You are on page 1of 21

EVOLUTION OR CREATION DEBATE

Key to Understanding the Issues
By George Grebens Introduction 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. Supramonotheism. 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 the Evolutionists (long-age uniformitarianism) and Creationists (young age universe and world Flood catastrophism), today the pie is divided into smaller pieces among a greater number of players. Who are the scientists that staff these movements? All of these scientists: • Are highly qualified, degreed, certified and leading scientists who have graduated from some of the most prestigious American universities? • Have access to, examine and evaluate the same scientific data and information • For the most part, understand each other’s literature, research and concepts. • Have constructed workable scientific models to allow them to interpret and predict scientific data and information. • Create theories that explain current data, evidence, measurements, trends, and extrapolations made in, and into the past. 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. 1. Definition of Terms When an academic decides to publish an article in a local paper on the issue of the Evolution & Creation Debate, the first question that an newspaper editor is most likely to ask is: "Do you think that teaching

evolution goes against religious beliefs?" Perhaps, this question is as good as any to examine the Evolution - Creation debate here. Upon closer examination, the editor’s 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 mythology, folklore, work of fancy, or is a substitute for down to earth reality in the absence of evolution. 14) Religion, in order to acquire a realistic foundation, must embrace evolution. 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? As it stands, the question suggests that we must first define the following terms: evolution, religion, scientific method, and scientific theory vs. ideological theory. 1.1 Definition of Evolution The generic meaning of evolution simply means directional consistent change: a) Regardless of its direction - upward, sideways (laterally), or downward (i.e., de-evolution) - the term simply means directional consistent change internally 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. d) Single or multiple forces may impact the internal structure (motor or dynamic); or external (influential, proximity, density). 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, hypothetically, 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. Figure 1: Studies of the Types of Change. # TYPE NO CHANGE, Copy FLOWCHART
st copied in 2nd

OBSERVATIONS
First unit is copied within an environment. Minimal quality feedback

1

Environment 1

Second entity is changed, adjusted CHANGE 2 Adaptation (microchange) Changed product Changing environment - leads to changed processes due to feedback on quality within environment. Value-neutral change. Adaptability, significant & consistent feedback.

Third entity improved due to second level feedback (supervisory) that IMPROVE-MENT 3 Self-re-engineering macro-change Improved product Supervisory Changing environmental condition require for self-re-engineering - a supervisory system with strategic capabilities utilizes existing resources in the first and second area, to meet environmental challenges. Valuebased change - requiring various degrees of self re-engineering

4

INNOVATION Self-re-

Improved Innovated Supervisory Conscious Changing environmental internal and external conditions

Self-awareness (consciousness) -

design Mega-change Some evolutionary theorists suggest megachanges to explain data.

require self-re-design (processes & supervisory systems) - through ‘awareness’ of the environment (internal, external) & the competitive forces.

selects from existing and other resources to modify processes and supervisory systems to overcome real and potential internal/external environmental changes.

Re-examination of all environmental, INVENTION Revolutionary change Include INNOVATION + random and semi-random application to meet new Purposes, Objectives and Strategies. Discovery of new laws of nature. Invention Executive processive, supervisory and conscious systems. Executive faculties set purpose, objectives and strategy.

5

Scientists who promote the Evolution and Creation models agree on no change (#1) - copy; micro-change (#2) - adaptive change within the scope of existing resources and processes. But Creation scientists begin to disagree on the issue of macro-change (#3, #4 and #5) - which implies self-improvement, qualitative increase in information and complexity, self-re-engineering, self-redesign, and purposeful change. These macro-changes have not been observed, nor reproduced neither in the lab nor in nature. Creation scientists, specifically, differ with those evolutionists, who get carried away in their zeal to indirectly suggest that even (#4) mega-changes - with its supervisory and conscious levels - provide the scientific data, fact and proof for evolution.

For over 170 years, evolutionary theorists have included the alleged macro- and mega-changes into their scientific hall of fame. These macro-changes were initially supposed to have occurred through ‘natural selection’ and ‘struggle for existence.’ However, as early as 1957, the Dean of Evolution, Julian Huxley has recognized the fallacy of this view. In his book "Evolution in Action," Julian Huxley wrote that: "the mysterious agencies ‘natural selection’ and ‘struggle for existence’ had been ‘highly metaphorical terms.’" He then clarified his view by stating that based upon empirical data, he ruled out all evolutionary agencies, orthgenesis and every other means that lead in an upward direction:

"With the knowledge, which has been amassed since Darwin's time, it is no longer possible to believe that evolution is brought about through the socalled inheritance of acquired characters - the direct effect of the use and misuse of organs, or of the changes in the environment; or by the conscious or unconscious will of organisms; or through the mysterious operation of some vital force; or by any other inherent tendency. What this means is the technical terms of biology, is that all the theories lumped together under the heads of orthogenesis and Lamarkism are invalidated, including Lysenko's Michurinism, which is now the officially approved theory of genetics and evolution in the USSR. They are "out"; they are no longer consistent with the facts. Indeed, in the light of modern discoveries, they no longer deserve to be called scientific theories, but can be seen as speculations without due basis of reality, or old superstitions disguised in modern dress."

Understandably, since 1957, Evolutionists have been updating the ‘natural selection’ and ‘struggle for existence’ concept by promoting mutations at the cellular and genetic levels. However, even evolutionists have found that this mutations path lead to a dead end. Evolutionists have also concluded that molecular homologies also lead to anything, and that studies in genetics - the DNA/RNA complex - become more chaotic with increasing understanding.

It is easy to recognize that Evolutionists have a desperate craving, if not an addiction for macro-, mega- and revolutionary changes because they embrace the ideology of uniformitarianism.

James Hutton (1785) and Charles Lyell (1830 "Principles of Geology") proposed the concept of uniformitarianism as a way of interpreting geologic evidence in terms of long ages that put to question the original catastrophic worldwide Flood interpretation of geologic evidence. The uniformitarian rule suggested that past reality should be viewed in terms of existing natural a) processes, b) systems and c) rates of change. In other words, we should determine or deduce that since we now see evidence of complex life, brains and systems, and we can observe and measure some rates of change (?) that occur in our present world, we should then simply postulate, extrapolate, estimate, theorize, and hypothesize that the current rates of change projected over millions and/or billions of years (through chance mutations) would ascend the evolutionary ladder of change (adaptation), improvement (self re-engineering), innovation (self-re-design), and even invention (executive decision-making) to reach the present condition of complexity.

