One man's tour through the evolutionary debate is a 23 page long article in this year's Fellowship Herald by an anonymous author, who happens to be a scientist and also a UB reader.
It is an eye-opener to what is happening in scientific circles today regarding our evolution and thus our reason for being. The author looks at the many arguments from Darwinists, neo-Darwinists and Intelligent Design's standpoints.
You can read the whole article on the Fellowship's website, at this url:
http://urantiabook.org/archive/newsletters/herald/herald2011.pdf

"To say that mind “emerged” from matter explains
nothing. If the universe were merely a mechanism and
mind were unapart from matter, we would never have two differing interpretations of any observed phenomenon. The concepts of truth, beauty, and goodness are not inherent in either physics or chemistry. A machine cannot know, much less know truth, hunger for righteousness, and cherish goodness." [195:6.11]
(P. 2077)

That a debate about evolution exists at all is indicative that we as a species, have not "evolved" enough to open-mindedly and without ego, discuss the topic within the framework of mutual respect for the other, and, in acceptance that maybe, just maybe..... we might be wrong!

I see evolution as change, whether brought about by random radical events, ie: toxins, environmental changes, disease etc. or free will choices.

Evolution takes place such that something better-suited emerges within the context of survivability. Whether that better suited plant or animal is a good thing or bad thing is irrelevant as far as nature goes. It simply is what it is.

The same can be metaphorically said of our belief systems. WE seem to have no difficulty in discrediting atheism. We also condecended or at mildest, relegated "primitive aboriginal" beliefs to the realm of quaint folklore, nothing to be taken seriously.

As we have progressed through Norse and Greek and Roman "belief sytems" as it applies to deity(ies), we similarly label them as mythology.

However, of a belief system we take seriously, either scientific, or theological, we remain almost arrogantly self-righteous. Why is that?
Why does it not enter into our minds that those who followed those ancient beliefs to which we afford no credibility, believed with all their hearts and faith, that what they believed was true beyond debate?!

So why do we not see that these "faiths' evolved as well, and, most importantly, that there is no reason to assert that what we believe, scientifically or theologically today, is any more more worthy of final credibility and authority than what "they" believed, and some still do believe.

Further, I offer that we have no reason to believe that our belief systems are any less prone to relegation to mythology than those that preceded ours.

So evolution does take place, in material physicality and in human conceptual development.

What does it "matter" if mind is constrained to matter or non-matter? How do we even begin to know the source of our thoughts?

The best we can do as humans is limited to our very humanness with all its foibles, right? You would not bank on the opinion of a drunk driver as to his opinion of the level of alcohol within his bloodstream because he is limited by the very impairment of the alcohol.
Similarly, humanity, even those few who are more enlightened, are limited by the very crude human limitations of simply being human.

We are the only species impressed with our abilities!!! We live in the realm of ego, a false self and engage primarily in fear-based behaviours. The ego is the alcohol in our spiritual blood in my opinion, which keeps us from love-based open-mindedness and its manifested behaviours.

Taking into account that humans have been overwhelmingly mistaken about nearly everything we set our minds to, and have caused unconscionable atrocities in our god(s) name(s), or in teh name of science, we can deduce and even predict (prophesize) that we wil continue to err similarly. From that erroneous nature, coupled with fear and ego, we will exercise our free will choices accordingly, and looking through our history books we have to ask ourselves "How's that working for us?"!!!

So perhaps we need a new paradigm of thinking from which to make our free will choices?? Perhaps we always will. (part II follows)

As we have "evolved", we have abandoned past practices and beliefs, like in nature, when a species evolves to something different. And as in nature, the goodness or badness of that evolution is likely the only thing debatable about evolution.

Would we not evolve faster if we used our God-given curiosity, intellect, deductive reasoning, logic and intuition to its fullest to explore, and learn and grow as perhaps was intended of us by the Creator???

Would that not require considerable humility and acceptance of responsibility? Would that not require us to be able to say "I am wrong"... "We are wrong"?
But ego does not let loose its grip that easily does it?

What if, TUB, complicated and complex as it is, is but a overly-simplified soon-to-be mythology somewhere down the road? What if elements within it are contextually incorrect? What if it is no more progressive than natives believeing in moon or volcano gods? After all, we don't know what we don't know. Maybe we need to evovle to even begin to understand TUB's truths?

Evolution does not exclude divine origin nor does faith-based belief systems necessarily remain juxtaposed to science. What must remain in either system is an open-mind and a willingness to say "Wow, I was wrong! and move on."

There is much that appeals to me about TUB but I have great difficulty seeing that a patriarchal deity, administering a pyramidal hierachical system of governance using martial terms of reference is an evolved or ascended model. It is in fact, very much like human-centric models of governance.
And we know what patriarchal martial-orientated language, empire, and do-as-I-say governance has wrought upon humanity. Look around.

Ironically, many aboriginal cultures who knew not of TUB or Judeo-Christian systems or hierarchical structures of governance, actually lived much more democratic and civil and humane lives overall, utilizing the consensus-committee method of collective self-governance. It wasn't perfect by any means of ocurse but of note is that those who came to their shores espousing the patriarchal god, dominion over others, hierarchical governance, spared no time nor resource in eliminating the aboriginal methods with impunity with bible in one hand and sword in the other.

Who was the more spiritually evolved entity in that scenario, the primitive natives or the "civilized" martial invaders??

In open-mindednes, one could also readily allow that if there is even one other world "out there" that there could be trillions of worlds, that if there is even one other dimension, there could be millions of dimensions, that if god exists, that she may have her own god or gods.
"Heresy !!! Blasphemer!" They shout in unison! "Burn the heretic!" LOL

But my point is that how we see ourselves affects/limits how we think, what we can or cannot readily accept, how we treat others, this planet, how and why we form any beliefs at all! The more that one allows for the divine to be, well... divine, the more humble we must become and therefore more openminded. But we put god in a box and assign him humancentric foibles and then exclaim that "No.... God made us in His image" even going so far as portraying Jesus as Caucasian instead of more middle eastern or African!!! Convenient to the powers that be isn't it?

How can we evolve if our minds, be they of matter or non-matter, plateau within dogmatic, scientific, theological parameters which are almost always constrained by ego?? How can one sail from port with one rope tied to the dock? How can we ascend to greater heights while grounded on a plateau of human-centrism?

More important than debating evolution, to me, is that we evolve spiritually and intellectually. If we are more than our physical bodies then our psyches are also more than scientific or theological.
And if over the millenia, we have arisen over lesser evolved thought/belief systems, we can and should readily expect and embrace that we, in our search for God need all the gifts God gave us for that pilgrimage. Should we not awaken every day in awe? Should we not embrace science as readily as faith?

Science has proven itself correct and incorrect throughout the ages, and we see that in the realm of faith-based systems. Ironically, we see "faithers" using scientific proof for their faith-based claims, but won't accept scientific proof that run against their faiths. Can you have it both ways?
I am believing more and more that language has divided the realm of knowledge into exclusive camps but that the words of either camp may be in fact symbolic of a uniting truth. Only our egos know for sure ;)

And now..... I shall await the Grand Inquisitor's arrival and I pray he is more highly evolved for then I can expect more compassionate punishment for my heretical claims ! LOL

PS - I will assert these things with some certainty, ....my own ignorance, fallibility, inability to write succinctly and my desire to evolve.