Science, Revelation and Evolution?

I have been given the gift of hearing from some people that I have come on too strong, that I have been harsh and, well, unkind or mean.

 It is very hard for me to know how to respond and I know this is a thread about science, revelation and evolution but since this is where I pissed folks off, I thought it might be helpful, at least helpful to me, if I apologize for any of my actions that caused others some tense or angry or unsettling or fearful moments.  I am very sorry for any stress I created .

 

Tree, I must confess I have no idea how or where or when I ever responded to you other than from a place of respect and care.  But clearly you have a different exprerience.  So I ask you to please forgive me for whatever I said or did that made you feel scared, or whatever occured to you as attacking.  The only time in my memory that you've even experienced my passion or assertiveness was the call on Friday two weeks ago.  And even then I immediately apologized.  Twice I've requested that we schedule a time to talk on the phone precisely so we can get to know each other and so I can better understanding where you're coming from.  In a recent email you told me you did not want to do this, that you prefer to communicate online.  Now you publically criticize me for not understanding you.

I'm confused.  Please, let's talk.  This conversation is, I think, far more appropriate, offline.  My cell is 425-760-9941.  Or tell me a good time to call you and I'll be happy to do so.

Or, if you prefer, we can talk on the conference call line with another or others we both feel good about witnessing or mediating.  I would welcome this!

Love and blessings,

Michael

r

It is a strange thing that the person who initiated the Evolutionary Salon has found himself in the position of being told by an organizer of the next Salon (ES3) that his definition of what an Evolutionary Salon is about does not cut ice with some of the people who want to come to an Evolutionary Salon. I would like to know how many people are of this view (if this is known definitively, through emails or whatever) or if it is a minority view or if, in fact, it is a single individual’s view who has managed to get the microphone and is now broadcasting her view so loudly that all kinds of strange feelings are being generated.

I am being outspoken myself as I have found it upsetting that someone who is facilitating a forthcoming Evolutionary Salon is in a position to start calling the shots and pursuing a definition of an Evolutionary Salon which is counter to what Michael first initiated. Right or wrong, the feeling I pick up is one of a ‘take-over’ unfolding, without there being any mandate for such an action and attitude to be taken. I am all for good discussion, but for me, to see Michael and his work with Connie being challenged and the sciences being dismissed as “ just superstition” is very upsetting. It is needlessly provocative, and since it comes within the context of discussing a kind of ‘mission statement’, rather than in a more general way, I wonder about the intention behind deciding to denigrate science and resist like hell the use of the word in relation to the next Evolutionary Salon. Perhaps it comes out of a lack of much knowledge or contact with science – the old thorn of (C.P. Snow’s) “two cultures” rolling on and on and on.

If an Evolutionary Salon is disinterested in the evolutionary reality that has made itself clear through dedicated and incredible work by scientists in all disciplines, then it is, as Michael has said, a Salon that is interested in ‘transformation’. That is all well and good but the very idea of this Salon was one that is specifically grounded in the scientifically-derived story of the evolutionary universe – and what we may do today that is going to further our evolution towards greater consciousness and responsibility and self-control and all the things that are of totally vital significance for creating a human and planetary future worth speaking about. If those who are now involved want to change it into something that is not grounded in that story, then what exactly is going on? Is it all to be described as “just the collective in evolution”? I wonder. I wonder.

I write as someone who came to the first Salon and saw something good spring forth. I believe there is a huge job to be done to convey just what the picture is that the sciences have uncovered in a way that inspires new and positive energy amongst non-scientists and scientists alike. I am personally involved with such work and aiming to do what I can to contribute to the wider dissemination of the electrifying vision of unity and integration that the sciences have revealed. I see no division between spirit and matter—that is my personal take on things—and I always feel uncomfortable at the invocation of a dichotomy. I understand many of the reasons for this dichotomy but I just do not agree with the idea that somehow the sciences have nothing or little to do with a deep spirituality and ethics. My spirituality is inspired by what I have learned about the world through the sciences as well as my general human experience of life and I, for one, would not spend time knocking science because it is the wrong target. It is an over-simplification which makes for loss of credibility I think.