Again, as noted above, we find that today even Evolutionists admit that none of these ‘evolving’ conditions and macro-changes are evident anywhere in the world today. Some desperate proponents of evolution have looked at all the evidence and have proposed some adjusted theories like that of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ (hopeful monster); while others speculate about a possible intervention by alien life - which is similar to what progressive creationist offer.

It has become evident that the original English term "evolution", which generally has been accepted by Creation scientists as having scientific merit, has for 170 years been re-defined and deified as "Evolution" by the latter-day pantheists [see below for specifics]. In their quest to promote their ideological purposes the

Evolutionists successfully substituted this new hypothetical meaning of "Evolution," practically to the exclusion of all other meanings of evolution. Having made this re-definition stick, the Evolutionists then set out to ‘adjust’ all other endeavors: scientific, political, judicial, social, linguistic, historical, educational and religious, so they too would reflect Evolutionary standards and benchmarks. Today, it is these ideologically adjusted definitions and concepts that lay at the foundation of the educational system, judicial and every decision-making exercise.

1.2 Definition of Religion

The journalistic question that contrasted evolution with religion on 14 implied points (see above) leads us to study the meaning of religion. The generic definition of religion is simply "faith, ritual, ethics and practices." As such, this definition includes all religions, ideologies, cults, denominations and mythologies. This definition includes not only the polytheistic, pantheistic, monotheistic and mystic, but also all ideological and non-theistic worldviews.

Libraries contain rooms of books written on the religious-ideological topic. Now, to avoid re-examining the philosophical, anthropological, and theological and other methods I propose that religion be examined from the management approach. This is the most direct approach for examining the subject for the examination here. After all, the definition of religion reflects management principles, and more specifically a decision-making and problem solving approach. This approach is then the more appropriate one for this presentation.

1.2.1 Brain’s Prioritizing Capacity

Myth can be managed. It is conceivable then to have some intellectual think tank in which all myths are created, formulated, procedurized, documented, ritualized, marketed, put to practice by trained leaders and then monitored for quality (customer satisfaction), improved or discarded - as any manufacturing process or product.

The human brain is the media where myth is managed. The human brain is a management and decision-making tool that daily seeks certainty in an environment of uncertainty and paradoxes. Once a level of certainty is attained there emerges a sense of comfort, stability, satisfaction and even happiness. However, in a condition of uncertainty the human brain uses the decision making and problems solving process to help resolve paradoxes and implement solutions. This decision making process includes specific steps, to: 1) define the problem; 2) seek alternatives; 3) filter the alternatives in terms of criteria (values); 4) implement the decisions, and 3) ensure reliability.

In other words, the brain prioritizes information, develops hierarchies of priorities, and having established the highest priority/value, the brain deprioritized all other values down to the hierarchy’s base. A clear management process emerges. In this decision-making process, it is inevitable that the highest priority/value leads towards establishing an executive purpose, objective and strategy that motivates the person, society and culture to dedicate, or to sacrifice its very life for this highest value. This highest priority is also used to legally define ‘sanity.’ And, the highest priority also acquires an overreaching almost divine character and attributes.

As an information management tool, the brain automatically, converts this highest priority into levels of action:

a) Executive level (which helps formulate the purpose, objectives and strategies)

b) Supervisory level (establishing: policy - functions of the intellect; procedures - functions of the will; and the data/information base, i.e., rules & regulations - functions of the emotions)

c) Functional level (where it can be used to perform research and development; economics; and deliver productivity)

With these management levels and plans, it is now easier to understand the content of the term ‘religion’ - faith (highest priority - purpose, objectives and strategies); ritual and practices (policies, procedures and rules); ethics (a component of the purpose, objectives and strategies); and practices that include management functional level activities - research and development, economics and productivity.

Since all of the highest values/priorities acquire superlative, overriding, executive or ‘divine’ qualities, it is therefore understandable that all ideologies and religions are fundamentally theistic through their management of the highest priority/value. Below, I will provide an even a more compelling proof for the ‘theistic’ nature of the highest priority

We should give credit to the ancients, whom we have underestimated in their ability to identify the highest priority and who metaphorically have identified this highest priority to be a "god" with its derived management levels of sub-priorities. The ancients have recognized a pluralistic and relative meaning of the highest priority/values - ‘gods.’ Their gallery of the highest executive priorities represents total management systems. For example, the epicureans and stoics, or the theory of evolution, which reflects four gods: Chronos (time), Fortuna (chance), Dionysus (chaos) who competes with Apollo (form & art). Each of these, and collectively these gods reflect their corresponding management levels.

Not all of these anthropomorphic gods, who represent man’s highest priorities, are equal. Some ‘gods’ are capricious; others are benevolent, evil and are limited or bound by their capacity, psychology, personality, motivation, challenges and natural powers. All appear to be bound by the limitation of time (past, present and future, continuous and perfective), just as human creations are confined within the limitations of time and extension.

The mind is a temporal structure and thus can only generate temporal and pseudo-infinite scopes. When communicating about the highest values and priorities, the mind uses superlatives, anthropomorphic projections, emotional frequencies, economic and mystical descriptions to depict the highest values. When such linguistic definitions fail, man resorts to mathematical models - either algebraic or geometric.

1.2.2 Algebraic or Geometric Reality?

There are two parts to contrasting the algebraic and geometric worldviews, the: a) descriptive - an introduction to the subject - found here under this heading; and the b) scientific - presented in the next section - which will be used to address various implications - e.g., definition of the scientific method.

The algebraic world (note: please follow this description with the graphic representations in Figure 2 below) begins with a ‘point’ (1) from which the mind constructs/calculates all-rational possibilities (2) - symbolic extensions - a2 * b2 = c2.(3) The algebraist’s mind fills with ‘points’ through the required extensions to formulate what become the subjective and relative realities (i.e., unbound by external law). The algebraist’s world is then either dominated by a single view of algebraic reality (totalitarian), or the pluralistic, democratic or collectivist view. These may be any theistic or non-theistic worldview. As it will be shown below, pantheistic worldviews emerge from the algebraic approach.

Figure 2 - Algebraic Reality

123

a2 * b2 = c2

The "point" "Point" extended (Euclidian). Example of algebraic symbolic representation.

