Thank you for opening up this discussion. I was always confused on our movement's approach to evolution vs. creationism. As most of us realize, modern biology, genetics, and other subsets take the theory of evolution as the foundations upon which everything else is built. I'm grateful our movement can be comfortable enough with itself to bring these topics to light.

Well, Tokuwa, the 'movement' hasn't really had a position on it as far as I know. There are some publications that try to critique Darwinism and suggest an alternative but I don't think that alternative explanation fits the known facts as well as evolutionary theory. Some people say that there is no place for God in the theory of evolution but one can, and people did, say the same about Newton's postulation of an invisible intangible force called gravity as an explanation for the behaviour of the planets. It is rather ironic as Unification thought provides a much better philosophical underpining to spontaneous order and evolution than traditional Christian thought which is based on Greek philosophy.

Creation vs Evolution; this sounds a lot like Cain vs Abel... as scholars of Parentism, aren't we aiming to reconcile the two fighting parties, not defeat and destroy one while elevating the other? What are True Father's words on the subject, and what was the context? Carrying on the theme of marrying religion and science, creationism could be argued scientifically (at a stretch) by employing the notion of Boltzmann brains: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

Good read William. To me it sounds more like a "Cardinal" Moment,in the analogy presented. And the telescope points to the hidden face of any of Jupiter's Moons... I was not aware of "the argument of creation vs evolution is finished => it is creation" , as it appears in the ODP. I know Father asked this Korean man to give speeches (wife attended), but then how 'fundamentalist' it/he was she never told me. Then again, some measure of intellectual truculence - even in our "community" - is not entirely a vision into weightlessness, is it?

Yes I agree with you Matthew, there is no necessary dichotomy between creation and evolution. But that is how it is presented in ODP. In fact anti-evolutionism is one of the themes running through ODP cropping up again in the argument for why North Korea is the ultimate expression of Satan's view of life. Creation and evolution are different categories of thought. Creation is a theological category. Evolution a descriptive scientific category. So to try to compare them with each other is a category error. Father has spoken on this subject from time to time and some of his words are in the Cheong Song Gyong. The impression I get is that he doesn't really understand the theory of evolution as it is a straw man he is criticising. I imagine he probably had evolution explained to him by a creationist. As to Boltzmann - I'll have to read up and think about it a bit more. I am sure my brain is more than a random fluctuation!

I watched "The Secret life of chaos" with great interest. It is quite fascinating to see that we, as a "modern" society, are still working on finding out how life really works and, as our understanding grows, new theories emerge. The old ones are not 'wrong' just outdated.----- When they talked about chaos, I could not help think of examples in human behavior, more precisely the challenging teenage years when nice and well behaved children all of sudden morph into hard to cope with beings. Out of my four children, one of them went through serious "chaos" for about 2 years but once he was through that turbulent time, he turned into a kind and inspired young adult. Puzzling, but true. From my limited experience, I can say that chaos may very well be a part of the constructive process. Maybe one day, when all of our brain capacities will be fully engaged, we will understand the mysterious logic of it all.-------- There is this creationism/evolution debate but I think too that it is not such a black and white/either-or issue anymore: the answer lies somewhere in the middle, a combination of both. Evolution within the species cannot be denied. Physically, Adam and Eve must have emerged from an earthly lineage, what made them different was the spiritual dimension. That spiritual dimension is still expanding: many have noticed that children nowadays are more perceptive, more spiritually open, they "see through" people, they sense things more keenly, etc. In other words, creation is still being created as we speak and all of us, in our own ways, are part of this glorious process. Thinking of the butterfly effect, we will never know what our final contribution will be but we can be certain that whatever we think, speak and do will go out into the greater universe and join with the thoughts, words and deeds of all to form the living tapestry of the world.

I am with William 100% on this one. I feel very uncomfortable with the attitude some people seem to have toward science. In Blessing and Ideal Family, p98, there is the following: "Even if there had been a human before Adam, it was not truly human. It was the same as clay. It was not a human being even if it looked like one. According to the law of the ideal of creation approved by God it cannot be considered a human being. Only Adam is a human being as desired by God. To restore this through indemnity is the mission of the Second Coming of the Messiah." In the strict Ideal of Creation sense before Adam there were no human beings. After the fall of Adam and Eve there no human beings either -- again, in the strict sense of the Ideal of Creation. Also from my very early days in the church (1977) I remember a transcript of a question and answer session with Father where someone asked him a question about Adam and Eve. He said that Adam and Eve were born in the usual way. (Does anyone else remember that document, or even still posses it? I see this as perfectly compatible with the scientific view.

