Do both Intelligent Design and the Theory of Evolution spring from a limited approach to knowledge?

Kim: Jesus, after studying the debate on Intelligent Design versus Evolution/Materialism, I am left a bit shell-shocked. I mean, each side argues very convincingly for its position, and they both use a lot of scientific jargon and concepts that are hard to follow for a lay-person. Both sides seem absolutely convinced that they are right, and neither seems willing to consider any evidence to the contrary. In fact, what I have seen so far is a lot of evidence that confirms your statements in our last discussion that neither side is looking for a higher understanding, and thus the debate is just a dualistic treadmill that does not lead society forward but only decides which power block will dominate. I am feeling a bit exasperated and I am seriously wondering if there is anything that could settle the issue of the origin of life? How could you ever settle such questions?

Answer from Jesus: Despite your frustration, you are in a frame of mind that is often the start of real progress. The only thing that can move the debate forward is that a critical mass of people become frustrated with the bantering from both sides and decide to look beyond the parameters set by the two combatants. People must be willing to question the basic assumptions of both sides, they must be willing to step outside the mental boxes that confine the debate and they must ask if there is a better way to approach the issue.

We might begin by considering how human beings can ever resolve any conflicts or disagreements. If you take into account my teachings on the duality consciousness, you can gain a new perspective on this. Here are the characteristics of the duality consciousness that are relevant to our discussion:

• It cannot perceive an absolute truth. The "truth" it sees is relative to two extremes, such as good and evil, right and wrong, true and false.

• It cannot conceive that here could be a truth that does not fit on a dualistic scale. Instead of seeking an absolute truth beyond the relative scale, it seeks to elevate its own relative truth to the status of an infallible truth. It seeks to define an absolute truth instead of finding God’s absolute truth—which is beyond ALL dualistic images.

• It defines what it wants to be true and builds a mental image of what it wants reality to be like. It then looks for evidence that supports its mental image and ignores or refutes any evidence to the contrary.

• Once it has decided what is true, it accepts its mental image as an absolute and infallible truth. It now refuses to question the basic assumptions upon which its world view is based.

• Because it reasons within a relative framework, it can always argue convincingly for its mental image and against any challenges. However, the standard for what is convincing is defined by its own relative mental image. What is convincing is what supports what it wants to believe.

• Its evaluation of what is convincing and what is not is based on a double standard. It does not evaluate supporting evidence as critically as challenging evidence. It sees only what it wants to see.

It is precisely these characteristics that make it possible for two groups of people to be in a conflict, both of them being absolutely convinced that they are right and that their world view is an infallible truth. This has happened numerous times throughout history, and it has led to innumerable atrocities. What are the potential outcomes of such a struggle?

One possibility is that one side uses power to gain dominance in society and thus suppresses the opposing side. This can be done through physical violence (as the Catholic Church did during the Inquisition) or it can be done through mental violence (as the scientific establishment has been doing in order to make materialism an unquestionable scientific “fact”).

Another possibility is that one side manages to convince the other side through a reasoning process. This is a non-violent resolution, but it does not guarantee that the outcome is in line with reality. For example, if all people are trapped in the dualistic mindset, it is possible that they can be in complete agreement that the Earth is flat.

So the real question is how people can reach beyond a dualistic debate and develop a world view that is – at least partially – based on a higher truth and is in line with reality. The obvious answer is that people must make contact with a source of knowledge that is beyond the dualistic mind, something that does not spring from the relative, dualistic way of looking at life.

How can people do this? There are two ways of doing so:

• Unbiased, neutral and objective observations of the “real world.” For example, it was such observations that enabled people to escape the dualistic world view that the Earth was flat or that it was the center of the universe. This is what forms the basis for the scientific method. The essence is that we formulate a theory and then we look for factual evidence to support OR refute the theory. Yet for this to work, your mind must be non-attached to the outcome of your experiments. You must be as open to having your theory refuted as you are to having it confirmed—because you realize that either way your understanding will progress. In contrast, the dualistic mind does not want to look for evidence because it does not want to see its mental image disproved. It would rather continue to believe in an illusion than find a higher understanding.

• Divine revelation in which people raise their consciousness and make contact with a mind that is above and beyond the dualistic mind. Through this contact, people can receive knowledge that does not spring from a dualistic thought process. Again, this can only work when your mind is non-attached to your current beliefs. You must be willing to have those beliefs expanded before you can receive a higher truth.

It is essential to acknowledge that neither method is fail-safe. As long as people are affected by the duality consciousness, this state of mind can influence their explorations and conclusions in subtle ways that are impossible to detect by the people who are subject to the dualistic way of thinking. We might say that the overall effect of the dualistic mind is that it confines your mind to a mental box. However, it does so in such a subtle way that you do not realize you are in a box. Thus, you cannot see the box and you cannot easily see beyond the box.

Based on these observations, we can make an extremely important conclusion. Since the beginning of known history (and in fact much longer) humankind has been on a quest to expand its knowledge. The essence of this quest is that people are trapped inside a dualistic box and they expand their knowledge only when they reach beyond the box. This leads to the following observations:

• There is a difference between dualistic knowledge – which is relative and often (at least partially) out of touch with reality – and true knowledge—which is in alignment with reality.

• The only way to find true knowledge is to reach beyond the mental box created by the dualistic mind.

• In order to keep true knowledge valid, one must be constantly on guard against the dualistic mind’s tendency to make true knowledge relative. It does so by seeking to make true knowledge fit into its mental box rather than using the knowledge to expand the box. It also seeks to turn true knowledge into an “absolute” truth that cannot be questioned—thus stopping the growth toward an even deeper understanding.