Deductive. Axioms and Postulates

In contrast to the Algebraic priority and worldview, the geometric world (note: please follow this description with the graphic representations in Figure 3 below) begins with infinity, which geometrically can be represented as a ‘circle’ where there is no beginning, end, numbers, nor extension (e.g., space) (1). It is when we ‘fold’ the circle to form a diagonal AB (2) that we see the emergence of: a) ‘time’; b) space on either side of the diagonal; and c) quantity - the two areas of space (2). Fold the circle once more to form a second diagonal CD that is placed perpendicularly to the first diagonal AB (3). Where the two diagonals (AB and CD) cross, we have "point" E. (4) Let’s create an equilateral triangle, by folding and bringing side B to the point E forming line F and G (5). From F and from G lead two lines to A, thus forming the equilateral triangle AFG (6).

Figure 3 - Geometric Reality

123456

This brief exercise shows that the geometric eternal circle is the foundation for defining reality. It becomes evident that within this infinite circle, we can continue to fold and get the triangles, pentagons, octagons; the golden mean, and the three-dimensional cone with its qualitative infrastructures that evidence the higher energy densities per unit (see Figure 4a - "The Geometric Golden Mean Qualitative Infrastructures and 4b the Energy Densities" below).

This is a lawful geometric world that is reflected consistently in the Christian Bible (see below for details).

Figure 4a - The Geometric Golden Mean 4b - Qualitative Infrastructures and the Energy Densities.

One of the reasons why original Christianity could not be made to fit into the pagan Roman Pantheon of Cults is because geometric natural law identifies the infinity of the true Supra-God (Supra-Monotheism) that supersedes all other temporal algebraically derived pantheistic gods - whether theistic or secular. In other words materialism, atheism, agnosticism are nothing but reflections of algebraic highest priorities - pantheism. Let me clarify this in the next two paragraphs.

Since the algebraic "point" is not really independent from the infinite circle - i.e, the "point" (E) is located five steps and conditions down several geometric folds, it becomes clear that any human algebraic constructs that deny the existence of the pre-conditions, automatically become subjective and relative constructs. Any ‘higher priority’ or value that is conceived by a human temporal mind while excluding the circle’s (infinity) pre-conditions, the derived temporal (sub-infinity) and dimensional folds (fields), automatically establishes algebraic sub-infinite - i.e., temporal conditions. Thus priorities derived from this algebraic and temporal condition are at best pantheistic.. Pantheism is the deification of nature / temporal existence.

As it has been demonstrated, the highest priority acquires deified qualities because this highest priority derives executive management purposes and legal functions. Whether the highest priority/value is theistic, polytheistic, animalistic, ideological, non-theistic - all of these algebraic relativist views reflect essentially the worship of post-temporal priorities rather than the infinite priority. Thus all post-temporal highest priorities are essentially pantheistic. This also means that all other algebraic (non-geometric) pluralistic and relative highest priorities - whether they are theistic, polytheistic, non-theistic, animistic, philosophical or mystical worldviews, are essentially derived from the pantheistic worldview. This even places many of the denominational and non-denominational Christianities into this Pantheon of pluralistic cults, because these Christianities adhere to the algebraic rather than the geometric foundations.

At the beginning of this section it was mentioned that when contrasting the algebraic and geometric worldviews, there was the: a) descriptive issue, which provides an introduction to the scientific one, which we have seen here, and the b) scientific - which addresses the scientific implications, definition of the scientific methods, etc., this is addressed in section 1.2.3 below. This scientific issue addresses the scientific implications derived from the algebraic and geometric approaches, which are used in the attempt to describe and define reality.

It, therefore, becomes necessary to determine the character, "nature" and framework of the algebraic and geometric priorities. Which of these mathematical methods - algebraic or geometric, helps us define the scientific method? What are the pre-requisites, facts and evidence presented by these mathematical models? How does the man’s decision-making and problem-solving mind interprets reality that these mathematical models suggest?

1.2.3 Algebraic or Geometric Scientific Method?

It will be shown that the

Algebraic and Geometric approaches affect the very definitions of the scientific method. For example, the next terms reflect

scientific content and its basic concepts: method, empirical, theory, hypothesis, matter, law and models. Yet, we will see that the definition of these terms begins to mutate under the Algebraist’s pen. The Algebraist is at variance with the original and historical definitions of the terms - i.e., the Algebraist’s scientific terms acquire a narrower philosophical and ideological emphasis common to economics and accounting.

Let’s examine these varying views and implication of the Algebraic and Geometric views on the scientific method.

Definition of the Scientific Method

The generic definition of science is: the inquiry into the laws of nature through observation, remembrance, and comparison. The interpretation and confirmation of data and information is accomplished through the following means:

a) Empirical (lab)

b) Theoretical (framework interpretative, descriptive)

c) Hypothetical (possible, probable, exploratory, deductive/inductive) methods.

d) A fourth level, - hypothesis of the hypothesis, re-examination of all principles, frameworks.

The scientific process closely aligns itself with the decision-making and problem solving process, and resembles the studies of the types of change (Figure 1) presented above. Here, lets compare the scientific method with the types and levels of change. This would include:

Figure 5 - The Parallels between the Types of Change and the Scientific Method.

#

Type of Change

Steps in the Scientific Process

1

NO CHANGE Copy

The lab scientist confirms existing proven information and structures.

2

CHANGE Adaptation (microchange)

Lab evidence demonstrates data that varies from existing predictable evidence, but still conforms with existing known processes, laws and theories

Lab evidence consistently demonstrates that existing processes, laws and theories cannot explain the new facts and evidence. 3 IMPROVEMENT Self-reengineering macro-change Some improved areas of the theory may explain some phenomena but the complexity of the system requires a new theory. New theory (-ies) is/are formulated to explain the new facts and evidence. The scientists consciously rework their original process. The new theory (-ies) are then tested for adequacy, consistency, and reliability of prediction. This is the theoretical level.

4

INNOVATION Self-re-design Mega-change

The theory and evidence suggests trends, extrapolations, which scientists consider possible and probable definitions, alternatives, criteria that test the new and other theories across the board. This is the hypothesis level.

5

INVENTION Revolutionary change

Uses the hypothesis of the hypothesis method, by searching for new and higher geometric laws, framework of reference. Provide a greater range of alternatives and criteria for measurement. Search out new supervisory and executive systems.

The Algebraic Pantheist emphasizes and limits the definition of the scientific method to the empirical level (#1); and (#2) (i.e., change, adaptation and micro-change) and #3 (theory - improvement, self-engineering and macro-change) to cryptically and illegally include other types of change levels: #4 (hypothesis - i.e., innovation, self-re-design, mega-change), and excludes #5 (i.e., hypothesis of the hypothesis - invention). Evolutionists consider # 4 and #5 as being part of the statistical and economic processes of #2. The Algebraic Pantheist creates axioms and postulates that are derived through deductive reasoning.

