Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools?

TOPICS: Both views in this debate are separated from reality – creating a mental image of what you want truth to be, then seeking to make reality fit – double standard in evaluating evidence – neither religion nor materialism can answer all questions about the origin of life – seeking to prove your current understanding right blocks you from finding a higher understanding – a dualistic debate cannot lead to progress – how the struggle for power perverted science and religion – Hegel’s dialectical struggle – the spiritual people need to see beyond this struggle – the people open to higher understanding need to take the debate to a higher level – Intelligent Design is a political theory – evolution is not a scientific theory – teach people about scientific observations, and let them make their own conclusions – the topic of the origin of life is beyond biology classes in public schools – take political questions out of biology –


Question: Master Jesus, Please, give a word of wisdom, needed today, concerning the origin of life on earth. There are two conflicting theories, which explain the origin of life, advocated by two different groups: Evolution and Creationism. Each group strongly defends his theory. Is Intelligent Design the answer to the origin of Life? 


Answer from ascended master Jesus through Kim Michaels: 

 

As most spiritual people would expect, I consider the debate around Intelligent Design to be a very important debate—but not for the reasons most people would expect. I consider it important because it encapsulates everything that is holding modern society back and preventing it from taking a quantum leap into a new world view that will pave the way for the Golden Age. Thus, the debate gives people an excellent opportunity to see the fallacies of both of the two sides that are seeking to dominate the intellectual and spiritual life of western society. For anyone who is a spiritual seeker, and especially for people who are actively pursuing their Christhood, this debate is an excellent opportunity to sharpen one’s Christ discernment.

Contrary to what many people would expect, I am not looking for one side to win this debate. I am hoping that the more spiritually mature people will use this debate to see beyond BOTH of the world views that are pitted against each other in this fight for the minds of modern people. I am hoping that the most astute people will see that both world views spring from the same state of consciousness, the same approach to life. This approach is the dualistic approach that we discuss in the section on the psychology of anti-christ. Thus, both of the viewpoints spring from the deliberate attempt to keep people trapped in the dualistic game, as I explain in the following discussion.

The approach to life that I am talking about is that you start by deciding what you want “truth” or “reality” to be like. You then create a detailed mental image of “truth” and you seek to project it upon “reality.” You then look for evidence that supports your world view and you seek to refute evidence that contradicts or questions it. In evaluating evidence, you are not using the same standard toward supporting evidence as you use toward challenging evidence—yet you completely fail to see this double standard.

When you have found “enough” supporting evidence, you decide that your image is an absolute and infallible truth that is beyond questioning. Because you are taking a dualistic, relative approach and seek to define truth rather than finding truth, you inevitably create a mental image that contains many inconsistencies and fails to answer all questions. Yet the people who accept the mental image fail to see the inconsistencies in their own world view, and this happens mainly because they refuse to examine and question the basic assumptions – meaning assumptions that cannot be proven – of the mental image.

In the Intelligent Design debate, you can quickly find inconsistencies in the world views of both sides. You can see that neither side can answer all of the logical questions about the origin of life. Yet you also see that neither side is willing to seriously consider the inconsistencies in their own world view, even though they clearly see the problems with the world view of the opposite side. This shows you that both sides are taking a dualistic approach—they are only looking for the mote in their brother’s eye while refusing to see the beam in their own eye.

People who take the dualistic approach to life feel compelled to force their world view upon other people and society. The duality consciousness is fear-based, and in order to deal with your fears, you have to get other people to accept your world view. The dualistic frame of mind assumes that if everyone else agrees with your world view, then it will be proven correct. From a higher perspective, this is a complete fallacy for the earth was still round when everyone believed it to be flat. Yet when people are trapped in the duality consciousness, they cannot see this obvious truth. Thus, they blindly keep seeking to prove the superiority of their world view.

The problem is that when a debate becomes dominated by two sides, who both take the dualistic approach, truth is an immediate casualty. In the Intelligent Design debate, you will clearly see this at work. The scientific materialists have decided that every aspect of life can be – and MUST be – explained as the result of natural, materialistic processes and thus there is no need for an intelligent Creator. The Intelligent Design proponents are seeking to use scientific theories to reintroduce a religious world view into public life by reformulating it in a way they think will be palatable to modern people, or at least impossible to reject. Most of the people formulating the Intelligent Design theory– despite claims to the contrary – have a traditional, Christian world view. And most of the people seeking to push Intelligent Design into public policy also have this world view.

An objective evaluation will show that both sides have already decided what they want truth to be, and they are engaging in the debate with the sole purpose of defending or establishing the superiority and dominance of their world view. Thus, neither side is seriously seeking a higher understanding of the issue. Neither side is saying, “Let us debate this issue openly and objectively and see if, by putting our heads together, we can find a higher understanding about the origin of life.”

