The ongoing debate over evolution rages on, but I think both sides have something to look at, and something to offer. Creationism raises a few important questions about the nature of evolution, as it is theorized. Evolution shows the wondeful developmental growth of species and consciousness. They are on opposite sides of a spectrum, you might say, and that spectrum is artificial.

From an objective standpoint, one might say that we are all simply being, and that all these terms, labels, views are illusory to begin with. There's no sense arguing a point and countering opposing views. After all, we are all one, manifest and unmanifest. That's all well and good, and it may be true, but the individual experiences that transpersonal consciousness subjectively, that is 1p x 3p (I think I'm doing it right). How do we express this in correct words without taking sides? How can its symbolism, manifestation in language become appropriate for open minded discussion without the petty sides?

Well, I think understanding each side is important. I'll start with Creationism. It raises the question of entropy. If the universe has a tendency to fall apart, how then does a particular carbon based collection called life seem to do the exact opposite? Come together and grow? Surely, an outside force must have done this, as nothing else in the universe breaks the law of entropy. There are few technical problems with this argument, as there are things that do not fall apart quickly (Solar systems, galaxies, etc). There is a rise and fall to things, patterns and cyclical natures, so much so that even species can appear to rise and fall - but life itself remains. Odd? Sure. It's very unique. This bizarre occurrence of life in the first place is just, weird. Is there an outside force?

Well, scientists may say: No. It's all chance. Mutation is a way to diversify a population and adapt to changing environments. The environment is entropy? Then life adapts to that entropy, by constantly mutating itself. Successful genetic strands survive, breed on, unsuccesful die out. Simple enough, but complex beneath the surface. I'll leave it here, at the basics. Surely, though, Creationists argue that we are not just chance. It's pretty bizarre that chance would work itself out the way it has. Paraphrasing philosopher Ken Wilber, from dirt to Shakespeare, was it really just coincidence? This is a wonderful question, and worthy of attention. Considering that there a number of holes in Darwin's theory of evolution, it's good that these questions are being asked, and these points are being made.

The main problem, however, comes with Creationist's conclusion. They argue random chance mutation and the seemingly guided direction of species, the delicate equilibrium of all organic life on Earth points to something other than rolling dice. Good point! But what do they do? Instead of exploring it, understandng what it is, they resort to myth. Science is faulty, therefore, God is real! Negation of one theory does not mean proof of another. They replace the scientific theory with a mythic story, a mythic God. One faulty explanation for another. Can it be blamed though? Some scientists argue that something came from nothing, and certainly this doesn't make sense. A belief that an all powerful deity created the manifest universe doesn't either. Something, coming from something - that's a start, but not a "Magic Man." The mythical God is our way of describing the indescribable.

So they had a good opening line - Science isn't answering the whole question, and it has some major flaws. There seems to be a movement here, an unusual nature to life. We have spirituality and that is real, and science expects us to believe that we are just mutations, random ones. Maybe there's a guiding force - but that's where the argument should end. Beyond that it is myth, speculation and resorting to old age thinking.

What has to be understood is that Christian Mythology is not the answer to scientific flaws. But, let's not completely bash the Intelligent Design argument, it has something to it very fundamentally.

Evolution itself has been strictly empirical. Physical, observable data has been recorded, patterns and fossils have been discovered, all piecing together the theory of evolution. The theory itself has evolved long since Darwin. Though at its heart it is the same - that natural selection is true, that species evolve by mutation. Could there be a possibility that such a mutation is not random? That's a good question. Why throw out the Evolutionary theory simply because it has a few holes? Maybe we do not understand evolution completely. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Scientists might argue, what else do we have to work on, then? Hearsay, voodoo, Biblical literal truth? That isn't science. Of course not. But by remaining so rigid in the rational standpoint, so fundamentalist in scientific attitudes, they fail to recognize potential for further understanding. One could say that scientists should be the leading edge, not the priests of a cold, hard dissected world. This itself is a myth from the early days of the Age of Enlightenment, when Earth and all species were observed as merely dead things, a corpse to dissect, pick apart, use and experiment with. Surely, great discoveries were found, but now we face an energy crisis and potential ecological collapse, coupled with the threat of global warming. Science may have detached itself from the world of experience a little too much along the way.