The Algebraic Pantheist’s mathematical method, which begins with a "point" can’t account for at least sixteen conditions and "assumes" or subjectively fills in the existence of these sixteen conditions (see Figure 6 "Algebraic Subjective Reality" - below)

Figure 6::

In contrast to the limited, subjective and relative Algebraic Pantheist’s approach to the scientific method, the Geometric Supra-Monotheistic mathematical method, accepts all of the levels of the scientific method (i.e., #1 through #5, as listed in Figure 5 above), and relies on proof acquired through rigorous methods of construction within geometric laws, to construct levels of the three "I": Improvement (theory), Innovation (hypothesis) and Invention (hypothesis of the hypothesis).

It is demonstrated that the Geometric Supra-Monotheistic approach (see Figure 3 - Geometric Reality,) and (Figure 4a - the Geometric Golden Mean and 4b- Qualitative Infrastructural and Energy Density) is an objective lawful system that leads to, and conforms to the scientific method.

Also, in contrast to the algebraic pantheistic relativist method, the geometric method suggests two approaches to establishing reality and defining the scientific method: the 1) derived supra-monotheism (highest priority, value) from the geometric approach (see Figures 3 and 4); and/or the 2) revealed supra-monotheism as it is depicted in the Christian Bible. The Christian Bible describes the only theism that reflects the geometric approach and scientific method.

Both geometric views - the derived and the revealed are presented below to demonstrate their inherent scientific approaches and methods. The Christian Bible stands in significant contrast to all other literatures and records - such as the Babylonian Talmud, Greek philosophies, Sanskrit, and other world literature. The Christian Bible contains unique features: it is -

a) A legal document with an Old and New Testament, that require a testator and inheritor

b) Two legal covenants of marriage between the prime legal party (the Eternal Lord God/Jesus Christ) and second legal party - the genealogically tracked righteous parties.

c) The Prime Party makes additional covenants and agreements with: 1) prime individuals and families that lead to the marriage covenant of the genealogical line (a); and (2) with some who are in proximity and are not of the prime genealogical line (Esau, Ishmaelite, Nineveh, etc.)

d) A management document that identifies a three-level management structure that describes - management design, operational and stylistic levels. 1) Management design, for example, includes a total of nine (3 x 3) plans: i) executive plans of purpose, objectives, strategies, vision, missions, ii) supervisory plans of policies, procedures, rules & regulations; and iii) functional plans of research & development, economics and productivity (quality assurance). Similarly, the management operational level includes another nine (3 x 3) management plans such as planning, directing, leadership, finance and others. The management style level also includes an additional nine (3 x 3) management plans such as: ethics, attitude, dignity, integrity, self-determination and others.

These are designed to help: 1) manage the Kingdom of God, which provides a net contrast to the Kingdom of Babylon contract (algebraic pantheism); 2) determine psychology (a) executive functions - spirit; (b) supervisory functions - psyche (soul); and (c) functional (physical - search, development, economic, productivity); 3) Identify the functions of the Decalogue, priesthood, authority, etc.

e) A document that records a 4000 to 6000 years of history, precedents, case histories, civilizations, forecasts based on geometric natural law (e.g., Decalogue), identification of the righteous personalities and multitudes of people who carry the original Kingdom Covenant and Christian message to the end of time. The Christian Bible’s stylistic uniqueness and originality has not been duplicated or surpassed in world literatures (such as its combined: narrative style, poetry, total musicality, mathematical stylistic patterns). Written by over 40 writers across 4000 years, these writers, who wrote in several languages, consistently demonstrated the Kingdom of God’s vision, mission, strategies within geometric natural law, and total coordination of theme, history and purpose.

f) The first chapter of the Christian Bible is a legal text that reflects geometric natural law as Creation’s underlying fiber, and the style of the Prime Contractor - the Creator. The Creator creates His highest creature that is made in the image of God. It is this Man that identifies the Creator as the Eternal Lord God in Genesis 2ff - i.e., the second party to the Covenant sees the First Party as being the Eternal Lord God - emphasizing His eternal nature, executive power and designated name.

This provides a few brief points about the revealed portion in the Christian Bible, but let’s see how: 1) the first six geometric process figures (law) (see Figure 2 in Figure 7 below); and 2) the corresponding first three verses in the book of Genesis, suggest the scientific method and scientific evidence.

Figure 7 - A Comparison of Geometric Law - Derived or Revealed (below).

NOTE: Geometry is a mathematical branch, whose term is derived from the Greek concept of "land measuring" and is extended to encompass all lawful referential relationships. In contrast to Euclidean/Aristotelian (algebraic) geometry, which is established upon axioms and postulates that are derived through deductive methods of reasons; the Greek Platonic geometry (‘non-Euclidean’ geometry) relies on proof acquired through rigorous methods of construction.

NOTE: Follow Figure 2 Geometric Reality while reading the following comparison.

123456

Figure 7 - A Comparison of Geometric Law - Derived or Revealed.

#

GEOMETRIC NATURAL LAW

CHRISTIAN BIBLICAL GEOMETRIC NATURAL LAW

The infinite dynamic circle, which has no beginning nor end, numbers nor space, is the best rational construction that the temporal human 1 mind can understand about infinity and from which time (a subsystem of eternity) is structurally initiated as a base for all other structures within eternity.

The Biblical passage - "In the beginning [time] God [infinite circle] created…" (Gen 1:1) The Christian Bible begins with infinity and the creation of time (sub-infinity). In this text, the Bible provides the name of eternity - God - the Creator. No man observed this creation except God. Later, John I:I identifies another aspect of the Creator - His name is the "Word" - the formulator, and this "Word" was with God (the Father - the non-Word entity.) We now have two personalities of the Trinity identified. When speaking with Moses, God identifies Himself as the "I Am" (eternity) - the condition of being.

Law is viewed as geometric constructs within the infinite circle or sphere, foldings, field areas of convergence or crossings, along, inside, outside diverging - here, law is seen as an integral part of the 2 very foundations of Creation. From the managerial point of view, Law is an executive plan that reflects Purpose and identify; whereas rules (which are sometimes mis-defined as ‘laws’) are supervisory level plans. More specifically rules pertain to the database of information, while laws to the executive fabric of Creation. Law is viewed as geometric constructs within the infinite circle or sphere, foldings, field areas of convergence or crossings, along, inside, outside diverging - here, law is seen as an integral part of the very foundations of Creation. From the managerial point of view, Law is an executive plan that reflects Purpose and identify; whereas rules (which are sometimes mis-defined as ‘laws’) are supervisory level plans. More specifically rules pertain to the database of information, while laws to the executive fabric of Creation.

