Disneology #8: What about Evolution?

ASSIGNMENT 9: CATCH A MEAL AT THE “SCI-FI DINE IN” RESTAURANT AT DISNEY'S HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS. STUDY THE ALIENS. DO YOU NOTICE ANY SIGNS OF AN IMPLICIT BELIEF IN EVOLUTION? WALK THROUGH PANGANI FOREST OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. IS THERE ANY EVOLUTIONARY RHETORIC TO BE FOUND?

The most stressful and emotionally divisive debate between scientists and theologians is over the issue of evolution. Conservatives (who may have even misinterpreted fellow conservatives’ positions on this issue) consign fellow conservatives to Satan because they think the others do not totally agree with them. Liberals dismiss as silly anyone who is not a “true believer” in Darwinism (something that is far from being proven, itself). The entire discussion gets rather mean-spirited, at times. My goal in this commentary is give fair theological consideration to all sides of the theological issue, to help people wrestle with their own views.

In my last commentary, I mentioned evolutionists who believed that logically, there must be more intelligent life on other planets. The “logic” of this belief is expressed in the Drake Equation, developed by Frank Drake, in 1961: N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L, whatever that means! The name of this “branch of science” (that, so far, has produce zero empirical evidence of any kind of life on other planets) is “astrobiology.” A famous popularizer of extraterrestrial intelligent life theory and astronomy, Carl Sagan, even came up with a plan for attaching some sort of message to U.S. spacecraft that may be destined to leave the earth permanently. Sagan, clearly, was not thinking some extraterrestrial “plant” would be able to decipher his message. Sagan’s hope was that his message might eventually be interpreted by some extraterrestrial intelligent life form that might find our spacecraft. Some of Sagan’s notions are dramatized in the 1997 movie, Contact. These ideas were clearly floating around before Sagan and Drake became famous. Disney producers were already toying with the relationship between evolutionary theories and extraterrestrial life in the 1950s.

On December 4, 1957, the Disneyland television series on ABC TV aired an episode entitled “Mars and Beyond,” directed by Ward Kimball. The episode is included in a Walt Disney Treasures collection entitled Tomorrowland: Disney in Space and Beyond, available through Amazon.com. Film critic Ernest Rister (http://dvd.ign.com/articles/518/518352p1.html) explains that the episode offers “the history of evolution on Earth (creationists, beware) in a sequence that strongly echoes the "Rite of Spring" sequence from Fantasia, without re-using any of the 1940 animation. Then we are shown how life may have evolved on other planets in a bravura animated set-piece that is as strong as anything to come out of the Disney studios in the 1950s.”

This piece of textual evidence may be important proof that Walt Disney believed in evolution, but does that mean he rejected creation theology? Even if Disney accepted evolution as an explanation of the origin and development of life on earth, has evolution been scientifically proven? Believers in gradual evolution have been hoping that the study of fossils (paleontology) will yield scientific evidence of the various transitional stages of development each genus and species went through as it evolved. They are searching for “missing links.” The website AllAboutScience.org (http://www.allaboutscience.org/missing-link-faq.htm) reports:

“Stephen J. Gould, America's most famous evolutionist . . . stated, ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary . . . textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism. I wish only to point out that it was never seen in the rocks.’”

Gould’s comments may be used by theologians who wish to reject concepts of evolution altogether. Such theologians may insist that “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record” may be taken as proof that gradualism (evolution) did not occur. Such a view may, of course, be supported by the biblical creation account, which uses the phrase “according to its/their kind/s” throughout creation (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24, 25). This “kind/s” terminology may indicate a doctrine of the existence of biological boundaries that are not crossed by evolution. Hence, there would necessarily be missing links. Nevertheless, there may be other theologians who are persuaded that some evolution/gradualism did occur. Does the biblical creation account rule out any possibility of evolution/gradualism?

The issue is “how” God created and/or made things. Genesis 2:8 states that God had “planted” a garden in Eden, but this is surely not an indication of how God made plants. Planting presupposes that one has seeds to plant. Given the existence of seeds, even humans can “plant” a garden. Did God form each plant or seed that grew? Perhaps, but Genesis does not make that claim.

