Original Dialecticalism Integration
This is now a scientific integration rather than a scientific system.
Formerly “Original Dialecticalism”
Formerly aka ”Super Creationism”
Updated 10/26/11 4:26 AM CST
The battle between “evolution” and creationism is over!
We are just beginning to explain original dialecticalism (super creationism). Our explanation will be gradually revised and refined.
Original dialecticalism (super creationism) is neither an accommodation nor forced accommodation between science and religion but maintains the integrity of both. Abcreationists (“evolutionists” [quasi-scientific because involves mysticism of luck]) and intelligent “designists” (scientific) get to retain their respective systems, which we endorse except for the mysticism of “evolutionists” and except for all of the implications of this mysticism, and creationists get to retain their quasiscientific-eschatological system, which we endorse. The creation of the universe by God is not disputed. The Genesis account remains intact. We have, of course, previously, elaborated our “human habitat” interpretation of the Genesis account, which you are free to ignore, of course, but “at your own peril” (author is smiling).
“Evolution” does not fall under the purview of matters of truth but, rather, of matters of logical consistency with established premises. A premise may be true or false. “Evolution” is logically consistent with its premises. “Evolution” has earned only hypothesis status, not theory status (see Hypothesis Proof). Original dialecticalism (super creationism) recognizes the contribution of abcreationism (“evolution”) to the advancement of human knowledge, especially, scientific knowledge, and, particularly, biological knowledge. We call our perspective on abcreationism “creationistic hypothesis.” It acknowledges all of the science of abcreationism (“evolution”) with the universally accepted caveat that every scientific hypothesis or theory has room for improvement. The main point we want to stress here is:
The scientific raw data, facts, information, and interstitial conclusions of abcreationism (“evolution”) are true and do not conflict with creationism or the Bible. However, the mysticism of “evolution” is outside of the purview of science and does conflict with creationism and the Bible.
Now, the crucial question is what to do about the “descent of man,” the scientific belief that man descended from ancient apes. Science has its boundaries. Religion has its boundaries. On rare, very rare, occasions, these two spheres of human thought, belief, and knowledge overlap. With regard to the descent of man we call this overlap:
Punctuated Disequilibrium
In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published their paper on “punctuated equilibrium.” Our interest in this theory lies in its promotion of the concept of “irregularity” in abcreationistic (“evolutionary”) thinking. This opened a great door, which allowed us to consider the possibility of “creationistic irregularity” by which we do not mean irregularity in the Genesis account but additional irregularity in the abcreationistic (“evolutionary”) timeline in such a fashion that there could be congruity between conventional abcreationistic (“evolutionary”) thinking and the Genesis account.
Ahhh, but how do we achieve such congruity without being accused by abcreationists (“evolutionists”) of violating the laws of science? Fortunately, abcreationists and, indeed, all scientists, have provided the answer, the “epistemological continuum principle” (our terminology and definitional formulation):
Scientific truth is not merely black and white. It is much more. It is a continuum between scientific ignorance and scientific law.
Having such a continuum changes the question from “Is it true?” to “Does it fit into the epistemological continuum at a point other than that of scientific fiction?” Now, science, in the modern sense of the word, does not entertain discussions of the supernatural. However, it does entertain discussions of the preternatural. Within the epistemological continuum, therefore, abcreationists (“evolutionists”) can entertain the idea of “a preternatural intervention in the abcreationistic (“evolutionary”) timeline that overrules the natural order.” This creates a logical space for, though certainly no proof of, creationism.
Creationism, on the other hand, presents us with the words “God formed man of the dust of the ground.” The phrase “dust of the ground” can correctly be understood to reference the chemicals of the ground; hence, the building blocks of life. One could argue that the phrase is a primal reference to the processes of the creationistic hypothesis (theory of abcreationism [theory of "evolution"]). This creates a logical space within the epistemological continuum of creationists for, though certainly no proof of, the creationistic hypothesis (theory of abcreationism [theory of "evolution"]).
Now, our point is that, since both “sides” allow room for, at least, a “personalized” perspective of the other side within the epistemological continuum, we can feel comfortable talking about a natural harmonization of the creationistic hypothesis (theory of abcreationism [theory of "evolution"]) and creationism.
The Reconciliation
Now, in order to overcome the “irreconcilable differences” of abcreationism and creationism we must find common ground. So what, if anything, do both systems of thought and belief have in common? The answer is the negotiation of the concept of:
abiogenesis
What is abiogenesis as defined in science?
the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes
In relation to the origin of man, abcreationism says:
Man originated indirectly from lifeless matter without preternatural intervention.
Creationism says:
Man originated directly from lifeless matter with preternatural (more specifically, supernatural) intervention.
This illuminates the two key points of contention between abcreationism and creationism:
-
preternaturality
-
causal contiguity
Preternaturality
There really is no conflict on the question of preternaturality. Abcreationism allows its possibility and creationism requires its possibility. This is not muted by the fact that abcreationism does not recognize supernaturality as a form of preternaturality.
Causal Contiguity
Now we get to the crux of the matter:
Can either side bend on the question of causal contiguity, which asks:
Is man the result of a process?
The answer to this question lies in the defintion of “man.” Abcreationism recognizes the physical and nonphysical (e.g., mental) facets of man’s being, as does creationism. Creationism says:
Man exists at the moment that his dual nature comes into being.
Abcreationism (“evolution”) says:
We only argue the question of when man’s physical nature comes into being.
This means that abcreationism puts no restriction on when man’s nonphysical nature comes into being. Therefore, one could argue that abcreationism (“evolution”) created man’s physical nature (body) and, then, God installed man’s nonphysical nature (soul) into the physical nature (body). That is a simple and lovely argument but it does not provide a full reconciliation of creationism and abcreationism.
However, note how small a difference really exists between creationism and abcreationism. It all boils down to:
Is the physical nature (body) of man the result of a process?
This is a sticking point that cannot be overcome. Therefore, we must ask:
Can there be a reconcilation of creationism and abcreationism (“evolution”) in spite of the sticking point of process?
This question is answered by addressing the scope of the disagreement. Abcreationism is only being asked to make a single category of exception. Creationism is only being asked to accept a single category of exception. Well, creationism (“human habitat” creationism) has no problem whatsoever in accepting a single category of exception. (We are reserving a discussion of classical creationism’s response as a subordinate component of our thesis. Don’t worry classical creationists, you can keep your view of creationism.)
So, the ball is in abcreationism’s (“evolution’s”) court. The question is:
Can “evolution” make a categorical exception and retain its scientific integrity?
Well, there is a little known principle, which we call the evolutionary loophole. You see…abcreationism (“evolution”):
Does not require that life had a single beginning.
This means that the entire scientific structure of abcreationism (“evolution”) can remain intact if:
We predicate that the Adam of Genesis existed on a different (creationistic) timeline.
Which in turn means that:
“Evolution” can retain its scientific integrity and make the categorical exception.
We could stop there but there is also the creationistic loophole. You see the Bible, according to one unorthodox interpretation of an incorrect translation of Genesis 6:
Talks about another line of humanoid creatures called the “Nephilim.”
Thus, we have a second reason to conclude that:
“Evolution” can retain its scientific integrity and make the categorical exception.
Now:
We have attained perfect logical reconciliation.
Any disagreement from this point:
Does not and cannot annihilate our conclusion, though we’re sure it can give our conclusion a few headaches.
So, there, in brief, are our arguments and conclusion and we have already begun the much larger and more formal presentation and apologetic for original dialecticalism (super creationism).
Now the fun begins!