Caroline Webb,  March 20, 2006

Tom, Tree, Michael, Dana, all-

 

      Tom’s several pieces greatly clarify this issue in my mind.  I think it is very important that we openly state that evolutionary spirituality is first based on common, objective knowledge.  That’s not to say that personal feelings or visions or whatever aren’t important or good – they are both.  But, when it comes to discussion, objective knowledge comes first, private revelations second.  Why?  Because this is the great innovation of evolutionary spirituality.  Spiritualities have often been based the other way – a sacred text, a dogmatic idea, a personal revelation to privileged leader, etc, trump common experience or evidence.  By explicitly stating it is otherwise, we forge into new spiritual territory, where one person or book cannot hold the spirituality hostage.  We open up to a truly evolutionary approach, where, working on common, agreed on evidence, we can celebrate our world and our evolution.

 

           Tree’s fear of dogmatic “scientism” is understandable.  However, I don’t think anyone is advocating that, only agreeing that our spirituality is based first on knowledge, with the freedom to use metaphor, speculation, and different approaches to build on that, not to supplant it.  

 

          Without that base, I don’t see how our approach is different from many other movements that are out there.  And as Lion has wisely pointed out, the best way to move forward is to find a group that is already doing what  you want to do, and join it.  Without “science-based” in there, I would be better off joining any number of groups who have spirituality.

 

      I have a lot to say in support of “science based”, but Tom has done such a good job saying it already, that I would only be repeating his explanations, and doing a poorer job at that.  So in short:

 

I support keeping “science based” in there.  It’s clear, short, simple, and shows that as a spirituality we aren’t anti-science, as some spiritualities are.

 

If someone really doesn’t like the term, we could use “knowledge based”, but I think science is clearer.

 

I also find Michael Lindfield’s suggestion of using “wisdom and evidence based” good (or just “evidence based”).

 

Lastly, as Lion pointed out, this is applied to an “understanding of evolution”.  Again, if we get rid of that, then what are we?  Anything?  Nothing? 

 

Thanks Tom, Peggy, and Michael for this clear and still inclusive statement describing the Salons.  I think the original or any of the above mentioned changes are all good.  Take care-

 

    -Jon Cleland Host
P. S.  I’ve posted this on the other thread too.

 

 

It takes some courage for me to stand and speak here, but I do feel that it is crucial that we pay the currency of attention to the power of our words, and the tone with which they are spoken and written. Tree when you speak to Michael in this way I don't feel safe. The 'Open Space', it seems to me, is made by each of us contributing to a space in which we can Open our minds and hearts. At the salon I was perhaps most impressed with the care and quality of language that was being used. People spoke in ways that empowered each other and opened possibilities. That was magnetic! The magic is in the kinds of conversations we are learning to have with each other. It is distinctly possible that the most important thing we are doing in this current conversation is not 'getting to the right answer' or finding the perfect words for the perfect platform, but rather evolving the way human beings speak with each other to arrive at meaning. Let our words impart both clarity and kindness.

Science is most probably best characterized by the way in which it comes to conclusions.  It is not so much the specific set of conclusions to which it comes but the way in which it reaches them.  It gives natural explanations about the natural world based on observation, trial and error, falsification, and deduction.  Approaches such as intelligent design reject this way of coming to conclusions.  As such, they don't fall within the purview of science. 

Science itself is evolving - changing and shifting, growing and re-orienting.  The emerging frameworks include aspects of observation and experience that have traditionally been left out of classical science.  Trans-temporal, non-local, parapsychological phenomena are increasingly being studied (and the studies admitted as scientific) by those whose profession falls squarely in the domain of science.  For instance, take the recent book by my father called Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything (Inner Traditions, 2004).  Whole areas such as the systems sciences and human science are emerging to deal with questions of spirit, emergence, and syntony in ways that reaches beyond philosophy and metaphysics but are still grounded in demonstrable, repeatable (i.e., falsifiable), experimentation.  Systems theorist Bela H. Banathy makes an excellent brief distinction between the domains of science and the humanities (and a bit about how systems design - especially social systems design, which is his area - serves to bridge the two): 