Genesis 1:11 indicates “how” God made plants. He SPOKE to the land: “Let the land produce vegetation.” Genesis 1:12 confirms: “The land produced vegetation.” One way of viewing this phenomenon is to say that God delegated to land the capacity for producing plant life. If land, then, was given by God the capacity to produce life, we should not be terribly surprised if, at some point, humans—putting together the right combination of chemicals from the land—are able to see that “land” (i.e., a chemical combination) produce life (in a test tube, for example). My high school science teacher predicted to me nearly a half century ago that we were on the verge of such an accomplishment. It has not happened yet.

In a somewhat similar manner (but with a curious departure in the way it is phrased), in Genesis 1:20, God SPOKE to the waters: “Let the waters teem with living creatures.” Did God, then, endow the waters with the capacity to produce animal life? Possibly. Possibly not. Note that in Genesis 1:21, “God created . . . every living and moving thing with which the water teems.” This seems to be a special act (hence, the use of the word “created”). Water animal life was the first level of animal life. As I noted before, there are just a few times Genesis employs the term “create” in the creation account. This is one of them.
In Genesis 1:24, we return to a formula similar to the formula for making plants. God SPOKE to the land: “Let the land produce living creatures.” If God delegated to land the capacity for producing plant life, and then (later) the capacity for producing living creatures, it may be that once God created elemental animal life (in the waters), the land was given the capacity for developing that animal life. In other words, there appears to be some room for a somewhat theologically-based evolution/gradualism theory.

Note, however, that Genesis once again employs the term “create” when it comes to humans. Genesis 1:27 states: “God created man in his own image . . . male and female created He them.” Genesis 2:7 adds the detail that God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life before man became a living being. I commented in Disneology #6: “The term ‘create’ is used by Genesis only in terms of creating the ‘heavens and the earth’ in 1:1 . . . creating ‘the great creatures of the sea and every living’ thing in the sea in 1:21 (the beginning of animal life), and God creating ‘man in his own image’ in 1:27.” Nevertheless, all creation seems to have been accomplished by God “speaking,” with the lone exception of the creation of Adam. Those theologians who wish to accommodate some form of evolution/gradualism theory in their theology would do well to pay attention to the significant shifts of these three “create” events.


Regardless of whether biblical theologians choose to reject evolution altogether or to accommodate some elements of evolutionary theory in their theologies, there is a motto borrowed from the Restoration Movement that could be useful in reducing the theological community stress over this issue. I refer to the motto on page 36 of my book, The Seven Cs of Stress:

There was a nineteenth century motto promoting church unity, which suggested: “In essentials, unity. In opinions, liberty. In all things, love.” The second element of that catch phrase is a principle of anarchy. There may be instances in which each individual should have the latitude to decide for himself or herself. When there is no compelling reason for everyone in the group to be doing the same thing, why not provide liberty/anarchy?

Is there a compelling reason for every theologian to hold exactly the same view regarding the evolution issue? When Martin Luther debated the Catholic Church over The Ninety-Five Theses, he tried to establish the compelling basis upon which he thought all Christians could find unity: Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone). If a theologian cites a plausible biblically-based argument for the opinion s/he holds, it may be a situation that cries out for liberty (and love).

Disneology 7: Does Creation Theology Matter?

ASSIGNMENT 8: RIDE THROUGH “SPACESHIP EARTH” AT EPCOT AND NOTICE DISNEY’S RAPID PRESENTATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION. BEGINNING WITH CAVE DRAWINGS (WHICH SCHOLARS DATE NO EARLIER THAN SOME 30,000 YEARS AGO) HUMANS HAVE FOUND WAYS TO COMMUNICATE SYMBOLICALLY WITH ONE ANOTHER. EGYPTIANS TURNED THESE SIMPLE ART SYMBOLS INTO A LANGUAGE OF HIEROGLYPHICS. PHOENICIANS DEVELOPED A MORE UNIVERSAL ALPHABET. GREEKS PHILOSOPHIZED, AND ROMANS SPREAD COMMUNICATION THROUGH A NETWORK OF ROADS.

Creation accounts have been a part of the religious traditions of these ancient cultures and virtually all other cultures since the beginning of recorded history. While some modern Judeo-Christian theologians find it convenient to distance themselves from biblical creation accounts, others question why that is the case. Science is certainly not afraid to tackle issues of the origins of the universe, as we have been discussing. Even if the author of Genesis could not have personally known what happened so many years before he was born, there is no reason he should be prohibited from offering an explanation of how the world began. Furthermore, there is room for argumentation that could place the account in Genesis 1 in a context similar to that of current scientific theory.


