The Evolution-Creation debate, which has been increasing with intensity rather than diminishing with
clarity, must, without a doubt, be resolved at the level of definitions and concepts. On the one hand, as it
will be shown below, the Evolution-Creation debate is actually a debate between Pantheism vs. Supra-
monotheism. All other positions, arguments and views inevitably fit between these two key positions. On
the other hand, this issue bears on determining what constitutes the scientific method, and what effect do
these contrasting views have upon social and political life? Can these issues be discussed in scientific
terms?

This debate is not conducted somewhere in the corner. Formidable forces re-entrench and re-emerge to
sway public opinion and national policy. The Evolution-Creation debate had been running for decades, but
recently additional forces jumped into the debate in an attempt to balance, synthesize, or provide new
evidence to help reexamine the issues. The additional players - theistic evolutionists, progressive
creationists, and Intelligent Design (ID) groups are well financed and have quickly gained significant
"market share" in the debate. Where previously this had been a 60-40% debate between theE vo lu tion ists
(long-age uniformitarianism) andCrea tio n is ts (young age universe and world Flood catastrophism), today
the pie is divided into smaller pieces among a greater number of players.

\u2022 Have access to, examine and evaluate the same scientific data and information
\u2022 For the most part, understand each other\u2019s literature, research and concepts.
\u2022 Have constructed workable scientific models to allow them to interpret and

It is at the theoretical and hypothetical levels that ideological theory is introduced to confound scientific
theory and hypotheses. It is clearly ideological theory that tends to lead scientific theory towards a limited
descriptive method that is used to arbitrarily connect the random data. Inevitably, many of the scientists,
policy makers and the public confuse ideological theory with scientific theory. This confusion is done
innocently, as well as, in a pre-meditative manner to gain political rather scientific advantage.

Upon closer examination, the editor\u2019s first question contains at least fourteen (14) inferences - that:
1) A clear contrast between evolution and religion
2) Evolution is not a religion
3) Evolution and Religion are antonyms in their basic concept
4) Evolution is scientific
5) Religion is not scientific
6) Religion may or may not include Evolution
7) Religion is not linked to reality as evolution is
8) Religion is potentially anti-evolutionary
9) Evolution is realistic, scientific and rational, whereas,
10) Religion is abstract, unscientific and potentially irrational
11) Evolution is potentially anti-religious
12) Evolution can be included in religion, but is not a religion itself
13) Evolution is a new reality, whereas religion has deep historical and cultural roots, in

These fourteen notions help us determine whether the evolution-religion question is a scientific or an
ideological question. It will also help us determine whether this question should be re-formulated in some
other way in order for it to meet scientific criteria?

a) Regardless of its direction - upward, sideways (laterally), or downward (i.e., de-evolution) - the term simply means directional consistent changein tern ally and/or as an adaptation to changes in an environment.

b) Implies structural cohesiveness that is potentially changeable (mechanical
wear & tear, organic life cycles, process adjustments, alignments) within an
environment. In other words it implies the existence of a framework, design
(e.g., aircraft, bird, plant, material) and has a potential for application and
function.

c) Applied force(s) to the structure results in directional, as well as, potentially
phased movement (e.g., acceleration, deceleration). Both the force and the
structure may undergo variable change while the displacement occurs.

e) Forces can result in micro-changes [i.e., compounds and molecules can adapt
only within the limits of their existing (programmed, genetic) internal
conditions]; or,hypo thetica lly, macro-changes (i.e., change from one compound
into another, or from molecules to others outside the limits of existing internal
conditions - programmed, genetic).

Creation scientists may also be evolutionists because they recognize all of the above evolutionary changes, except the last one - macro-change. Needless to say, all except macro-change are reproducible in the lab. Yet, Evolutionists have literally redefined the term "evolution" to mean macro-change, which implies qualitative and in most cases an upward moving change.

To better understand the almost alchemic macro-change it is better to examine five types of change in
flowcharted formats (see Figure 1), which help identify: 1) no change (copy); 2) change (adaptation); 3)
improvement (self-re-engineering); 4) innovation (self-re-design); and 5) invention (executive purposeful
change). This type of flowcharted analysis and concepts of change are daily considered and implemented in
industrial processes for quality improvement and re-engineering; in IT; and in cybernetics.

First unit is copied within an
environment. Minimal quality
feedback

Second entity is changed, adjusted
due to feedback on quality within
environment. Value-neutral change.
Adaptability, significant & consistent
feedback.

Third entity improved due to second
level feedback (supervisory) that
utilizes existing resources in the first
and second area, to meet
environmental challenges. Value-
based change - requiring various
degrees of self re-engineering