"Science focuses on the study of the natural world. It seeks to describe what exists. Focusing on problem finding, it studies and describes problems in its various domains. The humanities focus on understanding and discussing the human experience. In design, we focus on finding solutions and creating things and systems of value that do not yet exist.
The methods of science include controlled experiments, classification, pattern recognition, analysis, and deduction. In the humanities we apply analogy, metaphor, criticism, and (e)valuation. In design we devise alternatives, form patterns, synthesize, use conjecture, and model solutions.
Science values objectivity, rationality, and neutrality. It has concern for the truth. The humanities value subjectivity, imagination, and commitment. They have a concern for justice. Design values practicality, ingenuity, creativity, and empathy. It has concerns for goodness of fit and for the impact of design on future generations" (Banathy, Bela H. Designing Social Systems in a Changing World. New York & London: Plenum Press, 1996.  P. 42).

I fully support the original formulation proposed by Tom, Michael, and Peggy, namely that "An Evolutionary Salon is any pre-scheduled conversation that ... is grounded in a science-based, inspiring, empowering understanding of evolution..."

Cheers,
~ Alex&er

Dear Tree,

Thank you for your candid comments above.  I'm sure it took courage for you to post what you did.

I must confess that I initially felt some pain reading your words because I interpreted some of what you said as unnecessarily attacking, and missing where Connie and I are coming from and what we're trying to do.

In addition to what I wrote this morning (at the end of my post above) about letting go of my "science-based" qualifier (I'm imagining you did not see this before writing your piece?), I'm also offering "interpretations" instead of "understanding" because it's more active and because I think it's important not to give the impression that there's only one right understanding.

Love and blessings,

- Michael
Cell: 425-760-9941
________________________

Here's how I'm now suggesting it read...

DEFINITION

An Evolutionary Salon is any pre-scheduled conversation that

    1.    is grounded in inspiring, empowering interpretations of evolution
    2.    takes seriously our role in evolution becoming conscious of itself
    3.    is designed to support individual and collective evolution
    4.    contributes to the emerging networked movement for conscious
evolution

 (What follows is also posted on the Identifying the Essence of Evolutionary Salons page.)

There are many important stategic conversations happening around the world related to human transformation and ensuring a healthy world for future generations.  I realize that just because I coined the term "Evolutionary Salon" does not mean I own it.  I welcome a larger community co-creating/co-discerning what makes Evolutionary Salons unique from other strategic or meaningful conversations for transformation.  Connie's and my current request is that Evolutionary Salons be grounded in evolutionary science.  Other such conversations - "Transformational Salons" perhaps? - should feel free to not necessarily be connected to or grounded in a science-based approach.  Without this distinction we fear excluding many (most?) scientists and others immersed in a science-oriented approach from these stategic conversations, and we believe their voice and contributions are vital.  Connie, as a science writer for the last 15 years, feels certain that most serious scientists would never come to an "evolutionary salon" that was not explicitly rooted in an empirical science-based approach.  In her experinece there are MANY groups using the word "evolution" that are actually coming from a subjective, revealed source of truth mindset, rather than the objective, collective intelligence source of truth mindset that the world-wide scientific enterprise is engaged in.

I'm attaching below a short piece Connie just wrote to articulate what we mean by the kind of "evolutionary perspective" we see as the context of "evolutionary salons."  Following this is an attempt on my part to articulate what I see as the basic flow of a science-based evolutionary understanding that can enrich all the world's religious traditions (as well as those who do not subscribe to any religious or spiritual tradition).  Both of these are offered NOT as a final word on anything but merely to (hopefully) seed the conversation.  Both Connie's piece and my own are works in progress.  We are open to feedback and suggestions for improvement.  Please consider them first draft offerings.

Co-evolutionary love and blessings,

 Michael - Cell phone: 425-760-9941

PS. FYI: Here are some fabulous quotes (and short essays) from scientists, theologians, and others re: What is The Great Story?