Divine Law can be understood by constructing, theorizing and hypothesizing, and by reflecting upon Natural Law (see below). Reflecting and extending the attributes of natural law can help approximate divine law. For example, the nature of infinity (without 3 beginning or end) must represent an eternal presence - i.e., the act of being, total perfection, wisdom, and knowledge since all is created and originates from no other source other than infinity. There is nothing in time that is un-knowable within infinity, because time is a sub-set of infinity. Divine Law - revealed to man through geometric and covenant law. Mankind being made and subject to natural law understands communication that complies with Divine and natural laws. Man, with his temporal faculties cannot recognize the nature of infinity and total Divine Law. Divine revealed law, perfect creation and communication, are revealed from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation. In fact, the content of Genesis’ first chapter is written from the Creator’s point of view since man had not been there from the "beginning" (creation of time). Evidence of the 10 Commandments is clearly present from the first three chapters of the book of Genesis and concurred by evidence in other Biblical books.

Natural Law - geometric constructs that become evident in, and become the very fabric in all of creation and the structure of and definition of reality and sanity. These are discoverable laws and are at 4 the foundations of all mathematics, science, technology, engineering, government, society, history, psychology, communication and development. Natural Law - geometric constructs that become evident in, and become the very fabric in all of creation and the structure of and definition of reality and sanity. These are discoverable laws and are at the foundations of all mathematics, science, technology, engineering, government, society, history, psychology, communication and development.

Language, communication, and mathematics are languages with their own: a) Words (data, information, concepts, definitions) b) Sentence (formulas) c) Grammar (rules) d) Syntax (specific formula 5 constructs - sentences and rules: simple, complex, subordinates, compound, integral, etc.) e) Stylistics (strategic arrangements to ensure clarity, accuracy and purpose of message).

Documented - not an oral tradition, the Christian Bible documents Divine communication with man through covenants, agreements, testaments, history, management plans, missions, forecasts and visions. The Christian Bible tracks historical events and specific genealogies of the righteous Covenant line and some identifiable divergences from the righteous Covenant line. As a legal document should, it contains case studies, judgments, statutes, history, strategies, policies, practices, rules, development, research, economics, productivity, quality standards, defense, science, engineering, sociology, psychology, etc.

The biblical passage "..the heavens…" (Gen 1:1) Note that ‘the heavens’ is a dual form, which suggests The creation of time (diagonal AB - see #2 in Figure 3 - Geometric Reality) creates conditions of: 1) "Counting," numerics, mathematics 6 2) Two areas of space on either side of the temporal fold diagonal (AB) 3) Extension 4) Direction mathematics 2) Two areas of space on either side of the temporal fold diagonal (AB) 3) Extension 4) Direction two areas on either sides of the time (AB) diagonal, thus providing: 1) "Counting," numerics,

7

By folding the circle a second time to form a second diagonal CD,

The plural term in the biblical passage "..the heavens…" reflects this second fold CD within infinity (see

that is placed perpendicularly to the first diagonal AB (see #3 in Figure 3 - Geometric Reality), the geometric field lines allow for the creation of: 1) Comparison 2) Reflection 3) Texture 4) Relations 5) Logic

#3 in Figure 3 - Geometric Reality), and this includes the creation of: 1) Comparison 2) Reflection 3) Texture 4) Relations 5) Logic

"…and the earth. [Gen 1: verse 2], now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the face of the deep…" (Genesis 1:1-2) Some Christian authorities see in this passage the created original primeval planet Earth, which was formless (whether: a) describing its surface or general mass itself, or b) a condition after some catastrophic event - that would help accommodate a long period of time). However, the geometric approach does not show the planet Earth, but clearly shows that the formlessness and Identify Point E. Where the two diagonals cross (AB; CD), we have 8 "point" E (see #4 in Figure 3 - Geometric Reality) This is a geometric force field focus within dimensional or spherical space. emptiness of ‘earth’ is the crossing (focus) of two geometric fields (foldings) within dimensional or spherical space. The Hebrew term for "earth" ['erets: H776] in verse 1 can be translated as "firmness" - a condition that represents a "firm" location (point "E") where two folds cross (diagonal folds AB and CD). The second verse, shows that the condition of "firmness": • Didn’t have any shape (form) since it was a condition of two field foci. • Was "empty" (‘firmness with no content of itself) • Occupied a place in space ‘where darkness was over the face of the deep/abyss (space)’. At this stage, this field/fold didn’t affect space with any type of energy - (see verse 3 for this energy).

Equilateral Triangle - Reference # 5 & # 6 in Figure 3 - Geometric Reality In Genesis 1:2 - "…and the Spirit of God (mighty wind) was hovering (moved) over the (the face of the) waters." This is where Equilateral Triangle - Reference # 5 & # 6 in Figure 3 - Geometric Reality. Create an equilateral triangle, by folding and bringing side B to the point E thus forming line F and G (5). From F and from G lead 9 two lines to A, thus forming the equilateral triangle AFG (#6). This suggests interplay of the existing geometric lines, to create a geometric ‘force-field’, that instrumentally form bounded gravitational forces and the preconditions for the electromagnetic spectrum. the third person of the Trinity is introduced - the "Spirit of God/the mighty wind). This God’s Spirit introduces: a) movement - to move what was a static condition, and b) to introduce change, c) among the multitudes (waters) of "points" - "firmnesses" (earth) in the vast expanses of dark space. We see d) gravitational forces forming among the "waters" - numberless "firmnesses" coming together within the geometric lines and gravitational or field forces (geometric triangles) to create solids and bodies. It is with the formation of the geometric diagonals and specifically equilateral triangle (gravity and force fields) that the necessary pre-conditions appear for the creation of E) electromagnetism, sub-atomic, atomic and molecular hard bodies in space in Genesis 1:3 - the appearance of "light" - ('owr: Hebrew 216 'owr, ore; from H215; illumination or (concr.) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.):--bright, clear, + day, light (-ning), morning, sun.) - reference Strong’s Concordance.