Do you see my point? There is a fundamental difference between deciding what truth should be like – and then seeking to find arguments that support what you want to believe – and engaging in a sincere quest to discover a higher understanding than you currently have. Both sides in the Intelligent Design debate have – from the very beginning – closed the door to the discovery of a higher understanding that could replace both world views, unite people and move society forward. Finding a higher understanding is not the focus of the debate—the only question is which one of the already defined world views will be the dominant one. This is a dysfunctional, dualistic debate that can never lead to real progress in society.

This is another characteristic of the dualistic mindset. People are not seeking a higher understanding – they are not seeking to bring society forward – they are seeking to hold on to or capture a static state in which their world view reigns as an infallible truth. For students of history, it should not be difficult to see that this debate is simply the latest battle in the war between science and religion, a conflict that has its origin in the way the Catholic Church treated the early scientists and their attempt to discover a higher understanding that was beyond Catholic doctrine.

It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was clearly taking the dualistic approach of defining church doctrine as an infallible truth that was beyond questioning. If the church said the earth was the center of the universe, then the earth was the center of the universe and if observations did not agree, then the observations had to be wrong. Thus, it is not difficult to see that in the early days of science we had a situation in which only one side was taking the dualistic approach. The scientists were driven by a sincere and honest quest for a higher understanding.

The highest possible outcome of this situation would have been that the Catholic Church had embraced the emergence of the scientific method as a valid way to find a more detailed understanding of the universe and that the scientists would have maintained an uncompromising allegiance to an open-ended quest for truth. Unfortunately, this potential was not realized and instead, as so often happens, it was the lowest potential outcome that became a reality.

The Catholic Church is not solely responsible for this. As soon as a scientific establishment emerged – and gained influence in society – it attracted (as always happens) people who wanted to use science not to find a higher understanding but to gain power. It was no longer exclusively a question of finding truth, and instead the goal of attaining political power gained more and more influence in science. Thus, a dualistic struggle between two opponents emerged, opponents that both sought absolute power in society.

The Intelligent Design debate is an interesting study in how this dualistic struggle swings from side to side. The Catholic Church had for centuries dominated the intellectual life of Europe. As always happens, any person or organization that attains absolute power becomes absolutely corrupted. With that I mean that it becomes more concerned about maintaining power than serving the people. Thus, instead of being a vehicle for positive change in society, it seeks to hold back progress in order to maintain its power. It becomes a restrictive force that takes away people’s freedom (even the freedom to think and speak) in order to maintain power.

I am sure most scientifically minded people – were they ever to read this – would clearly see this mechanism working in the Catholic Church. However, they would most likely be reluctant to admit that in today’s world, scientific materialism is close to occupying the same position of absolute power as that enjoyed by the medieval church. Thus, the scientific establishment is not only seeking to refute Intelligent Design but is actually seeking to silence any debate about the materialistic world view. A world view that for almost a century has been taught in many public schools as an absolute, infallible and unquestionable scientific fact.

As I said, this is a sure sign of a dualistic debate—that you seek to silence the debate that could lead to a higher understanding and thus lead society forward. You are willing to hold back the progression of society in order to defend your viewpoint—or rather your position of power. This demonstrates that the scientific establishment is now in much the same position as the medieval church, and it disproves the widespread belief that science is an altruistic endeavor solely dedicated to finding truth.

In reality, science is no more above the dualistic, human power struggle than is religion. As I said, when any belief system, individual or organization achieves absolute power, it becomes absolutely corrupted by that power. I am not thereby saying that all modern scientists have lost their altruistic quest for truth—as not all medieval Catholics had lost their altruistic motives. I am simply saying that when an idea becomes the established view, it inevitably attracts people who seek to maintain their established positions.

In reality, this is part of the dualistic struggle described by the philosopher Hegel. The medieval church formed the thesis and because it used its position of power to restrict freedom, it inevitably created an antithesis. This antithesis was NOT the early scientists but the emerging scientific establishment. The result was a new culture – the synthesis – in which scientific materialism has gradually attained dominance. Yet because it too restricts freedom of thought, it has created its own antithesis and the Intelligent Design movement is one expression of this.

The dialectical cycle of a dualistic thesis versus a dualistic antithesis leading to a dualistic synthesis can continue indefinitely. I am hoping that in today’s world the top ten percent of the people will come to see beyond it and will break the dialectical cycle by reestablishing an honest and sincere quest for truth. However, this can happen only when a sufficient number of people become dedicated to attaining the higher vision of the universal Christ mind, a vision that is beyond the dualistic extremes. And then these people must enter the debate and demand that all power struggles be exposed and replaced by a sincere quest for higher understanding.

I hope people can now see that I think neither of the sides in the Intelligent Design debate represent the highest truth and that there is a new understanding of the origin of life that is waiting to emerge. We of the ascended masters are ready to release this understanding as a sufficient number of people raise their consciousness so they become the open doors for receiving it.

So in response to the question above, Intelligent Design – in its current form – is not the answer to the question about the origin of life. To find this answer, you must be willing to look beyond both the Biblical and the materialistic explanation. You must look for the higher understanding that could not be given to humankind several thousand years ago but can be given today.