________________________________

 History of the scientific use of the term, "evolution"

 by Connie Barlow

Long before Charles Darwin wrote his "On the Origin of Species," which was published in 1859, natural philosophers (the 'scientists' of the day) used the term "evolution" to refer to developmental unfolding of natural phenomena.  In fact, Darwin resisted using the term "evolution" in his great book because his view of the role of "natural selection" in fostering change through time in the living world was far more spontaneous and decidedly not preordained.

Since then, biologists have comfortably adopted the term as their own, and its definitional use in that field has come to imply not only spontaneous but, indeed, random change through time.  Since the death of Stephen Jay Gould, esteemed voices within biology have begun to alter the professional and popular understanding of "evolution" to include, once again, a kind of developmental trajectory.  Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson, John Maynard Smith, Simon Conway Morris, and Mark McMenamin are among the biologists who track on convergent evolution — that is, the compelling evidence in the living and fossil record that an array of very distinct structural, functional, physiological, sensory, and behavioral characteristics have occurred not once but twice, or even many times.  The classic example of convergent evolution are the striking similarities between marsupial "mice", carnivores, and other mammals in Australia and the look-alike placental mammals found elsewhere in the world.  Among plants, the classic example of convergence are the succulent cactuses and yuccas of the New World compared with the succulent euphorbs and aloes of the Old World.

Is there a direction to evolution?

Considering not only evolutionary convergence but also the history of the rise in diversity and complexity in the living world, Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Peter Corning have all written of "progressive" evolution as a well-grounded, indeed compelling, interpretation of the empirical evidence.  Three recent, widely respected popularizations of a progressive view of evolution are John Stewart's ''Evolution's Arrow: The Direction of Evolution and the Future of Humanity'', Robert Wright's ''Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny'', and Eric Chaisson's ''Epic of Evolution: Seven Ages of the Cosmos''.

The term "evolution" (as Michael and I use it) thus draws from wide-ranging and inclusive roots of mainstream science — a heritage that regards evolution as proceeding very often in spontaneous and unpredictable ways, and very often in pathways that have been walked before and might indeed be expected.  It also is grounded in the awareness that evolutionary change in the living, cultural, and cosmic realms is often gradual, and yet often abrupt.  Finally, it is grounded in the vast evidence collected that living and non-living systems may change in "progressive" ways — that is, building complexity and cohesiveness at ever greater levels, such as the role of symbiosis, or merger, in the evolution of eukaryotic cells or the role of "stellar nucleosynthesis" in the formation of complex atoms.  It is also grounded in the recognition that "devolutionary" forces are also at work — entropy in the physical world and organ and sensory diminution in the living world when organisms adopt a parasitic lifeway.'''

Nonetheless, there is no dispute that the rudiments of a trajectory through time can be discerned in cosmic, biological, and cultural evolution — a trajectory of greater complexity through time and the enhanced degree of co-operativity at wider scales that undergirds the rise in complexity.  Indeed, the devolutionary forces of explosive star deaths, extinctions of life, and geological break-up of massive continents provide the very conditions for novelty and emergent complexity to ensue.

Diverse interpretations draw from the same scientific facts

Thus from the perspective of The Great Story of evolution at all levels of reality, the evolutionary narrative offers a history of change and the opportunity to read from that history basic principles worthy of study and mindful application by those whose pyschological resonance with the wider world (spirituality) honors and embraces this understanding. Those who embrace "evolutionary spirituality" may hold vast differences as to whether and how "spirit" and "soul" play out within the human, living, and cosmic realms.  They hold great differences in their views about questions not yet (or perhaps never) answerable or falsifiable by science.  But those who include "evolutionary spirituality" as an important part of their worldview share a regard for the gleanings of science and for how those understandings can be intentionally, collectively, and pragmatically applied to offer hope, inspiration, and gentle guidance for individuals and groups to be of service to their communities, to their cultures, to their species, and to the wider world.

Another facet of a mainstream evolutionary worldview that is subject to different interpretations pertains to divergent beliefs as to whether a spiritual force gave birth to matter and energy or vice versa.  That is, some philosophical interpretations posit that "the lesser derives from the greater" (spirit first), while others that "the greater derives from the lesser" (commonly known as "evolutionary emergentism".)  Both are legitimate interpretations of the same agreed-upon scientific facts.