These two geometric approaches (derived and revealed) clearly demonstrate the interweaving of geometric reality with its incremental development of the Geometric Golden Mean and Qualitative Infrastructural and Energy Density (Figure 4).

Beside these starting evidences, the geometric approach #1 through #6 (Figure 7) suggests at least 60 additional constructional derivatives:

10) Motivation and intent - wish to communicate and to listen

11) Duration - continuous time (in the past, present and future)

12) Tenses and aspects - simple "exist" (-ed; will) includes the beginning and end of the activity - whether present, past, future); continuous "existing" (action continues as long as it is/was/will be done); perfect (have/had/will have existed" (indefinite continuing action towards completion), and other tenses.

13) Beginning (start)

14) End - (completion)

15) Quantity - (numerical, relational, formula

16) Quality - infrastructural and graded - see below application of Geometric Mean and Energy Density.

17) Measurability - reference to standards

18) Dimension - size, volume, proportions

19) Comparativeness - now with n or x

20) Division - at least two areas on either side of line AB

21) Historical - past quantities and conditions

22) Forecasting - potential, future quantities and conditions

23) - 40) Project management - plan, schedule, contract, law, timelines, functions, activities, resources, controls, mechanisms, processes, objectives, goals policies, procedures, rules, development, economics, productivity, etc.

41) Dimensions - at three +

42) Sub-and atomic matter

43) Molecular

44) Velocity speed - time, distance, rate

45) Pressure

49) - 70)+ In a separate study, I’ve shown that the 6 days of creation of the first week, and creation during the eighth+ days of the second week, correspond to and reflect the geometric golden mean (Figure 4) and the qualitative infrastructures of energy densities (Figure 4b).

The geometric fields and solids (Figure 4 - The Geometric Golden Mean and Qualitative Infrastructures and the Energy Densities) suggest that all of reality is installed or composed of lawful geometric fields, geometric solids, and infrastructural energy densities - they are built into reality’s structures or ‘fabric’. These geometric fields, solids and energy densities are evident not only at the sub-atomic, molecular, natural and animal life, as well as human and mankind’s life, but also at levels of the solar system (Kepler), intergalactic, galactic clusters, supra-clusters and network of supra-clusters.

Clearly, the definition of the scientific method acquires substance in the integral geometric law of creation, and it is not evident in the narrow subjective, algebraic and materialistic economy that cannot ascend above the empirical and a two-dimensional theoretical level, which is based on supervisory rules.

Let’s review what has been stated thus far: this paper began with a newspaper’s editor who asked the first of two questions - the question was "Do you think that teaching evolution goes against religious beliefs?"

It has become clearly that the newspaper editor’s first question (see above) reflects a dogmatic (ideological) question rather than a scientific question. The editor’s question contained mis-defined terms, which suggested at least 14 ideological inferences. These 14 inferences had to be addressed before the question could properly be formulated based on scientific terms, and then answered. After having examined these issues in Part 1 of this paper, it is now possible to properly formulate a scientific question: "Do you think that teaching pantheism goes against the original geometric law-based definition of the scientific method, and against supramonotheism? The answer is clearly in the affirmative.

2. HOW TO ADDRESS THE CONTROVERSY OF SCIENCE OF EVOLUTION IN 19 STATES

The second question that the newspaper editor asked the academic who wished to write a paper of evolution vs. creation is: "Currently 19 states are weighing proposals that question the science of evolution. How do you think the nation will address these proposals and what do you think is the best solution to this controversy?"

The answer is contingent upon four conditions today, that:

1) In view that definitions prevailing in academic, social, political circles, tend to distort the meaning of the scientific method and the role of worldviews, ideologies and religions

2) The quantity of highly qualified and authoritative scientists in all areas of the evolution-creation debate spectrum

3) The decades-old evolution-creation debate and controversy ventures into ideological pre-suppositions rather than strictly scientific issues - none of the theories are falsifiable.

4) In spite of a century and a half of evolutionary indoctrination, still over 65% of the American population adheres to the creation interpretation of origins, worldwide Flood and geological evidence for catastrophism

In view of these four conditions, it would be wise to provide a balanced evolution-creation view that is based upon the interpretation of scientific data / information within the scientific models (e.g., Evolution, Creation, Intelligent Design). And the parties must clearly identify their falsifiable points For example, evolution would stand or fall if it can be demonstrated that macroevolution is a scientific and testable reality. Creation science will stand or fall if it can be demonstrated that the original perfect Creation of the Universe had or never existed.

Similarly, everyone who is involved in the evolution-creation debate must recognize that in many cases the decision-making and problem solving process is shortcircuited. The original steps in this process are to ensure the proper decision-making and problem solving process; the input-processing-output with feedback system.

When everything is perfect, under control (processes, systems, resources, objectives are reached) then we are said to be in a condition of certainty (see 1 below). However, as soon as, a gap or anomaly appears in this ‘perfect’ system or condition, the condition and system enter uncertainty. To resolve this uncertainty we use the decision-making and problem-solving process (see 2, 3, 4) until certainty is re-established (5) and ensured (6):

2) Define the problem

3) Seek alternatives (quantitatively described)

4) Filter the alternatives (3) in terms of criteria (values)

5) Implement the decisions - re-introduction of certainty

6) Ensure reliability of the implemented decision (5) - guarantee of certainty

Yet, those who introduce an ideological, instead of a scientific approach, basically begin with step 2) (definition); and then instead of proceeding to step 3) (quantitative alternatives), they jump instead into step 4) (filter values) e.g., evolution or creation. After step 4, they then return to step 3) to find "excuses" (supporting data ‘alternatives’) supportive "evidence" for the value in step 4) I call this twisted process the Ferrari Effect. Let’s examine the correct process, and the modified Ferrari decision-making process graphically (see Figure 8).

Figure 8: Normal Steps in Decision-making and Problem solving

123456

Certainty Uncertainty ……………………………………………………… Certainty…………………..

No Decision-Making. Decision-Making………………………………………………….Problem

Solving ……………..

Perfect World Definition Alternatives Filtering Implementation

The Ferrari Effect occurs when steps 3 (alternatives) and 4 (filtering) are reversed. For example, in example 2, where the individual defines the challenge as being "I need a vehicle to meet transportation needs, within the limits of my budget," and then immediately jumps to step 4 (Filtering) by stating that the vehicle must be a Ferrari; and then returns to Step 3 (Alternatives) and provides a list of excuses (not alternatives) that favor his pre-conceived choice. This is the Ferrari Effect.