Virtually every ancient culture offered explanations of our origins. The Egyptians focused on the role of the Nile River in creation. They saw the beginning as a mass of chaotic waters, called Nu or Nun. To this beginning they added Sun, Moon, Earth, and Sky gods. The (immortal, but not eternal) earth god and sky goddess eventually gave birth to Isis and Osiris, names better known to our generation, but Egyptian mythology (with such features as the earth god lying on his side to form mountains) did not survive as a serious explanation of the beginnings of the world. According to an account of Phoenician creation mythology dating at least as far back as the first century A.D., there was first chaos; then from a cosmic egg, creation of the universe began. Mayan creation stories begin with sky and sea, and then the creation god Kukulkan (whose pyramid, incidentally, may be seen at the Mexico Pavilion in Epcot) speaks the word “Earth,” and the Earth rises from the sea. Following this, the thoughts of Kukulkan create mountains, trees, birds, jaguars, and snakes; finally, humans are created (first, out of mud; second, out of wood; third, as monkeys; and finally, as full-fledged humans). Vying with Genesis as the oldest creation account is the Babylonian creation myth. The Babylonian account we have is developed from Sumerian myths, in the 12th century B.C. According to this account, god/s did not exist at the beginning of the universe. Instead, sweet and bitter waters comingled and created many gods. Then, one god born of two others, Marduk, eventually defeated and killed the bitter waters, Tiamat, in a colossal struggle. Earth was created, followed by the moon, then the Sun. Finally, humans descended from the gods. Greek creation mythology began with chaos, a watery state ruled by Oceanus, and as in the Babylonian account, reproductive activity on the part of the gods and goddesses produced the Greek gods. Poiseidon, one of the great Greek gods (known by the Romans as Neptune), is featured in a fountain statue in the Italy exhibit in the “World Showcase” at Epcot.

Of all ancient explanations of the origins of the universe, only the Hebrew account has withstood the test of time. Only the Hebrew account has continued throughout years of Modernism and Postmodernism to survive the vast onslaught of scientific skepticism and Postmodern relativism. Even so, the Hebrew account of world origins remains under severe attack and is strongly derided by many. So, should theologians bother to fight this battle? The answer to that question is “Absolutely!” This issue goes to the very heart of keeping the terms “creator” and “omnipotent” in definitions of God. How could the world and everything in it be the product of one omnipotent agent, if there is no agent capable of creating the world? Without an Agent, would the world have any Purpose? How could any hope of an “afterlife” be placed in God, if He was not even capable of creating the “present” life? If there is no afterlife, not only the descriptive terms “omnipotent” and “creator” but also the terms “eternal” and “immutable” should be removed from our definition of God. If God did not create the universe, how could anyone claim that He is “omnipresent” in it? If He is not omnipresent, how could He possibly know all things (be “omniscient”) about it? In short, what happens to our entire definition of God (from my November 28, 2009 commentary, “Disneology 1”), if we apply Occam’s Razor to creation?

If God is not omnipotent, eternal, immutable, omnipresent, and omniscient, are we to assume that no one is and that the humans we call geniuses are at the top of ladder, when it comes to approximations concerning these characteristics? Not even evolutionists are willing to go there. They believe that, since there is “intelligent” life on Earth, logic demands that there must be “even more intelligent” life elsewhere in the universe. There must be aliens who are more intelligent (-scient), aliens who are more powerful (-potent), aliens who can extend their lives further (approximating eternity), etc. Do we have any clear proof of the existence of such aliens? No, it’s just a theory. Yet, here is this Hebrew account of the existence of a God who created the universe, written more than 3,000 years ago, positing a more intelligent, powerful, eternal being, capable of creating the entire universe. This ancient account still stands in basic agreement with the best scientific evidence we have concerning the chronological order of the origins of the universe. It even supplies the missing link that the Big Bang theory cannot: Where did the energy to produce the Big Bang come from? It supplies a dramatistic (cf. Burke’s Pentad) explanation for our existence, something Occam’s Razor had complicated for science. Since humans seem to be hard-wired with a dramatistic nature, it explains why we have that nature. And, since humans have the capacity to be intelligent, powerful, and creative life-extenders, the very existence of the human species seems to argue for the existence of God, a being with even greater supplies of these same characteristics. There is something built into the human psyche that seems to cry out: “God created the heavens and the Earth.” Perhaps, that is why “creation accounts have been a part of the religious traditions of . . . virtually all cultures since the beginning of recorded history.”