We must therefore conclude that true knowledge is not the same as absolute knowledge. In reality, there is no absolute knowledge in the material universe. When you are NOT trapped by duality, you see your current knowledge as a springboard for further investigation. You NEVER fall into the trap of thinking that your current knowledge cannot be expanded.

History is ripe with examples of how people have failed to understand these principles. In some cases, they never found true knowledge but lived for centuries in a dualistic belief system that was out of touch with reality. An obvious example is the belief that the Earth was flat. In other cases a society has actually had true knowledge, but it gradually became degraded into a dualistic belief system. One example is how my original teachings were turned into a set of rigid church doctrines that bear little resemblance to what I actually taught. We can now make another important conclusion:

• If you want to have true knowledge, you must constantly be alert and willing to “think outside the box.”

• You must seek to expand your mental box by using one of the methods for finding knowledge outside your mental box.

• You must be constantly willing to expand your mental box. You can NEVER assume that you have the highest possible understanding of the topic.

• You must be willing to periodically question the basic assumptions upon which your current world view is based.

• You must be constantly alert to the possibility that the method you use to gain knowledge can limit your ability to find true knowledge.

• You must be constantly on guard against the dualistic mind (your own or someone else’s) and its tendency to degrade the knowledge you have obtained.

In summary, the real question you need to ask yourself is what limits you have set for your ability to find true knowledge. How does your own dualistic mind (your ego) or that of your culture set boundaries for your ability or willingness to find knowledge outside your current mental box?

In the past some societies have successfully combined both methods for gaining true knowledge. They saw no conflict between scientific investigation and divine revelation, and some such cultures achieved a far more sophisticated world view than what is found in today’s civilization. One of the great limitations in today’s world is the split between religion and science, which makes many people close their minds to one of the methods for gaining true knowledge. And I can assure you that the best results can be achieved only by combining both methods.

To understand why, consider how the Catholic Church degraded my teachings – that sprang from divine revelation – into a set of rigid doctrines that were clearly out of touch with reality, such as the doctrine that the Earth was the center of the universe. This dualistic fallacy was only replaced because some people used the second method of direct observation. Yet this method also has certain limitations. For example, there are many questions about life that cannot be investigated through scientific experiments (at least not with the current approach to science).

My point is that both methods can lead to a circular belief system. If divine revelation becomes influenced by the dualistic power plays, it will be unreliable. For example, Catholics believed only the Pope could receive divine revelation and that his word was infallible. Because science relies on observations of the material world, it cannot easily probe questions about anything beyond the material world.

If we transfer this to the Intelligent Design debate, we can see how both sides have limited their quest for real knowledge:

• The proponents of Intelligent Design are trying to reintroduce the belief in an intelligent Creator into public life and policy. They are doing this by formulating a theory which they claim is a scientific theory, and it is cast in a framework of scientific lingo and concepts. Yet is it clearly based on the biblical view of God as an all-powerful being in the sky, a being who is beyond human knowledge. These people are not willing to seriously question the basic assumptions behind their view of God. For example, it should be obvious that the biblical portrayal of God was given to people with a very limited factual knowledge of the material world. How much more could be revealed about God to people in the modern world, given that such people have a far more sophisticated understanding of the material world (thanks to science)? It should also be obvious that the view of God in the Bible is in many ways influenced by people’s dualistic mindset. So if people truly want to understand God, they need to question some of their basic assumptions. They need to look beyond the Bible and they need to use scientific methods to test their beliefs.

• The scientific materialists argue that there are certain topics that cannot be investigated through the scientific method. If something is not quantifiable or if it cannot be measured by instruments made of matter, then it cannot be investigated. The conclusion is that these people believe science cannot investigate anything beyond the material world—which is an obvious limitation of people’s ability to gain knowledge through science.
  
  Yet at the same time materialists believe science can still lead to valid conclusions about the origin of life. For example, if observations indicate that life could have evolved through a gradual process, this can be expanded into the general conclusion that there is no intelligent Creator. These people fail to see that if science cannot investigate anything beyond the material world, then it cannot lead to conclusions about the existence or non-existence of anything beyond the material world. You simply cannot have it both ways—unless you are trapped in the dualistic state of mind in which you see only what you want to see.
  
  This has even led scientists to claim that if a theory contains the concept that a material phenomenon is the result of a non-material cause, then the theory is – per definition – unscientific. What is truly unscientific is that you define limits to what a scientific investigation might reveal. This mindset is exactly what caused the Catholic church to rejects the findings of early scientists. And it proves that the scientific establishment has become as corrupted by a dualistic approach to life as were medieval church leaders.

Imagine that a group of people have lived their entire lives inside a cave that has a hole in the ceiling. Periodically, light shines through the hole, and the people are trying to find the cause of the light. Yet they have defined a paradigm which states that there is nothing outside the cave, and thus they are attempting to find the cause of the light by looking only inside the cave itself. In reality, the light is sunlight that shines through the hole during the day, but these people will never find this obvious cause as long as they refuse to look beyond their paradigm and their cave.

My point is that if you truly want to expand your understanding of the origin of life, you need to be willing to reach beyond the mental boxes created by both religion and science. And if you want a comprehensive understanding, you need to use both scientific investigation and divine revelation. You need to be willing to look beyond the Biblical view of God, and you need to consider that science could be expanded to investigate the non-material world. You might even consider that scientific methods could be combined with divine revelation to give a much more sophisticated approach to finding answers to all of life’s questions.

Back to top

Copyright © 2005 by Kim Michaels