil, the quote is difficult to explain unless you also read the book which is available in its entirety on the above given site.

It truly is worth reading, because rarely do I reread a book. Hope you give it a try.

Drummond really did look into the future when writing this book. It is quite astounishing and accurate in his perceptions into our century. I am surprised that not more people have found their way to it. It may be because it was written in 1894.

Hope someone has an interest in same, so I could start a discussion.

What is your opinion on how evolution fits into biblical eschatology, which seems to indicate a moving away from God and hence a spiritual de-evolution before the end.

Also as Phil said, evolution is a dog eat dog, survival of the fittest. this does not seem to be congruent with the nature of God, why would he choose to create in this negative way?

Evolution and Creation are terms descriptive of the same process calibrates as "true" according to David Hawkins. I don't know if that answer is pulled out of the ether or akashic records or "Divine Mind", but I find it rather amusing that an Aborigine will confirm through contact with nature that Intelligent
Design is a no-brainer, yet the scientist has a problem with it. Evolutionary hypothesis, as Ken Wilber points out, has "the absence of any transitional forms whatsoever", to support it. The creationist is also at a loss to decribe the process involved in the great myth. Forty percent of Americans believe that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old. Thirty percent believe in macroevolution, which should leave us with transitional forms in the fossil record. This has been a great source of embarassment to evolutionists, who have come up with the "hopeful monster" hypothesis of punctuated equlibrium, or as Wilber states, "Everyone has agreed for now to say that it must have happened somehow."

Some rational intellectual minds discuss the results of our thinking:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ac2495d2220.htm

The latest result, methinks, is Dick Cheney hiding out with his staffers like Hitler in the bunker.

Round and around. The best minds in religion and philosophy have at least suggested that love and altruism are the goal, but only about one out of twenty-five of us ever realize that level, according to David Hawkins' research.

Study the saints who reached this level. The answer lies above the rational intellectual level.
Ask Ramana Maharshi, Mother Teresa, Aurobindo, Ramakrishna, Theresa of Avila or Saint John of the Cross for the answer, since science, philosophy and systematic theology remain incapable of divining the answer. It's like looking for your keys in the front yard under the street light when you lost them in the backyard because the light is better. Better that what? Better than Love?


caritas, mm <*)))))><

Freebird, I don't have the time to read through that long work. Besides, this is a topic about which I've already done considerable reading, writing and reflecting (M.S. in biology; all the course work for a Ph. D., a couple of books that deal with evolution and spirituality).

Jacques: Also as Phil said, evolution is a dog eat dog, survival of the fittest. this does not seem to be congruent with the nature of God, why would he choose to create in this negative way?

The starting point in responding to this is the kind of honest acknowledgement you make, Jacques: namely, that nature does work pretty much the way the scientists describe it. Nevertheless, here we are, conscious, rational beings, reflecting on the meaning of life, etc. We also have 99% of the same DNA as chimps, the same cellular and physiological processes, bodies like other mammals, hair, reproductive processes, etc. We really are mammals -- but so much more!

When speaking of "evolution," then, one must first be clear if the scientific theory is being discussed, or a larger philosophical paradigm? People don't always mean the same thing by "evolution." The scientific theory is well-established and it does explain very well the diversification of species, including the human. Going beyond science to philosophy and theology is another matter, however, as questions of meaning come to the table -- questions that science does not deal with. So, e.g., what does it mean to say that God is Creator in an evolving world? Where is God's hand in the creative process? Etc. Philosophers and theologians have been addressing this issue since Darwin, with a wide range of positions, from the creationism of fundamentalists to a variety of non-theistic hypotheses.

I recently posted a thread on God and Creation to discuss this topic. Check out the pdf file in the opening post. Maybe some of the discussion can continue on that thread since this one seems to be intended more to review Drummond's book.

Phil, Drummond equates Evolution to Nature. He states that the divinity of Christianity is not to be as unlike Nature as possible, but to be its coronation; the fulfillment of its promise; the rallying point of its forces; the beginning not of a new end, but of an infinite acceleration of the processes by which the end, eternal from the beginning, was henceforth to be realized. A religion which is Love and a Nature which is love can never be but one.

He does not see Evolution and Christianity opposed, but working side by side to complete the Will of God.

I will give an example, Christianity and the Eastern religions who consider the kundalini to be an evolutionary force which now has entered the realm of Christianity with the well recognized k awakenings among Christians. It is almost like a joint merger of these two. We cannot deny that an attempt of this merger between the East and West is taking place. Why else all of a sudden in our history of humanity Christianity is facing this Eastern spiritual happening.

We do not know the mind of God, but we know that we are now sharing with the Eastern religion a spiritual process that is well known in the Eastern religions.

He does not see Evolution and Christianity opposed, but working side by side to complete the Will of God.