This doesn't mean of course, that we should abandon it, resort to prayer to solve our problems and relive medieval thinking. Science in principle is testing and experimentation in order to validate a hypothesis. The idea that the only valid scientific analysis is empirical data is a cultural view, effective in the physical world but grossly blind to the interior world of man. Scientific method can be applied to the innerscapes of humanity. Buddhism, for example, is a scientific philosophy. It proposes a theory, and asks the practitioner to go ahead and see if it works, acknowledging that there are other ways to alleviate suffering. Thus, we see an open-mindedness. Science, if it is to answer and explore the questions, has to integrate the interior landscapes with the exterior, see how they correlate and intertwine.

So, what does science have to explore then, aside from Christian Mythology? The leading edge of scientific discoveries point to an interesting and even more mysterious nature to life than ever imagined. In the book, "The Secret Life of Plants," by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, explores the scientific investigation into plant consciousness. Yes, various procedures, startling to say the least, reveal that plants may be aware, and have reacted in various ways to human thought, emotion, even at long distances. What the consciousness is, exactly, and whether it could be personified in human terms is far from our understanding. What is interesting, however, is how the plants were able to react from long distances, from thoughts. What does this mean? What does this imply?

Various thinkers, such as Carl Jung, Rudolf Steiner, Drunvalo Melchizedek have explored this notion. Drunvalo has even conceived of an evolutionary "grid". Evolution may be, to some degree, random, but other theories help fill in the gaps and make more sense of it all. Carl Jung explored the possibility of collective consciousness, or subconsciousness, synchronicity (Things not happening by chance, patterned phenomenon emerging in the universe). Rudolf Steiner suggested that Earth itself has a form of consciousness, not mythical but actual, an interplay of energy and awareness, intelligence, helping guide its organism (the various species that are on Earth). An equilibrium exists because earth is an organism itself. Gaia theory, developed by Dr. James Lovelock, suggests this very notion. Not to the surprise of modern empiricism, such theories have not been thoroughly explored, but investigated at least by credible scientists. When applied and integrated with evolution, what possibilities, what new understanding may we emerge with about our existence?

Modern science has taken a stroll down the empirical lane, with popular theories such as Behaviorialism. Other theories dominate explanations, such as genetics, etc. The truth is, each theory and each perspective has very important points. What none of them seem to be doing is integrating each other, finding a bigger picture, a better map of consciousness, of evolution.

Spirituality has a place, evolution has a place, but rigidity and extremes will only fail to realize the expansiveness of life and the nature of the cosmos. Each theory is like a key, slowly, surely unlocking the puzzles of the mind and of our origins. We will never know in totality, that is, have infinite knowledge, but there is knowing beyond thought, and knowledge has its place as a stepping stone for our evolution, our consciousness. If Spirit is, then so is science, and the two manifest in the void, the Witness. All arises in Spirit, in Being, and that is wonderful. If we step out of ourselves from time to time and realize that our self-image is indeed another object manifesting in the beauty of the Kosmos, we can truly appreciate the wisdom of self awareness, and how it need not cast away rationality. Kosmos is all-inclusive.

Philosopher and spiritual teacher, Jiddu Krishnamurti, reminded us of the word Alone. Alone is a wonderful thing, he said, for if you see the origins of the word, you will understand. All One.

Jean Gebser, pioner of developmental studies in consciousness, proposed that humanity goes through stages, each one built up from the other. Each stage or "structure" is a transition into the other, and they go like this:

Archaic structure,

Magic structure,

Mythical structure,

Mental structure,

Integral structure.

Note: Gebser expressed that this is not necessarily evolution, as each structure is relative and responsive to its environment, erupts due to previous difficulties, and eventually falls short, calling for another type of structure to emerge. Evolution he saw as linear, and linear thinking does not emerge until the Mental stage of development. (Earlier stages such as Mythical use cyclical views of time/space. This note paraphrased from wikipedia) However, if evolution is simply viewed as adaptation and development over time, Gebser's model may apply.

