“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Even so, as I worked on this appendix I wondered again and again why I was investing so much time in it. The answers proved to be simple once I understood. Then I ended up shocked to discover how little real evidence there is to back up the idea of evolution, and fascinated by the limits of scientific thinking. I was quite surprised at my reactions. Somehow Jane and I always understood, to make an analogy, that Seth’s kind of “simultaneous” reincarnation [or anyone else’s kind, for that matter] wasn’t acceptable in our Western societies at this time in history; we could trace out many reasons why this is so. But some time passed before I realized that our ruling intellectual establishments were advancing notions about evolution that were not proven in scientific terms — then teaching these “facts” to succeeding generations. Finally, the humor of the whole situation got through to me: As some have very clearly noted, in the biological and earth sciences especially, circular reasoning often predominates: The theory of evolution is used to prove the theory of evolution.

(I repeat that when Seth discusses evolution his meaning differs considerably from the scientific one — which, with various modifications, is even accepted by a number of religious thinkers. As I show at the end of this appendix, Seth allows for a much greater range of simultaneous origins; in our reality these imply growth and development out of that “basic” group of species for the most part, with multidimensional purposes operating inside an enhanced time scheme that includes probabilities, reincarnation, counterparts,²² precognition, and other concepts, meanings, and beliefs. All of these qualities are manifestations of All That Is, or consciousness, or energy, or whatever. Probabilities aside, when Seth talks about cells [or their components] recombining as parts of plant or animal forms, as he does in the 705th session, Jane and I don’t take that to mean the evolution, or alteration, of one species into another — but that a unity of consciousness pervades all elements in our environment, whether “alive” or “dead.” With the concept of probabilities in mind, however, much of the “thrust for development and change” that Seth also mentions as existing inside all organisms, could just as well take place in those other realities. Early in this appendix, I described how Seth continually built upon material that he’d given before, and that processes of correlation between old and new resulted. At this time, my ideas here represent a correlation between Seth’s material on evolution in the 705th session [which led to this appendix], and his later statements on origins, referred to above. We hope to learn much more about the whole business of evolution. And behind all, Seth insists upon the condition that each of us chose to experience this camouflage reality within this historical context.

(But to some degree many scientists outside physics regard such esoteric particle relationships as being of theoretical interest mainly within that discipline; the concepts aren’t seen as posing any threat to biology, zoology, or geology, for instance, nor do they tinker with naïve realism. The biological sciences can cling to mechanistic theories of evolution by employing the conservative physics of cause and effect to support their conclusions while being aware, perhaps, of the tenets of particle physics. Such “causal analysis” then proves itself over and over again — a situation I wryly note, that’s akin to the criticism I’ve read wherein the theory of evolution is used to prove the theory of evolution. [I mentioned such circular reasoning near the beginning of this appendix.]

However, aside from being in outright conflict with the theory of evolution [and the idea of an ancient universe], the beliefs of the creationists do pose a number of questions that are quite intriguing from our joint viewpoint. My statement doesn’t mean that Jane and I endorse creationism just because we question the doctrines of evolution. [...]

[...] But how could they be, in a book on scientific creationism?) There was no evolution. [...] Why man’s sin, resulting in the catastrophic flood, to which all species fell victim? The regular theory of evolution doesn’t have to contend with such questions, of course, but in the book I just read no explanations for questions like that are given—I don’t even remember that they were raised.

3. I’ve known Seth planned to discuss evolution—that sensitized subject—ever since Jane tuned into the title of his new book a couple of months ago. [...] Better wait, I told myself and Jane, until we had an idea of how Seth is going to handle his own material on evolution.

(I wrote about evolution in Appendix 12 for Volume 2 of “Unknown” Reality. Following all the studying I had to do in order to produce that piece, I’ve become very cautious in considering the theory — after all, even the dictionaries still refer to it as the theory [my emphasis] of evolution! [...]

(But no matter, for it certainly seemed that with his material on evolution this evening Seth was preparing for his next book: Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment. [...]

[...] I’m asking his help in obtaining source material for the visual “evidence” for evolution — showing the forms involved, say, as little by little the descendants of the reptile changed into the bird. [...]

[...] At first Jane and I wondered why Sue would give us such a book, knowing our views on evolution. Regardless of that, I eventually decided that I was glad to receive the gift, no matter what Sue does or doesn’t know about evolution. It was a beautiful compendium of all of the fallacies and distortions and wishing-thinkings concerning the scientific view of evolution.

[...] Actually, the beasts and birds and fishes pictured in the book all seemed to be regressive, rather than to show what true progress in evolution might be like. [...] But then, it’s impossible to write about evolution without contradicting oneself—if one believes in it, I said. [...]