That makes sense. In my post above, I was responding more to the quote by him that evolution works through love.

Re. East and West coming together . . . these are interesting times.

Hi all

I liked the article mm, I must say that I agree. I have spoken to people who's main objection to evolution is that it leads to the evils described there and does not seem to culminate in Christ, but rather culminates in Antichrist.

What do you guys think about the theory that says the fall caused the results we see in nature today. Adam and Eve are depicted as vegaterians in the garden of eden and only began to eat meat after the flood (perhaps due to the destruction of food stocks). Even the animals seem to be vegaterian before the fall.

Dog eat dog and survival of the fittest seem to be based on fear and desire for power, which are manifestations of the fall, are they not?

Perhaps another question might be: What would human evolution look like if it weren't for the fall and hence sin and the false self?

Also: How does the fall effect the way nature operates vs. how it may have operated before the fall?

Jacques, I think that without the fall, grass would grow from seeds, worms would eat grass roots, robins would eat worms, hawks would eat robins, bacteria would eat everything, etc. Unless one hypothesizes a version of nature where all creatures live on sunlight and air (i.e., everything is like plants), then all would be as it is now, with the same competition we see for habitats, and the same dynamic where the most adapted pass their genes on. The only difference would be that human selfishness wouldn't be so disruptive of ecosystems as it is now.

I tried to explain above a distinction between evolutionary science and evolutionary philosophy. Those who deny the former are doomed to a paradigm that denies truth when it is inconvenient. Any philosophy or theology that must reject evolution to justify its affirmations will not stand.

Hey Phil,

I am not saying that evolutionary science is not a valid explanation for the way things are, but why are you so adament that no other explanation can be.

Surely if there is still a debate about it then the verdict is not yet in. Why are there still professional (even non-christian) scientists and biologist who disagree with the theory.

Again, I am not saying that it is not true, I am just wondering.

Personally evolutionary science is not inconvenient for me, I am just asking questions. If I decide that evolution is a definite YES, no problem, it doesn't destroy anything. I just don't know if it is YES....but maybe

I am not saying that evolutionary science is not a valid explanation for the way things are, but why are you so adament that no other explanation can be.

Of course. It would have to meet the criteria of science, however, providing explanation congruent with the data/facts as we find them. The verdict pretty much is in among 99.5% of scientists, although many are raising questions re. the larger philosophical and theological issues. That's not the same as "doubting evolution," however, like some creationists and intelligent design proponents like to put it.

Okay Phil,

would it be possible for you to direct me to a good website that explains evolution in terms I will probable understand. If possible a website that answers the doubts put forward by those who have trouble with evolution.

I would really appreciate it.

Never mind Phil, got one, thankx

Sounds like you found something helpful, Jacques. I have a few suggestions if you need additional ones:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
- good section on religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://dim.com/~jambo/evolutio...eisticevolution.html
- a Christian's affirmation of theistic evolution

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrevol.htm
- on evolution and Christianity

etc. . .

What you'll find is that most of the Christian writers who make it an either/or proposition are fundamentalistic in their theology.

All look really great, thanks a lot Phil

.
When I saw the title of this thread, I became very cheerful. Why? Because I thought it was about Jacob Bronowski�s brilliant TV series "The Ascent of Man", produced by BBC and released in 1973.

Highly recommended!

Thank you HeartPrayer. Some thoughts on evolution:

"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadaquate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew." -Abraham Lincoln

"Technological change is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." -Albert Einstein

"The art of progress is to preserve order amidst change and to preserve change and order."
-Alfred North Whitehead

"The important thing is this: To be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become." - Charles DuBois

"Things alter for the worse spontaneously, if they be not altered for the better designedly."
-Francis Bacon

"We cannot adopt the way of living that was satisfactory a hundred years ago. The world in which we live has changed, and we must change with it." -Felix Adler

"There is nothing wrong with change if it is in the right direction." -Winston Churchill

"The heresy of one age becomes the orthodoxy of the next." - Helen Keller

"Change does not necessarily assure progress, but progress implacably requires change."
-Henry Steele Commager

"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are sure to miss the future." -John F. Kennedy

"All change is not growth, and all movement is not forward." -Ellen Glasgow

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
-Margaret Mead

"It's not so much that we're afraid of change or so in love with the old ways, but it's that place in between that we fear...It's like being between trapezes. It's linus when his blanket is in the dryer. There's nothing to hold on to."
-Marilyn Ferguson

"You can judge your age by the amount of pain you feel when you come into contact with a new idea."
-Pearl S. Buck

"Life is a progress, and not a station."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

"If you want to make enemies, try to change something." -Woodrow Wilson

Change is inevitable, except from vending machines." -Robert C. Gallagher

Speaking of Evolution, have you seen the great Guinness Evolution TV ad? Absolutely brilliant!