More on the evolutionary perspective  

Evolution, in this sense, is viewed as multi-faceted -- even fractal.  That is, it happens at all levels of scale and dimensions of reality simultaneously, in highly interconnected ways.  Each "microcosmic" developmental or change process is part of a "macrocosmic" developmental or change process, and vice versa.  Personal changes impact collectives that the individuals are part of, and social changes impact individuals.  Human activity changes the biosphere, and changes in the biosphere alter human activity.

The evolutionary perspective we're suggesting here honors and is grounded in current theories of cosmic, biological, and other forms of evolution.  Being motivated by a desire for civilization to develop in more sustainable, wise, self-aware, and life-affirming directions, and for humanity to avoid self-extinction, we seek to use current theories of evolution (scientific, biological, spiritual, etc.) to deepen our understanding of conscious change at all levels.  We want to apply that understanding to our individual, group, community, national and global lives, thereby becoming a conscious force for evolution.  A wide variety of spiritual and religious interpretations of the science is not only acceptable.  It is essential if we are to move into a just, healthy, beautiful, sustainablly lifegiving future for all species.
_________________________________

 WHAT IS EVOLUTIONARY SPIRITUALITY?

by Michael Dowd

Evolutionary spirituality is an integral way of thinking and being in the world grounded in a personal, meaningful experience of the epic of evolution as one’s own creation myth, or cosmological sacred story.  

What distinguishes evolutionary spirituality from other meaningful approaches to life is its celebration of cosmic history as sacred revelation.  Such an inclusive approach provides common ground for all – religious and non-religious alike.  It supports appreciative ways of thinking about the past, enlightened ways of being in the present, and empowering ways of imagining the future, grounded in the most inspiring and subjectively truthful interpretations presently available of objectively true scientific facts and widely accepted theories based on those facts.

The Science of Evolutionary Directionality

While every religious tradition will necessarily mythologize cosmic history differently, all will share a similar, if not identical, scientific understanding.  Evolutionary spirituality in all it’s myriad of forms is rooted deeply in what the majority of the world’s scientists hold to be true, real, verifiable.  Here’s one articulation of the basic flow of the evolutionary epic…

Everything is in a time-developmental process.  Galaxies evolve.  Solar systems and planets evolve.  Continents, oceans, mountains, and rivers evolve.  Bacteria, plants, and animals evolve.  And human consciousness, culture, and technologies evolve.  Everything is in a developmental process.  Everything is interconnected and interrelated.  And nothing is itself without everything else.  

From the perspective of the whole, evolution clearly evidences directionality.  The universe has become increasingly complex over time, with each stage building upon and incorporating earlier stages.  The galactic era, for example, emerged out of and integrated (i.e., transcended and included) the radiation era.  In the biological era, life has repeatedly discovered ways to create cooperative, interdependent wholes out of self-interested, formerly competitive parts, and then do the same thing at a higher, or wider, level of organization.

Cooperative groups of self-replicating molecular processes formed the first simple cells.  Groups of these cells formed larger and more complex cells, and these in turn formed cooperative groups of cells that become multicellular organisms.  Groups of multicellular organisms formed cooperative insect societies and human social systems.  

In the human realm this process has continued and expanded considerably over the past 100,000 years.  Initially cooperation existed only within small family groups.  Since then, cooperative organizations have progressively expanded in scale to produce multi-family bands, then tribes, then agricultural communities, cities, and empires, then nation states, and now some forms of economic and social cooperation that span the globe.  

This direction is progressive.  Each stage transcends and includes (incorporates and builds upon) earlier stages.  The vital point to remember, however, is this: This process has happened successfully in evolutionary history only when the system becomes self-organized or self-governed in such a way that it is genuinely in the interests of the parts to cooperate in the service of the whole – that is, where they benefit by doing so and/or suffer in some way by not doing so.