Nigel, I found the following : http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Books/SM-Mast/MSTRSP-5.htm Some of the answers on this creation issue seem to contradict themselves. One of them is:"Question: Were Adam and Eve born of God as we understand birth? That is, physiologically? Answer: Through the power of God, Adam and Eve were created as a baby is created by humans today. Man was a special creation. "

Yes, thank you very much. I've been intellectually struggling a lot in accepting some church stands on the topic, while not being able to move too much in the opposite direction. I find it absolutely true that, in terms of approach, the ODP does not pursue in this particular subject what the DP seeks for, that is unity amongst science and religion. At the ODP ws here in San Marino, the all part related to this subject was discussed and given direction all the way to Creationism, but in the end it all came back to the doubt of Creative Evolution... what's the point there? Again, thank you. David

I also found this, taken from the Unification thought:"According to Christian fundamentalism, God created an adult man without a navel, literally "from the dust of the ground," instantaneously. Was it really so? From the viewpoint of Unification Thought, all beings are to be perfected through a period of growth. Accordingly, they cannot appear in their perfected forms, instantaneously. Creation took place systematically and developmentally, beginning with something simple and gradually developing to higher and more complex things, taking the simple as material for the complex. In addition, creation took place in such an order that the environment was prepared first, and then living beings were formed in it. Therefore the human being, who is the ruler of all creation, was created last, after all the natural environment was made."----It's taken from paragraph 6 on the following link:http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Books/EvolTheo/EvolTheo-03.htm The link to the Unification Thought on the evolution topic is:http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Books/EvolTheo/0-Toc.htm-----

So I am wondering how it is that such a peculiar expression of the Principle is being taught and promoted under the title of Original Divine Principle. It has errors much more serious than this one. When I point them out to people the first reaction is usually, 'Did Father approve of the lectures?' This in itself I find a curious reaction. So what if he did? Does that make any difference in terms of the truth or falsity of particular statements? Presumably he has sat through them or at least looked through the book as he has apparently 'authorised' Rev Yu to travel around the world teaching ODP. So I find the general lack of interest in the Principle amongst most Unification Church members such that they are often not interested in studying it, discussing it or arguing about it curious too.

I think the article linked to the Unification Thought makes clear the Unification Church's view on this matter. That we do not refute physical, scientific findings but disagree with the theory of evolution on the basis of it's assertation that the development of more and more complex organisms is purely coincidential. Instead our theory states that leaps in the development of humans beginning from the base elements on earth (referred to as "dust" in the bible) moving up through the various stages of life, were driven by the logos of God interacting with the physical world. Henceforth, not a random occurance. It goes on to suggest a few research papers that offer conclusions which lend themselves to our theory. One such paper questioning the ability of our mind to directly affect our DNA when one person was cured of a genetic disorder using a hypnosis technique. Other links in the above comments suggest that True Fathers view on the emergence of humans occured not through the normal proccesses of the development of life but the physical shell of the human form was used and we breathed in the "breath of God" through the nostrils. This suggests the spiritual aspect of humans to feel deep emotions and think deep thoughts and show creativity of a similar level to God's was endowed to us in a sudden burst of activity. From this point the purpose of the universe was realised. My question is, what is taught in the ODP lectures?

William, it is good that you generate such discussions. It is good for all of us to think, investigate, form our own opinions. That makes a discussion such a learning experience. I like it because I feel more alive when my intellect is engaged, when I dig deeper and ponder the possibilities. In an earlier blog, you talked of "midrash". I had never even heard of that word before. I found an explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash ---and thought to myself, what a great idea it is to have an opportunity to "investigate", discuss, let the juices of inspiration flow. This was done in the Jewish faith but, unfortunately it was lost in the Christian faith. Faithful were not supposed to "investigate", for God's sake NO!, the clergy did all the thinking for them, all they had to do was to believe. In the unification faith, it would do us all some good to ask questions, express opinions. It has not been a tradition but it would be good to encourage such exchange. This kind of forum/blog is such an opportunity.

I quoted most of the statements in the book in my blog. Another one is, "Principle completely complements Christianity's theory of Creation." What theory is was not explained. Another statement in support of 'Creation' and supposedly against 'Evolution' was "The species are different (sparrow, crow, tit)" This suggests that ODP supports 'special creation' which is what literalist fundamentalist Christians believe. The one thing Darwin did rule out was 'special creation' as he argued from the available evidence that all the living organisms we know of have a common origin. Subsequent research has only reinforced this basic insight. Orally Rev Yu described the theory of evolution several times as the belief that human beings are descended from monkeys which is of course a gross misrepresentation. To assert that evolution is 'random' or 'guided' is to make a philosophical and not a scientific statement. Neither are intrinsic to the theory.