Each structure is observable in various societies. Archaic and Magic structures are more present in early tribal societies and ancient civilizations. Religion at this time is image based, dogmatic based, mythical stories play out in grand schemes about the world. You can view this as Catholicism in the medieval ages and other ancient religions such as Roman "paganism."

The Mental structure introduces rationality and individualism, reductionism and materialism as vital pieces. You see this emerge in history as well (Renaissance, Enlightenment Age). This age had come to an end, as Gebser notes, due to its inability to view interior worlds of man (Behavioralism vs. Psychoanalysis). The world can be strictly observed through the physical realm, but interior experience is altogether missing. To discover the inner world, one must have various methods to do so which are not yet empirically observable. So we see various spiritual movements occur, with Voltaire, it is the rejection of dogma and embracement of a God without dogma. In its earlier, emerging stages, science was seen as a way to prove God and express the beauty of creation. Nothing more was needed. One early thinker even noted, "If you believe in Miracles, you are an Athiest!"

Thus, postmodernism was born from modernism, but even this does not balance the various structures. Existentialism emerged around this time, note Sartre, "The Stranger". The next stage of development, thus, is the Integral structure. It is the first structure to be able to view the previous ones and be aware of them, rather than just play them out. Gebser emphasizes again the notion of time/space being a factor. With Integral, 'now' is a strong influence. All former structures are presently observable, including Integral.

" An aspect of integral awareness is the presentiation, or "making present", of the various structures of awareness. Rather than allowing only one (rational) structure to be valid, all structures are recognized, presented, one through the other. This awareness of and acceptance of the various structures enables one to live through the various structures rather than to be subjected to them." (Wikipedia)

[From Structures to Spirit

If there are multiple structures of consciousness, whether it be based on our views of time space, evolutionary or not, is it also not possible that spirituality, and our views of it, change with our own development?

So Mental structures view previous Magic/Mythic structures as backwards, non-linear, non-rational, and dogmatic. They have a point about the previous structure's limitation. But to Integral Structures have a point about post-rational spirituality? Having spoken with scientists and those who are strictly reductionist, it seems taboo to even consider the possibility. Many view religion in any form to be downright delusional, imaginary, as silly as the Easter Bunny - but there have been arguments that religious institutions do not tell the entire story. Of course we do not want to worship the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy - What if there is another form of spirituality which just as quickly rejects such notions (As they are based on archaic, magic and mythic belief systems)?

Trans-rational spirituality, so to speak. Non-dogmatic, non-fear based, but deep, contemplative and meditative experiences with the 'divine' - not metaphysical jargon, but direct experience. These are the mystics of various religions, which do not claim divine retribution. In fact, they often speak of being one with that divinity, that it is a very part of their awareness, that it is in the looking itself. Take for instance Buddhist meditations, which an awareness is cultivated of transpersonal nature. Empirical data obseves changes in brainwaves. From beta and alpha (Linear, thinking, abstract) to theta (usually in states of sleep, meditation), and delta (dreamless sleep). There are various ways to experience the divine, using different faculties of the mind.

To quote Ken Wilber, "Are the mystics and sages insane? Because they all tell variations on the same story, don't they? The story of awakening one morning and discovering you are one with the All, in a timeless and eternal and infinite fashion.

Yes, maybe they are crazy, these divine fools. Maybe they are mumbling idiots in the face of the Abyss. Maybe they need a nice, understanding therapist. Yes, I'm sure that would help." (A Brief History Of Everything - pp 42-43)

Interestingly, no matter what religion or area of the world you go to, there will be these mystics, telling the same thing in different languages, through different cultures. Isn't that interesting? Of course, metaphysical and dogmatic religious institutions have been understood - we know their limitations, but what if we investigate the deeper realms of spirituality, instead of just claiming that science will, inevitably, spell it all away, reduce it to mere equations and observable, explainable data? The interior is just as important as exterior, and perhaps there is room for Spirit in a post-post modern world.