The other ancient religious traditions of creation have fallen by the wayside, because they were filled with silly, base, and clearly erroneous stories. How then could a Hebrew author, living 3000 years ago, provide such an insightful (and difficult to destroy) account of the origins of the universe? On pages 95-96 of my book Psychotic Entelechy: The Dangers of Spiritual Gifts Theology, I offer the following obvious observation:

“Genesis provides a rapid-fire account of more than two thousand years of human history prior to Israel’s four hundred year sojourn in Egypt. Prior to the account of human history, Genesis offers a one-chapter account of the creation of heaven, earth, and the plant and animal kingdoms. Presumably, if Moses authored the creation and human history accounts, he would need some inspiration from God to certify that his account was accurate.”

Disneology #6: Which Came First? Plant life or the Sun?

I refer to the chronological order of creation. As strange as it may seem, I see some strong advantages in the fact that Disney presents a god-less picture of the origins of the world. The strongest advantage lies in our being offered a non-theological perspective with which to compare our theological perspectives. The order of Creation in Genesis mirrors the order of the origins of the universe as depicted by science in Disney’s Epcot exhibits. The following is a chronology supplied by Genesis 1 and Epcot’s Universe of Energy and Living Seas Preshow exhibits:

Gen. 1:2: “formless and void” mass
Disney: Big Bang

Gen. 1:3: “light”
Disney: “Cloud-covered planet” but “Volcanoes spew”

Gen. 1:6: “the expanse . . . separated the water under the expanse from the water above it”
Disney: “wait and wait and wait . . . until clouds of gasses condense and rain upon the planet”

Gen. 1:9: “Let the water . . . be gathered into . . . seas”
Disney: “rain and rain and rain . . . . the Deluge . . . finally stopped; the Sea had been born”

Gen. 1:11: “Let the land produce vegetation”
Disney: “ underwater volcanoes,” “small plants . . . single-celled,” phytoplankton produce photosynthesis; other vegetation produced chemosynthesis

Gen. 1:14: “lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and . . . serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years”
Disney: After the “sea had been born,” the sun is now finally visible in the Living Seas Preshow film. The same phenomenon is shown in the same order in the Universe of Energy.

Gen. 1:20: “Let the water teem with living creatures and let birds fly”
Disney: underwater animal life (in the Living Seas preshow) and water-dependent dinosaurs and pterodactyls (in the Universe of Energy)

Gen. 1:24: “livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals” followed by “man”
Disney: Other lizards . . . humans

ASSIGNMENT #6: RECALL THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN THE BRIEF ONE-MINUTE CAPSULE OF THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE IN “UNIVERSE OF ENERGY.” THEN, VISIT “THE LIVING SEAS” ATTRACTION AT EPCOT. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE, THERE, TO VIEW WHAT WAS FORMERLY “THE LIVING SEAS PRESHOW FILM.” THAT FILM HAS NOW BEEN REPLACED WITH A MUCH LESS THEOLOGICAL “NEMO’S ADVENTURES” RIDE. IT IS NEVERTHELESS WORTHWHILE TO WATCH (ALBEIT, A RATHER POOR COPY OF) THIS FILM AT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qdu3QCuzgg
I think a further explanation is appropriate here concerning the problem some have with the introduction by Genesis of the Sun, Moon and stars on Day Four. The Bible does not say plants were “created” before the sun, moon, and stars. The term “create” is used by Genesis only in terms of creating the “heavens and the earth” in 1:1 (which seems to imply [in the term “heavens”] that the Sun, Moon, and stars were already created by Day One), creating “the great creatures of the sea and every living” thing in the sea in 1:21 (the beginning of animal life), and God creating “man in his own image” in 1:27. The Bible only implies that on the 4th day, the sun, moon, and stars were made visible in the firmament, to divide day from night. On the implication of “visibility” in Day 4, what else could lights dividing day from night, being markers for seasons, days, and years, and shedding light upon the earth be? This chronological issue of when the Sun, Moon, and stars came into being seems to be the only serious objection non-believers cite regarding the order of creation in the first chapter of Genesis. Disney’s exhibits provide a visual tour of prehistory: The big bang happens, the earth is hot, there is light (from the hot magma and volcanoes) and the “waters” are so hot, they are nothing but vapors surrounding the earth so dense that no light from sun-moon-stars is visible, the earth starts to cool, water vapors begin to condense and gather into seas, vegetation begins, and finally the condensation is so thorough the sun-moon-stars are visible from the surface of the earth. The point I am making has to do with the fact that, at some time prior to the sun-moon-stars becoming visible from the surface of the earth, the earth’s waters were in a gaseous form, hovering above the land surfaces. We know that these water vapors, if they were suspended above the surface of the Earth in gaseous form would be impenetrable by sunlight since we can see that, after they condensed and became the sea, we need only go below the surface of the sea a few thousand feet before we encounter absolute darkness.

