Creation and Evolution - Part 1

New Thought, more specifically Religious Science, doesn’t really takes a stand on the issue of creation versus evolution, because we tend not to see it as an issue. The geologic fossil record is interesting, and reveals many interesting things about the physical world, but Creation is not a physical thing – it is a act of Mind, which then unfolds itself into the physical. Creation is not of this world – it is in this world, but not of it. In looking at the evidence for evolution, which I would consider to be indisputable by this time, we are looking at a physical unfoldment of something which is beyond the scope of physical science; firmly in the realm of metaphysics.

Quite simply, there is no cause for argument. And as Einstein said, “No problem can be solved at the level of thought at which it was created.” Therefore those engaged in argument based on the assumption that creation somehow negates evolution, or vice-versa, may need to expand their thinking to a new level, in order to accommodate both views. Each is correct from its own frame of reference.

This is not the same thing as Intelligent Design, in which every specific element of each creature’s anatomy is sculpted by some unseen hand. If there was a God who meddled in the life of the world like that, free will would be a mockery, and we would be back to helplessly trying to figure out the next thing about to happen to us, instead of taking responsibility for our life and making intelligent decisions.

We believe firmly in a Universal Creative Principle, which we may call God, or any one of a number of other names and titles. How does one properly use words to describe the indescribable? We believe in the God that Jesus spoke of, and we believe that we are One with this BE-ing. We believe that our recognition and acceptance of Oneness is the key to our health and happiness.

Ernest Holmes described the Creator first as THE THING ITSELF, going from that open-ended concept to develop numerous names or descriptive words to move nearer to an understanding of that which is our very Life.

In summary, he chose two aspects to describe the action of God; Love and Law.

Love in this context is not the romantic notion we often ascribe to it; rather it is the urge to outwardly express, just as in love we want to share ourselves, reveal ourselves, multiply ourselves. Love calls on us to express our fullest BE-ing, not alone, but in relationship to others. Love is relationship. Love is desire, and only through desire is anything made to change. Love is the thought which creates a form, and the form is realized through the operation of the Law.

Law is the impassive fulfillment of desire. It is the companion to Love. The Law of mind is simply that experience unfolds according to desire. The movement of thought creates through the Law. The Law operates without favor or judgment; it is mechanical in its operation. It has been described as Fate; Karma; Providence; but it does its work intelligently. It is the medium in which we exist; like the air we breathe. We exist as the result of a chain of thoughts and desires, spiralling upward in complexity, culminating in an apparent individual capable of independent creation.

Rather than the idea of the unseen meddling hand, we recognize a bias in nature, a pressure if you like. Just as a farmer’s hand might wave to shoo the little chicks toward the door of the shelter, so does the hand of Spirit exert but a gentle guidance, tilting the randomness of chance toward an ever-increasing scope of living.

Understanding the Creative Process is the key to erasing the false dichotomy and showing that evolution is the physical result of creation in the invisible realm of the Universal Mind. Creation is virtually instant; how long does it take to have an idea - to be inspired? The process is called INVOLUTION, from the verb 'to invoke', and it represent the power of Spirit, of the Word (or the thought) going into a FORM, which then starts a physical process of EVOLUTION, a tendency for that form to be realized through physical laws.

These are two sides of the same coin, inseparable. One cannot exist without the other. Science does not approach involution, except from the study of psychology, and only in a statistical manner. This is why creation lies outside the realm of science, and has no place in it. Religion, on the other hand, deals in the realm of involution, the other side of the coin, and lacks the tools for dealing with scientific endeavor. Taken together, they would tell us much. Taken apart, each tells only half the story.