Kim: It almost sounds to me like you reject Intelligent Design as a concept, and that surprises me. I would assume that you agree with the basic premise of Intelligent Design, namely that there is an intelligent Creator. Many Intelligent Design proponents would say that they are not driven by a Biblical world view and that Intelligent Design is not seeking to spread a specific religious view.

 

Jesus: I have, so far, talked about the Intelligent Design debate, in which you find two sides. This is not a scientific or a religious debate, nor is it a neutral debate to find a higher understanding. It is a political debate, and as all political debates it has (at least) two sides who are locked in a struggle for power.

I am well aware that there are many sincere scientists and thinkers who are dealing with the issues around Intelligent Design based on altruistic motives. Some of these are genuinely seeking to advance humankind’s understanding of the origin of life. I am also aware that there are many sincere scientists who are currently in favor of materialism, yet they have a genuine desire for a higher understanding. I consider such people to be the potential driving force behind the emergence of the new understanding I mentioned earlier.

Yet it is not the sincere scientists who are the prime movers behind the current debate about Intelligent Design. The debate is driven by people in the scientific and religious establishments, and neither side has as its goal to find a higher understanding of the origin of life. The scientific establishment wants to maintain materialism as the unchallenged scientific world view. The religious establishment – specifically the so-called religious right – wants to bring Intelligent Design into as many areas of society as possible, starting with public schools.

So I am not ignoring that there are many people – on both sides – who are very sincere in their approach to the debate. Yet I have not specifically talked about these people and their viewpoints. I have given you my overall view of the debate and the driving forces behind the surface appearances.

As I said above, when the first scientists began to make discoveries that went beyond Catholic doctrines, they did not take a dualistic approach. They were on a genuine quest for higher understanding—and so are many of the people on both sides of the Intelligent Design debate. Yet so far these people have not truly taken charge of the debate. In fact, they have allowed the politically motivated people to use them in their dualistic struggle. The highest possible outcome of the debate is that the seekers of truth will see through this manipulation and take the debate to a higher level.


Kim: While we are talking political implications, what do you think about the argument that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory that is equal to the theory of evolution and thus should be taught in the biology classes in public schools as a competing – and equally valid – theory about the origin of life?

 

Jesus: This is a dualistic argument, and I do not support it. I agree with those who say that Intelligent Design, in its current form, is not a scientific theory. I also agree with those who say it is not a religious theory. It is a political theory and it has a political aim, namely to influence public policy regarding what is taught in school.

What needs to be added here is that the theory of evolution, in its current form, is NOT a scientific theory either. It is also a political theory. While Darwin himself had relatively pure intentions, his theory became popular only because the scientific establishment could use it in its dualistic struggle against the religious establishment. This was clearly a political objective, not a scientific one.

Why do I say this? Because the theory of evolution does not prove that an intelligent designer does not exist. It proves that certain Catholic doctrines and the fundamentalist Christian view of creation are incorrect. Yet from a strictly scientific viewpoint, the theory of evolution cannot explain all logical questions about the origin of life. Unless and until such questions are answered, one cannot objectively rule out that the theory could be expanded far beyond its original form. Thus, such an incomplete theory should not be used to make the sweeping generalization that there is no intelligent Creator and that all questions have a materialistic explanation. Such claims are not scientific but political in nature. And to truly find answers to the questions about life’s origins, it will be necessary to objectively consider the influence of consciousness, including – but not limited to – an intelligent Creator.

However, let us not here get lost in these arguments. The basic point I want to make in relation to your question is that Intelligent Design should not be taught in biology class in public schools and neither should the theory of evolution in its current form. Biology is a scientific topic and should not be influenced by political theories. It should teach what is revealed by scientific observations and let the students get answers to philosophical questions elsewhere. In other words, the topic of the origin of life is beyond the scope of biology classes in public schools—at least as science is currently defined.

 

The theory of evolution does explain certain mechanisms in nature that are based on observations. Such observations should be taught in biology class, but without the “political” overhead that says the theory of evolution gives infallible answers to the question of the origin of life. I am not saying these ideas should not be taught, but they should not be taught in biology. They could be taught in philosophy or religion classes, where Intelligent Design could also be taught.

One positive outcome of the Intelligent Design debate would be that the biology curriculum in public schools is stripped of any political overtones and teaches only what is based on strict observation without relating it to philosophical questions.

Let me reach back to what I said in the beginning, namely that I consider the debate about Intelligent Design to be very important. I am pleased that there is a debate because it creates the potential for progress. Yet currently the debate is so dominated by political power plays that there is a substantial risk that it will become just another chapter in the ongoing dualistic struggle rather than actually take society to a higher level. There is still the potential that a new understanding could emerge, but this will not happen unless the truly altruistic people manage to redirect the debate according to a higher vision and more pure motives.

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2008 by Kim Michaels