We see the Ferrari Effect in the Evolution-Creation debate, and other debates too. The proponents, provide:

• A definition (2) of the scientific problem that must be resolved - "Need a scientifically based theory or model that can answer, interpret and help predict data and evidence"

• Then jump to step 4 (Filtering) by stating that evolution runs upward (macro-change) over many long ages, or that all races have a common ancestry because Noah and his family were the only people transported on the Ark.

• Then return to Step 3 (Alternatives) and provide a list data, facts and evidence that ‘support’ the pre-conceived choice, while excluding non-conforming evidence.

This demonstrates Ideological Theory not Scientific Theory.

Needless to say, that in the current situation, the educational system must provide the correct decision-making and problem-solving method rather than the Ferrari Effect - Ideological Theory.

It is also important to understand some background information and history in order to understand what is at stake.

2.1 Some Background History

For almost 2000 years, Christendom had no doubts about:

1) The young age of the Earth and the Universe

2) The catastrophic explanation of the worldwide Flood and its geologic evidence, and

3) Its ability to distinguish between what constituted Christianity and Pantheism (paganism).

2.1.1 The Pantheist History in Action

During the past 800 - 500 years (1200-1500 A.D.), and leading up to the past 170 years, Pantheism began its penetration into Christian lands and into its institutions. The evolution vs. creation debate and controversy increased for 170 years, while extreme ideologies of Marxism, Nazism and Fabians that were inspired by Darwinism were used to weather away Christian foundations. Although during the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the Catholic Church’s Magisterium, most mainstream and Protestant scientists challenged Darwinian evolutionary ideology, it was surprising to find that it was the Christian denominational seminaries that began to promote Lyell’s uniformitarian and Darwinian evolutionary doctrines.

At the same time, the evolutionary pantheists worked systematically through all scientific disciplines and replaced the Christian Creation perspectives with pantheistic versions of uniformitarian long-ages that included ‘alchemically’ mixing concepts of local adaptations (micro-changes) of species with that of (macro-changes): i.e., through improvements (re-engineering), innovational (re-design) and inventional (executive) changes.

This replacement of the Christian Creation worldview was accomplished not because evolutionists presented clear scientific evidence that supported their evolutionary doctrine, but because the pantheists in all areas of authority began to:

a) Redefine the terms (science, scientific method, religion); and concepts (long ages, geologic column, providing descriptive rather than factual missing links between every species; the big bang, etc.); and

b) Substitute economic materialism and reductionist relativism for the scientific method. Thus, they presented an ideological interpretation that conformed to their pantheistic ideological theory and worldview. Formidable financial, political and ideological forces infiltrated the European culture to successfully redefine the terms, authority and standards.

Armed with a pantheistic materialist:

c) Agenda (Malthusian - depopulation, re- and de-education, global financial domination, de-industrialization, and removal of racial distinctions through integration

d) Two World Wars in the 1900’s, which killed more than 500 million Christians within the first 50 years of the century; and

e) Control of the media, and education restructuring

f) Filtering in of socialist (Marxist, Nazi and Fabian) revolutionary concepts

The Pantheists began to:

1) Stifle all Renaissance initiatives (e.g., American Constitution which is based upon geometric natural law)

2) Re-designed Christianity into competing Judeo-Christian denominational cults in a pluralistic (Pantheon) format under Pantheist executive and legislative management; and

3) Convert every single European and American institution into tools for the promotion and domination of the pantheist worldview, power and agenda initiatives.

Yet enough Christians remain today to carry on rearguard battles in an effort to preserve what remains a ghost of an original Christian worldview and authority. On this battleground, it is being discovered and has become clear to most, that the Pantheistic policy is designed to totally erase all semblances of what remains of geometric natural law and the true Christian source.

What is the pantheistic historical record? What are its roots? What does pantheism offer humanity that appears to be so threateningly appealing? We may recognize that the Pantheist Charter may possess some encouraging statements, until we discover the full meaning of the words, definitions and implementation practices. For over 4000 years, the pantheists, who are identified in the Christian Bible as Babylon the Great, had been an autocratic, authoritarian and mercantile system, which throughout the past millennia has maintained temples and casts of priests who were to satisfy the senses and promote vice to keep the masses off-balance, disciplined, under drug induced mysticisms, with options for phallic worship, institutionalized prostitution, abortion, child sacrifice, homosexual priesthoods, and ritualized cannibalism. The Pantheist ‘scientists’ researched, promoted and managed the highest values, converting them into "gods" and organized practices. This was the pantheists’ "sociology science."

Today, the powers that promote a ‘New World Order’, are simply re-installing the same models that existed in the past. In the past the pantheist society was stratified as follows:

1) A totally privileged aristocracy, that possess absolute power, and maintained -

2) An Intelligencia of high priests, who maintained formulas for running every cult and education institution. Worked through a network of cult Temples that were designed to satisfy the masses’ desires and to control their every thought. They provided the legal, judicial and ‘counseling/ education’ systems. Intelligence networks, banking /commercial systems; as well as, medical institutions.

3) The security forces - military, intelligence that had their own cults.

4) The underprivileged or semi-privileged masses: serfs, slaves, workers, democratic collectives, concentration camps, profession guilds (labor), and some freemen.

The Pantheist Centers have been agencies that created, promoted and managed a closed dark ages system. A citizen in this world would:

5) Master a maximum use of 500 words

6) Have minimal ‘appropriate’ technology

7) Be part of a downsized population of 10 million persons worldwide, grouped into racially mixed communities (tribes).

8) Believe in all types of pseudo-scientific cults (whether mystical, materialistic, atheistic, and theistic, etc. - not based on geometric natural law, but on leap-of-faith algebraic subjective relativisms

9) Become creatures of conditioned/programmed emotions, reactions, self-gratification and comfort.

10) Relate among each other on the basis of ‘honor among thieves.’ Everyone would recognize each other as being a "liar, cheater, thief, and rapist.’ Under such lose-lose conditions, they would employ social manners during salutations, conversations, and general interaction. These social graces would be a means by which the individuals would size each other up to determine who will serve the other (master-slave relation - win-lose), and determine in how many ways one would be able to fleece the other. Essentially, such an environment reflects a slave, mercantile and cast system.

These behavioral traits are dramatically increasing in the western civilization of the 21st century and are becoming the norm.

Today, the Pantheist hides behind noble words, enterprises and missions:

1. "Science" (really a dogmatic economics-based materialism)

2. Freedom, equal civil rights, treaties, executive directives and opportunity are simply a means to anarchy, protests, revolution, and a plan to overturn all existing establishments that were originally founded upon geometric natural law.