When you speak of evolution, and when your friend asked the question, you think in terms of human evolution, of course.

I do become impatient, though I shouldn’t, with this implied insistence that evolution involves merely the human species, or rather that all evolution must be considered some gigantic tree with humanity as the supreme blossom.

I wanted to reply in some manner to your friend’s question on evolution. [...]

[...] I have said that evolution does not exist as you think of it, in any kind of one-line, ape-to-man time sequence.^l No other species developed in that manner, either. [...]

In thinking in terms of consecutive time, however, evolution does not march from the past into the future. [...]

[...] It will be followed by physical organizations, structures meant on a different level to help achieve such a “spiritual” evolution.

(Seth began talking about the dilemma posed between the conventional theory of evolution and his ideas about the simultaneous nature of time and existence, soon after these sessions started late in 1963. [...]

[...] So does value expansion become reincarnation and evolution and growth. [...]

(The balance of the session is in response to a discussion of evolution that Jane and I had before the session. [...]

[...] Seth’s presentations clearly illuminate the subject matter of both Jane’s dream and our questions about evolution. [...]

This leads me rather naturally to my next topic (which concerns our questions about evolution).

[...] You think that evolution is finished. [...] In some quarters it is fashionable these days to say that man’s consciousness is now an element in a new kind of evolution — but that “new consciousness” has always been inherent. [...]

Dictation: Let us begin this section with a brief discussion concerning “evolution.”

(9:38.) To return to our main subject of the moment: The fact is that the so-called process of evolution is highly dependent upon the cooperative tendencies inherent in all properties of life and in all species. [...]

[...] I mentioned evolutionary experiments,² as you think of evolution. [...] But all such instances escape you because you think of so-called evolution as finished.

[...] Seth has also used the phrase in connection with a next work.⁴ Now it appears that he’s settled upon a formal title for his book — one that Jane has received from him several times lately: Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment.)

We will try to give an explanation of your question concerning the nature of evolution.

(Number twenty-seven: Is evolution, as it is commonly thought of, a fact or something greatly distorted?

(Apropos of this question, in ESP class eight days later Seth had this to say about Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution:

[...] Evolution, as you think of it and as it is categorized by your scientists, represents but one probable line of evolution, the one in which, again, you are presently immersed.

Now if you had all been really paying attention to what I have said for some time about the simultaneous nature of time and existence, then you would have known that the theory of evolution is as beautiful as a tale as the theory of Biblical creation. [...] But, then, no one asked me about the nature of evolution before until recently when our friend, Joseph, read a book. [...]

(Wally spoke of Darwin’s theory of evolution.)

[...] Within you concepts and actions are one, and you recognize this, and your inner lives are based upon it, but your mental lives are often based upon ideas, until recently, have been considered very modern and very in, such as the idea of evolution. [...]

(Yesterday, in the magazine section of a leading metropolitan newspaper, Jane and I read a long article on the evolution of ancient man — “ancient” here meaning “true man” at least 2.5 million to 3 million years old. Aside from the question of whether “evolution” in ordinary linear terms has been scientifically proven [concerning which point Jane and I have many reservations], we were drawn to the article because we thought its “factual” information might eventually supplement some of Seth’s material for “Unknown” Reality. [...]

[...] If you were thinking in old terms of evolution, then I would be saying that your cultures and civilizations actually alter the chromosomal messages. [...]

[...] In the old terms of evolution. [...]

[...] It was the nature of man’s dreams, however, that was largely responsible for what you like to think of as the evolution of your species. [...]

(A note by R.F.B.: The following quotations are from sessions Jane delivered for her trance personality, Seth, just before and during the time she worked with him on Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment. [...]

The theory of evolution,⁴ for instance, is an imaginative construct, and yet through its lights some generations now have viewed their world. [...]

Now: The latest growth of fundamentalist religion has arisen as a countermeasure against the theories of evolution. [...]

In evolution man’s nature is amoral, and anything goes for survival’s sake. [...]

[...] In fact, after supper tonight she produced two more pages of notes that she’d picked up from Seth on his new book: Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment. [...]

(9:09.) He did indeed pick up from me a partial list of the subject matters to be covered in our new book—which will be called Dreams, “Evolution,” (in quotes) and Value Fulfillment. [...]

[...] In this book, Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment, for example, Seth portrays us as a vibrant, well-intended species—a physically attuned kind of consciousness beautifully tailored by our own cosmic ingredients to live lives of productivity, of spiritual and physical enjoyments, with each individual life in charge of its own fate and adding to the potentials of all other life as well.

[...] So again, how did that experience fit into Seth’s Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment?

[...] This was the same class in which I took the church’s stand against evolution to my teacher’s disgust.... [...]