So far I’ve considered Poofogenesis, Spontaneogenesis, Macromutation, and Evolution.
At last we get to Comprehensive Creative Variation (CCV) -- my own term, remember?
The beauty, even “sanctity” of a belief in an evolution of existence is that it encompasses all existence, not just parts, segments, aspects, or apparitions . . be they critters or plants, water or dry land, even heaven and earth (which are just big “parts”). The componential of all proportions must be included in a scenario and systematology of totality, the evolution not only of the subdivisions but of the universal inclusion. For evolution is a process as well as proliferation of essence.
Process is like the field of which the materializations (sub-atomic and on up_ and the incarnations (even quasi-cellular and on up) are the quanta. Process is, as well, the “program” inherent in all things, thus both transcending and subtending state of (matter-form) being. the program is, as well as is of, the matter form.
“Becoming” encompasses generation and degeneration both as its aspects or dimensions, “directions” only relatively. And from the sub-microscopic to the very cosmos and all that dwell therein, one master plan of almost infinite prolificity, of imponderable complexity, yet interactive cohesivity, is Creator and Creation both. Call it “God” as well, or not. Only a nominal designation is of concern, not the creative, concerted miracle of emergence, formulation, combination, reproduction, variation, complexification of existence. Darwin more accurately would have phrased it ASCENT with modification . . . .but of course I realize his “descent” referred to “descendent” relationship, rather than existential position or progression.
Picture beard and robes and voice, etc. Only an aesthetic/subjective of personification/projection here . . .of the higher power, even “intelligence” in the miracle and the mechanics of the evolving system come to be . . . . or always having (cyclic) been ,. ,. . .and culminating (so far)(this time?) in the ultimate of evolution/replication . . . .the mind of man which can be aware of it all, and beyond mere recognition, he can wonder, marvel, thrill and even sense truly religious awe . . .even contemplating chance mutations . . . . . . .
Of course “enlightenment” recognized the “explanatory beatitude” of evolution. to those interpreting Genesis as symbolic (“day” represents “era” or “age” or other), the theory expanded and enhanced inspiration and awareness of creator and creation. Initially there was separation of religion and stated premises regarding material manifestations including natural selection. though selection, which is situation, environment, milieu (not intelligence-) determined, was presented as post facto random variations (as opposed to created, purposive modifications), all was kept within the realm of science. Religion wasn’t brought into the equation.
In conventional religious beliefs, God is not just Creator, but anthropomorphic personification thus the more personal for the believer. Yes, self projection. But rendering unto the theory of evolution what was the theory’s took nothing away from rendering unto god what was God’s. Unanalyzed, even the chance (vs. plan) of variation and the valence of fitness (vs. volition) of selection presented no conflict. so belief and theory were separate domains of awareness, and though even diametrically variant on some issues, should have been mutually enhancing like music of “conceptual chord structuring”.
For to see the evolution is to see wondrous creation that almost forces one upon his knees in sheer enthrallment and awe. Almost forces one to speak to that infinitude of generation and complexification as if personal . . . .and to sense that the “being” in being commands that one grasp the profound material systematology of material existence within a greater concept-domain than just data.
At last we get to Comprehensive Creative Variation (CCV) -- my own term, remember?
The beauty, even “sanctity” of a belief in an evolution of existence is that it encompasses all existence, not just parts, segments, aspects, or apparitions . . be they critters or plants, water or dry land, even heaven and earth (which are just big “parts”). The componential of all proportions must be included in a scenario and systematology of totality, the evolution not only of the subdivisions but of the universal inclusion. For evolution is a process as well as proliferation of essence.
Process is like the field of which the materializations (sub-atomic and on up_ and the incarnations (even quasi-cellular and on up) are the quanta. Process is, as well, the “program” inherent in all things, thus both transcending and subtending state of (matter-form) being. the program is, as well as is of, the matter form.
“Becoming” encompasses generation and degeneration both as its aspects or dimensions, “directions” only relatively. And from the sub-microscopic to the very cosmos and all that dwell therein, one master plan of almost infinite prolificity, of imponderable complexity, yet interactive cohesivity, is Creator and Creation both. Call it “God” as well, or not. Only a nominal designation is of concern, not the creative, concerted miracle of emergence, formulation, combination, reproduction, variation, complexification of existence. Darwin more accurately would have phrased it ASCENT with modification . . . .but of course I realize his “descent” referred to “descendent” relationship, rather than existential position or progression.
Picture beard and robes and voice, etc. Only an aesthetic/subjective of personification/projection here . . .of the higher power, even “intelligence” in the miracle and the mechanics of the evolving system come to be . . . . or always having (cyclic) been ,. ,. . .and culminating (so far)(this time?) in the ultimate of evolution/replication . . . .the mind of man which can be aware of it all, and beyond mere recognition, he can wonder, marvel, thrill and even sense truly religious awe . . .even contemplating chance mutations . . . . . . .
Of course “enlightenment” recognized the “explanatory beatitude” of evolution. to those interpreting Genesis as symbolic (“day” represents “era” or “age” or other), the theory expanded and enhanced inspiration and awareness of creator and creation. Initially there was separation of religion and stated premises regarding material manifestations including natural selection. though selection, which is situation, environment, milieu (not intelligence-) determined, was presented as post facto random variations (as opposed to created, purposive modifications), all was kept within the realm of science. Religion wasn’t brought into the equation.
In conventional religious beliefs, God is not just Creator, but anthropomorphic personification thus the more personal for the believer. Yes, self projection. But rendering unto the theory of evolution what was the theory’s took nothing away from rendering unto god what was God’s. Unanalyzed, even the chance (vs. plan) of variation and the valence of fitness (vs. volition) of selection presented no conflict. so belief and theory were separate domains of awareness, and though even diametrically variant on some issues, should have been mutually enhancing like music of “conceptual chord structuring”.
For to see the evolution is to see wondrous creation that almost forces one upon his knees in sheer enthrallment and awe. Almost forces one to speak to that infinitude of generation and complexification as if personal . . . .and to sense that the “being” in being commands that one grasp the profound material systematology of material existence within a greater concept-domain than just data.