I think this issue is important enough to spend a little more time on, in the interests of greater clarity. I made some further attempts at clarification in the comments section of the first post on this topic, in response to a comment by LittleBigMan.
Now, the qualities of a good, robust model of logic is that it should account for all human experience, not just a sliver of the full spectrum of that experience. It should be complete, by which I mean, it should form a holon. Present evolutionary theory, with its emphasis on natural selection, is not complete. Nor is Ken Wilber’s AQAL (All Quadrants, All Levels) model of logic. They invite controversy and contradiction by their very omissions.
If evolutionary change is the response of an organism or species to its changing circumstances, then it’s not too difficult to see the stimulus for the “mutation” in the structure of consciousness that Jean Gebser and others call the “irruption” of a new “integral consciousness”. That changed circumstance is the emergence, since around the First World War, of the Global Era thanks to technologies of communication and transportation (particularly, earlier, radio and air transport). This “ensemble” of such technologies (to employ a term used by Jacques Ellul) have more or less displaced both Nature and Nation by throwing a net over the planet and constructing a new milieu or environment, which now demands of us a new response.
There is little that irks me more, or that I find more tedious, than this useless controversy about evolution or creationism. Here again, the human brain seems congenitally stupid, incapable of thinking beyond simple dualisms, whereas the truth of the matter is simultaneously more complex and yet also more simple. In a lot of cases, too, “evolutionists” have simply made a surrogate religion of “natural selection”, “random mutation”, and adaptation. “The world created the brain”, writes one.
Nonsense. That’s just sloppy thinking. That’s just dogma, and even an applied willful ignorance.