It has now become clear that the Pantheists had been rallying all pantheistic forces against the last remaining strongholds where geometric natural law is used as a guide to improve civilization. By the thousands, crypto-Christian Pantheists have infiltrated Christian denominations, and keep these denominations multiplying in order to disarm Christians of their leadership, and convert the masses into cult collectives.

The pantheists have introduced usury banking, removed prayer from the schools and the Decalogue’s civilizing and spiritual significance. The pantheists promote ethical relativism (situation ethics), free sex (1960’s) where every Christian had been raw bate and victim, leading to the consequent abortions (70,000,000). Yet, at the same time, the pantheists had been promoted Malthusian overpopulation policies during the 1950-1970’s, and euthanasia. The pantheists had daily been distorting history, science and religion, damned the family and marriage to promote homosexuality, and multitudes of other situations and conditions. Clearly, the pantheists had been re-engineering and re-designing the United States, Canada and the world to their liking, while the Christians had been reaping curses.

This is what history and current events have taught us about the pantheists. Throughout history Christians had sacrificed dearly to somehow maintain a righteous civilization, but almost overnight, they allowed hypocritical pantheists to come into their dwelling and holy places, to reshuffle the furniture, rules; reduce and divide their members, redefine authority in the house, and now the pantheists are cleaning house by evicting Christians from their homes and the government.

2.1.2 Supra-Theists’ History and Action

In contrast to the Pantheists’ secret history and program, the Supra-Theists have provided an open book to the world - their Bible as evidence of what constitutes the Kingdom of God and what it has to offer - it’s plan and outcomes.

The Bible and history reveal that the Eternal Lord God had created man in His image and that all of Creation had been man’s incubator. From this incubator Man was to qualify for a new spiritual body and nature that would allow him and his descendants to implement the Eternal Lord God’s perfect plan through Man’s allocated executive authority.

Being a temporal rather than an infinite creature, the executive creature in Eden made a key, faulty and terminal decision that introduces imperfection within perfect Creation. Since, Creation was to be under Man’s authority, Man’s imperfect decision reduced Creation’s energy density level to a lower energy density level resulting in having Creation starve for energy, thus resulting in the introduction of death.

The ripple effect of this faulty decision eventually leads to the destruction of the perfectly balanced Creation leading to the catastrophic inundation of the Earth, which in turn created a condition of a lower economy of natural resources (survival and conservation status) after the Flood.

These key points of Creation and the Catastrophic Flood on the Earth are what the Creation scientists see through their Creationist scientific model. The model accounts for the initial conditions that include the:

1) Perfect conditions of Creation that was designed and implemented within six days (day and night) within the principles of Geometric Natural Law

2) The parallel existence and coexistence of all living creatures contemporaneous with man

3) Deteriorating natural and population conditions after the Adam (the Chief Executive Officer - CEO) violated the key decision component of Divine and geometric natural law. This universal deterioration and the global catastrophe that followed changed the universal standards, rates and Earth’s conditions after the global Flood.

4) The varying standards, rates and conditions can be simulated, and the outcomes evidence can be predicted on the Creationist scientific model. The existing geologic conditions, strata, fossils, comparative life populations and forms (before and after the Flood), are clearly evidenced through today’s observation, records, laboratory comparisons, and the full geometric law- based scientific method.

The Pantheistic Evolutionary scientists have also their scientific models that should also account for all of their conditions. This includes:

1) Charles Lyell’s uniformitarian concept of having the Earth shaped entirely by low rates of change acting over very long periods of time - expanded on a global and universal scale. The Evolutionists’ origins begin billions of years in the past with a theoretical cosmic Big Bang; continue to gradually form galaxies, stars and planetary systems. And were conditions are favorable; life would emerge to begin the upward track from simple cell to complex man - the highest known creature.

2) There is no parallel existence and coexistence of all living creature categories contemporaneously living with an evolving man. Instead, creature classes are spread serially from simple to complex over billions of years of adaptation, extinctions and qualitative change.

3) Applying uniformitarianism on a global scale, Evolutionary Pantheists postulate that all existing rates of change must also apply to all rates of changes in the past. The Earth may provide evidence for local floods and catastrophes but not on a global scale.

4) The Evolutionists’ scientific model should demonstrate uniformitarianism in action - billions of years of change in the geologic record. This includes conditions of primitive and changing Earth, the various species and their transitional forms, cosmic effects of the Big Bang, and the full algebraic relativist rule-based scientific method.

The scientific record now stands and after: 1) scrutinizing scientific data, information, records and lab tests; 2) examining scientific publications for scientific standards conformance; and 3) after evaluating the numerous evolution-creation debates, it becomes increasingly clear, even to many Evolutionists, that the Creation Scientific Model helps explain and predict scientific data far better than the Evolutionary Scientific Model can.

The Pantheists’ emphasis on viewing the Evolution-Creation debate in terms of ‘Science vs Christian religion’ has been addressed above in Part 1. Highly qualified scientists on both sides of the debate support their positions scientifically and ideologically. This distinction between science and ideology however should be made clear, since both address similar scientific evidence, but differ on ideological content.

Similarly, although this paper referred to an ‘original’ Christianity, and a Christianity whose Bible reflects geometric natural law, it is still a task to identify or recognize a distinction of this Christianity from the current Denominational/Non-Denominational Christianities.

It has been shown above that pantheist cult manager’s rule not only in the various socialist movements (left, center and right), but also, as wolves in sheep’s clothing, they continuously tamper with contemporary Christian denominations and doctrines. Therefore, there are many among the more

cultured Pantheists and Christians who can’t help but ask themselves what would happen if either the socialist policy continue, or the infiltrated denominational "Christians" should gain victories in the political arena. How would such an event affect the scientific field? What would happen should a full spectrum of extreme liberal to conservative algebraic Pantheists and Christianities gain an upper hand? Many Pantheist and quasi-Christian organizations have demonstrated common cause with various extreme Pantheists. Others openly work against the geometric natural law approach. Most have been pluralized and although resentful, still they are totally compliant with Pantheist policies on such issues as pluralism, cultism and racial commonality and integration - a questionable Christian source.

There are many centers of Christian Creation scientists, who have achieved much in re-examining and providing true scientific answers rather than purely ideological theory. Yet, the stakes are high and many issues must still be resolved.

May 15, 2005