“...we should dispense with the conservative attitude of faith which makes us afraid to question conventional beliefs and traditional doctrines.” Taken straight from the Divine Principle, Chapter 4 Section 2.5 In our study group yesterday, the participants all noted how the culture in our Unificationist community doesn't allow the freedom and witholds the trust to question things. This has to change.

Michael Rawlence wrote:"One such paper questioning the ability of our mind to directly affect our DNA when one person was cured of genetic disorder using a hypnosis technique."----I have studied healing techniques for many years and am very interested in that topic. It started in the 90s when I came across Louise Hay's book :"You can heal your life". I have studied Reiki, Pranic Healing and Healing Touch. What do they all have in common? They open our mind to the possibility of healing. The ability to heal is within, Einstein said it, Deepak Chopra said that our brain is our #1 pharmacy. I found an example of a healing of a genetic disorder through hypnosis:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrVE2cfGnxE How can hypnosis work? It works when the hypnotist and the one hypnotized are 100% aligned with the possibility of healing. In the tape it shows that when the hypnotist doubts, the result is not the same. When it worked the first time, what happened? The hypnotist tapped into the Divine power in him: God the Creator is not apart from us, He is also in us. But the ego, the human ego has to be put aside to align with the Divine and this has always been the struggle. But, when the alignment is achieved and people are cured, unexplainable/spontaneous healing takes place, they call it a miracle but all it is, really, is tapping in the Divine within. It should not be called a miracle, it should be the norm. More on placebo effect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP39e6eLu34

I read this article yesterday concerning arguments against Intelligent Design. John Avise argues that many things about life do not look like they are intelligently designed, but see much better explained by random tinkering than by thoughtful design. For example disorders of gene transcription and regulation, the unreliability of mitochondrial DNA, duplicons, etc... He proposes that evolution can go hand in hand with major religions, by doing away with the theory of intelligent design. What do you think william? here's the link to the article. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/05/04/0914609107.full.pdf+html

I agree with him. There are so many 'design faults' in the human body such as lower back weakness because originally we used 4 limbs to get about so the lower back was not 'designed' to bear the whole weight of the upper body. It is easy to chart the development of a complex organ such as the eye by incremental stages based on natural selection. The ID argument only holds water in explaining the starting conditions of the Big Bang. Had they been at all different there would not be a universe capable of producing conscious life forms. As an alternative to Darwinian evolution I think ID is scientifically, philosophically and theologically illiterate. I have spoken to some of its founders and advocates such as Jonathan Wells and was not impressed. The reason why people feel the need for it is because they are wedded to Greek philosophical categories which cannot explain self-generated order. I wrote a thesis on 'Spontaneous Order and Unificationism' which showed that Unification Thought is far more compatible with evolution than traditional Christian theology which is based on Greek philosophy. There are UC members who espouse ID but I think they are mistaken. I have a lecture presentation on this I can give if you want to organise it!

"They look as if they are the product of design but are actually examples of self-generated ‘purposeless’ order" One point to add to the discussion is that 'purposeless' order comes about because the 'laws' (really, maths,) governing the forces in this physical universe enable the structures here (like atoms) to form complex structures in temporary stable states. These themselves then form more complex structures, which can exhibit emergent properties and 'macro' rules that influence their behaviour. So we get all our complexity from the mathematics and the physical constants in this universe. The fact that there is another universe (with different laws and constants) congruent to, and connected in some as yet unknown way to this one will probably make a huge difference to the discussion, but in any case - I think the question isn't 'was the universe designed', but how did that super complex maths and those constants come about.

William wrote:There are UC members who espouse ID but I think they are mistaken. I have a lecture presentation on this I can give if you want to organise it!"-----If you do give this talk, could someone film it and put it on YouTube for those of us who cannot possibly come to it in person. That would be great!

"There is so much evidence that it happened" If this is the case is the "Icons of Evolution" criticism of bad science valid, or what about the claims of proponents of intelligent design? I would also like to know what is the evidence for evolution between species.