This is why at each level of complexity in human history, stories, beliefs, and incentives of various kinds (moral codes, laws, taxes, etc) emerged to support trust and cooperation among the group (whether family, band, tribe, city, empire, or nation) and protect against those things which erode trust and cooperation: lying, cheating, stealing, dominating, freeloading, etc.

When we scan the universe story in its human phase of development, we see a number of trends leading down the path of greater interdependence.  Two of the more obvious are: (1) improvement in the processing and transport of matter, energy, and information, and (2) improvement in our ability to obtain and act on feedback from the world around us.  The progressive evolution of communication and transportation technologies has increasingly enabled people and organizations to share information and experience more often, more widely, and more deeply.  This has, in turn, tended to expand our circles of cooperation, care, compassion, and commitment.  

This process has not always been easy, of course, and setbacks are both common and seemingly necessary.  Getting individuals that are used to seeing each other as enemies to cooperate has always been tricky at best.  Every time we learned to cooperate at a wider scale, what was required was to move beyond ingrained judgments, beliefs, and prejudices to learn to trust those once feared and/or despised.

From a biological evolutionary standpoint, the key, as mentioned above, has always been finding ever more effective ways of aligning the natural self-interest of individuals with the wellbeing of the whole(s) of which the individual is part.  In this sense, the past provides clear and unambiguous guidance re we must evolve our social and governmental structures for us to move into a just, healthy, beautiful, sustainably lifegiving future.  Evolutionary integrity is the way!  

Learning how, in the past, life has produced increasingly complex, interdependent wholes out of competitive, self-interested parts and applying that knowledge to maturing our own political and economic systems is paramount.  If we succeed here, virtually everything else will flow naturally.  If we fail here, all the other good we do will probably not be enough.

Humanity’s great work in the 21st century will be evolving local, regional, national, and global systems of governance, and economics, which ensure that individuals and organizations benefit when benefiting the whole and suffer when harming the whole.  Human interests, the interests of other species, and the wellbeing of the planet will thereby become aligned.  

Nothing is more important than for humanity to create real and effective incentives for individuals, corporations, and nation-states to do the right, just, ecologically beneficial thing, and equally effective incentives for them not to do the wrong, unjust, or ecological harmful thing.

By nurturing an ever more conscious, intimate and interdependent relationship with each other and with The Whole, our Source, we will increasingly function, collectively, with the wisdom of a self-organizing global body, beyond the control of any individual or group of individuals.  This vision – of humanity and the ground of our being in a mutually enhancing, symbiotic relationship – provides a realistic, if also mythic, vision of the fulfillment of the world’s greatest religious ideals.

---

The following was written a day after posting the above... 

Dear Evolutionary Salon friends,

The more I think about it, the more I realize I can let go of "science-based" as a qualifier.  I think the addition of that phrase in the first place came out of my fear that interpretations of evolution that have little or no grounding in empirical science (of which there are many) would come to dominate future evolutionary salons.  But I've let go of that fear.  I now trust that this "child" of mine is maturing on its own, outside of my influence, and that for me to be overprotective would probably be counterproductive.  See below for my current wording suggestion.

- Michael
Cell: 425-760-9941
________________________

DEFINITION

An Evolutionary Salon is any pre-scheduled conversation that

    1.    is grounded in an inspiring, empowering understanding of evolution
    2.    takes seriously our role in evolution becoming conscious of itself
    3.    is designed to support individual and collective evolution
    4.    contributes to the emerging networked movement for conscious evolution


PURPOSE

The purpose of an Evolutionary Salon is to develop understandings, capacities, communities, connections, and possibilities that can serve us in growing into the conscious evolution of civilization, so that our individual and collective actions serve the whole of life.


FORM

An Evolutionary Salon can be of any size, use any type of process in any venue, include any type of people, deal with any subject or inquiry, and be organized in any way, as long as it fits the definition and purpose above.

The diversity of evolutionary salons ranges from one-time potluck discussions, to weekly living-room study and support groups, to a dozen professional or sector experts gathering for two days of intense work together, to a large week-long open-invitation open space conference with hundreds or thousands of participants -- or any other form. The more diverse forms, the better.