Evolution, Creation, Intelligent Design, Hybrids

My latest 653-page e-book entitled 'DEBATE RESOLVED: Evolution, Creation, Intelligent Design and Hybrids' (Oct 17, 2011) is now available on Amazon's KINDLE publication format ($2.99).

SAMPLES FROM e-BOOK:

PROLOG

This e-book has a life that began with 28 pages of recommendations to a high school teacher who requested ways of addressing a publisher’s three questions on the Neo-Evolution vs. Creation debate. This was in May 2005. Since then I expanded similar Q&A’s in various media, participated in public debates (2007-2009) during which I noticed that such debates could be improved.

I look back to the successful high level Evolution vs. Creation debates that were held during the 1970’s and early 1980’s. Dr. Henry M. Morris and Dr. Duane T. Gish had used their newly developed Creation Scientific Model to challenge those who defended the Evolution Scientific Model. The Debates’ format was very constructive and contributed strategically in addressing many key issues that required further clarification.

The debaters were well prepared and well-disciplined and even if some of the debaters appeared to have lost in this round, the debate exercise itself helped to rejuvenate the debaters and the audience thus helping them to energize and look forward to the next round of the continuing series of debates.

Were these debates educational? Certainly! Did they help open issues and areas that were closed or bypassed in various publications: scientific articles, textbooks, tapes or previous debates? Yes! It often occurred that past debaters appeared as visitors in the audience at later debates. During the Q&A period they participated with either questions or new interpretations.

In spite of these congenial and highly productive science and scientific method debates, they were increasingly being discouraged by the Establishment scientific boards and committees. These organizations didn’t want to expand these debates to schools and colleges. Increasingly, looming legal action was considered in allowing ‘religion’ into the schools - issues of the 'Establishment Clause'.

At the same time, it was also at this time that the Intelligent Design group appeared in their own organized debates with the neo-Evolutionist. Soon after, there also re-emerged the neo-Theistic Evolutionists, the Progressive Evolutionists; Old Earth Creationists and also those who introduced Framework Interpretations.

It was difficult to recognize that all of these debaters were really debating about science and the scientific method; and many of these appeared to have offered highly polarizing ideas.

Clearly, the unending ‘Evolution-Creation-Intelligent Design-Hybrids’ debate actually reflected an underlying ideological rather than a strictly ‘science’ and ‘scientific methods’ approach. This was particularly true when the semi-rational ‘debunkers’ came into the fray. Few of the debaters actually came close to defining what is truly ‘scientific.’ For example, there were instances where the fully qualified scientist – a ‘Young Earth Creationist’ (YEC)- would state something that the materialistic uniformitarian neo-evolutionist would agree (empirical data), but an argument started just because the initiating scientist was a YEC debater.

Cryptic ideological presuppositions introduced relative quasi-scientific issues - see 2.4.6- ‘National Academy of Sciences’ Rule Book’ and 2.5.4-‘Court Decisions on What is ‘Scientific.' The concept of the 3.2 - ‘Econo-Mythological Vehicle’ provides scientific sources to the dawn of time. Readers will be surprised by the true definition of ‘materialism,’ which lies as a platform/infrastructure under the concept of ‘Evolution’ – see Part 2: 11 - ‘Materialism/ Physicalism -Definition,' and Part 2: 6 - Science & the Scientific Method;’ 2.4.6 -‘Scientists – Professional and Ideological’ and others. Here, it is clearly proved that all neo-evolutionists are essentially materialist uniformitarians.

Our contemporary education curriculum does not include the notion of 2.4.3-‘Objective Unfettered Scientific Method (OUSM)’ where among other things the process of 'dating' archeological and geological sites is actually to be placed in the fifth step in OUSM and not in the first.

Christianity, which had been the foundation of a two millennial civilization - Christendom, today has diversified itself to such a degree that its original Biblical concepts of a historical ‘recent creation’ that is measured in thousands and not millions/billions of years, is now maintained, researched and defended on scientific grounds by only a few organizations – e.g., ‘Young Earth Creation’ (Baptist), and some conservative groups of the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches. Within this content I’ve also explored valuable historical and documentary areas and applications of: geometric natural law; geometric solids, energy flux density; latest translations of the Greek Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, and the principles of project management. 

We should not forget that the earliest 19th century ‘Evolution-Creation/Catastrophic-Hybrid debate’ was immersed among a number of other key works that were formulated and published in England during or before the 19th century: ‘Darwinism (1860), Malthusianism (1798), Adam Smith (1776), Marxism (1867), Freemasonry (mid-16th century), social re-engineering - eugenics (1883) (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics). As a group, these latter works were designed to support, promote and ensure the authority of the International Monetarist System (concept of Oligarchic British Imperialism & Colonialism). It was easy to notice that those who promote one of the latter groups – e.g., Evolution, were sure to also associate with those in the other key areas (e.g., eugenics). These groups were designed to: a) project and promote the appearance of being ‘scientific,’ and b) all were designed to provide an alternative to the great American Experiment – the American Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence; Hamiltonian credit-based Banking and Manufacturers, etc.

PART 1 – THE DEBATES’ BASICS

Sumerian science and its method continued to develop as it navigated from one civilization to the next where favorable conditions for scientific development existed. In this and in my previous books, I examined the history, the science and what underlies true and false ‘science’ and the ‘scientific method.’

Among issues that have often slipped from the debates’ content, were the:

1. 3D Management Model (3DMM) – management of the accurate knowledgebase - source of 'conditional certainty'

2. 8-point decision-making and problem-solving (DMPS) - the process used to resolves 'uncertainty' and return to 'conditional certainty'- 3DMM (#1 above).
3. Objective & Unfettered Scientific Method (OUSM).
4. 5-level Qualitative Change/Infrastructural Management. 
5. 5 Mental Models of Thinking. 
6. 12 Limitations of Science. 
7. 7 frameworks that determine ‘facts.’ 
8. Examination of the ‘National Academy of Science’s 24 scientific rules.' 
9. At least 18 false science positions, interpretations that are magnified during many debates.
10. Geometric Natural Law; Geometric Solids; Energy Flux Density vs. Algebraic Rules.
11. Religion is re-examined in a wider context - it comes in many forms: cults, philosophies, theologies, ideologies and even includes the materialists' views. 
12. A reexamination of what is 'materialism / physicalism' and 'uniformitarianism.
13. The difference brought by the 'Greek Septuagint' genealogies and chronology.
14. Creation management laws.
15. Measure Ideologies & Religions - by using the Spider Web Tool.
16. Road to Modernism and Theolution 
17. A 'science' and 'scientific method' that leads to 'zombiism' and from a '3D Management Model' to a truncated '2D Management Model.' 
18. Whose axioms are identical with those of the 'Flat Earth Society'.'

Reading this content allows the reader to use Figures and Tables as 'Scientific Score Cards' to help them determine who among the debating proponents (Evolution, Creation, Intelligent Design, Hybrid Uniformitarian) is most ‘scientific’ in their approach, and who applies the ‘scientific method’ most consistently and accurately.