That all living organisms have a common origin seems to be the only conclusion one can draw from the fact that all life is based on DNA, the most complex molecule in the known universe. So all life is one. We are connected to all living organisms at a very deep level. Every species has a different number of chromosomes and genes which results in different genomes and thus phenomes. How such changes come about is a matter of scientific research. Also the process by which DNA came to exist is also unknown but may be discovered in the future. Another argument for evolution is homology, the interesting fact that salamanders, bats, porpoises, birds, crocodiles and humans all have 5 'fingers.'i.e. variations or modifications of the same pattern suggesting a common origin. This is unlike motor vehicles which are individually designed for a particular purpose. Motor bikes have 2 wheels, cars have 4, vans have 6 and lorries (trucks for any Americans out there) up to 20 or so. If every species was individually designed by God or the product of an intelligent designer one would expect them to be tailor made instead of based on the same model with all the weaknesses and problems that entails - rather like the first motor vehicles which had an engine fixed on to a wooden horse drawn carriage. Other evidence is the fossil record showing the development of new species with greater complexity. If there was a designer who really was intelligent why all these primitive prototypes? So evolution - the idea that all living organisms have common ancestors as appears in the classic tree strikes me as indisputable. The mechanism or process by which evolution happens? There are a number of theories none of which is able to give an adequate or complete explanation so far. But it is a very fruitful research program with many holes which are gradually being filled. Present theories will be adjusted and changed or maybe even overthrown as new evidence comes in. This is normal in science. In physics the theories of quantum mechanics and relativity are irreconcilable at the moment but that doesn't mean they should be trashed. They are merely the latest and best explanation of how things are in the areas where they work. The same can be said about the theory of evolution. ID as an alternative to evolution begs more questions that it answers and is not susceptible to scientific testing or proof. It can never be anything other than an assertion or piety.

Doris, there are very interesting implications of the idea of spontaneous order for human society. This was explored in some depth by F.A. Hayek. It supports the idea that a complex, fruitful, creative, progressive, diverse, self-adjusting and maintaining social order comes about when a society is based on simple universal laws which create a framework for people to have the freedom to pursue their own interests. This would suggest that the free market and limited government are the right recipe for a good society. Charles Murray in his book In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government explains all this in more detail.

William wrote"This would suggest that the free market and limited government are the right recipe for a good society." -----This made me think of Ronald Reagan who said:"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Needless to say, he is greatly missed.

Perhaps the origial divine principle lectures are emphasising that God is the original creator & that God's principles preexisted creation of the universe. Father emphasises that masculinity & feminity or positivity & negativity are prerquisites for all creation & development.This is the process of creation & development & not just spontaneous evolution.

To kick here a comment off, I would say it definitely works, the so-called "mental rehearsal" especially concerning sportive activities. An example: My desire is to go hiking in Cornwall - starting at Newquay and ending in Plymouth. When doing the "rehearsal" in my mind (thinking the way through, meditating, planning, reading about it, setting goals, peparing, thinking again) it builds up an enormous healthy pulling power and provides tremendous confidence of reaching that final goal: Plymouth. Thanks for the description above!

thanks Jeff....this ties in with Dr David Hamiltons work...went to a couple of his book launches latest one 'Why Kindness is Good For You'...He has done a lot of research on how the mind influences the body ...and for example Meditation effects our very DNA by linking up with existing studies on the subject at Harvard 'The mind creates chemical changes in the brain and around the body. Hormone levels change, cells change, and genes express themselves, producing proteins all around the brain and body. In a 2005 paper, Eric Kandel, 2000 Nobel Prizewinner in Medicine, even wrote, ‘There’s no longer any doubt that psychotherapy can result in detectable changes in the brain.’ A new way of thinking about something activates different brain regions from before, encouraging blood flow in a new direction, leading to actual structural changes in the brain, often in the region of the prefrontal cortex' His latest book is very inspiring and presents the effects of an unconditionally giving nature on our health http://www.drdavidhamilton.com/

I don't think it is unusual for a scientist to receive this award: The Templeton Foundation gives funding to scientists to do research into religious matters. The mission of the John Templeton Foundation is: "to serve as a philanthropic catalyst for scientific discovery on what scientists and philosophers call the 'Big Questions.' Ranging from questions about the laws of nature to the nature of creativity and consciousness, the Foundation’s philanthropic vision is derived from Sir John’s resolute belief that rigorous research and cutting-edge scholarship is at the very heart of new discoveries and human progress." Rather than an exception, he is one of the many.

Just to clarify, I'm attacking the scientific and religious ignorance of the London Lite, not of Nancy! Thank you, Nancy, for writing this blog and giving me the chance to comment on a matter that affects me both as a scientist and a man of faith.

The thing that draw me closest to the Divine Principle was the way it tried to reconcile the Spiritual Path with scientific knowledge, proposing that they were not to be separated but united as Truth.

There's a really interesting book for the scientifically minded by J E Best called Link and Communique - its available second hand on Amazon. Its about Dr Best, a UK scientist, who's nuclear physicist fiancee died in 1971. They were able to communicate after her death about the physics of the spirit world and the connections between there and here.