ASSIGNMENT #7: NOW THAT YOU HAVE THEOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF CREATION, DO WHAT GOD DID: TAKE SOME TIME TO REST AND ENJOY HIS CREATION (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER):

GO TO THE LAND PAVILION AT EPCOT AND TAKE THE RIDE “LIVING WITH THE LAND” TO ENJOY THE CREATION OF VEGETATION. FOR THAT MATTER, JUST TAKE IN ALL OF THE SCENIC LANDSCAPING OF ANY DISNEY PARK. ENJOY PLANT LIFE!

VIEW THE SHOW “IT’S TOUGH TO BE A BUG” AT THE ANIMAL KINGDOM TO GET A GLANCE AT REALLY SMALL ANIMAL LIFE.

ENJOY THE UNDERWATER CREATURES OF THE LIVING SEAS EXHIBIT AT EPCOT.
VISIT THE SHOW “FLIGHTS OF WONDER” AT THE ANIMAL KINGDOM TO BECOME BETTER ACQUAINTED WITH THE BIRDS OF THE AIR. YOU WILL SEE MORE BIRDS ON YOUR SAFARI AND WALKS THROUGH PANGANI FOREST AND THE JUNGLE TREK.

TAKE A JEEP RIDE AT KILIMANJARO SAFARIS IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM TO SEE A WIDE VARIETY OF CREEPING THINGS (CROCODILES), LIVESTOCK, AND WILD ANIMALS.

WHEN YOU FINISH YOUR SAFARI, STROLL THROUGH MAHARAJAH JUNGLE TREK AT THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. THEN SEE THE HIGHEST LIFE FORMS BEFORE MAN—THE APES—AT PANGANI FOREST.

THROUGHOUT YOUR VISIT TO WALT DISNEY WORLD, YOU WILL ENCOUNTER GOD’S HIGHEST CREATION, GATHERED TOGETHER FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD: HUMAN BEINGS.

Hopefully, you will agree with God’s assessment in Genesis 1:3: “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.”

Is God MIA at WDW?

ASSIGNMENT #5: VIEW THE FIREWORKS PRESENTATION (“WISHES”) AT THE MAGIC KINGDOM. COUNT THE NUMBER OF NONENTITIES THE DISNEY CORPORATION ENCOURAGES YOU TO “BELIEVE” IN—THE WISHING STAR, BLUE FAIRY, ETC. NOW, RECALL THE BRIEF ONE-MINUTE CAPSULE OF THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE, AT THE “UNIVERSE OF ENERGY.” DID YOU SEE ANY REFERENCE TO GOD, THERE? WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS TRUE? WHAT WOULD CHANGE, IF GOD WERE INSERTED INTO THE SEQUENCE?

If, as I have suggested in my previous Disneology commentaries,
• Those who believe the heavens and Earth took a long time to develop need not throw out Judeo-Christian theology, and
• The Big Bang theory of the origins of the universe is not at odds with a Judeo-Christian theology,
why does the “Universe of Energy” exhibit eliminate God from the picture of the origins of the universe?

The Magic Kingdom DOES have a Fantasy Land, something missing from Epcot. Clearly, the Disney imagineers viewed the Magic Kingdom from a perspective different from their perspective on Epcot. Peter Pan flies off with you to Never Never Land. You ride a Honey Pot on a blustery day with Winnie the Pooh. You help Seven Dwarfs rescue Snow White from the Quicked Ween, I mean Wicked Queen. So, it’s easy enough (with a wink and a nod) to suggest that you should believe in pixie dust, wishes, stars, and fairies. Yet, there is something eerie about Disney’s “Wishes” fireworks presentation. It seems to coalesce too closely with Disney’s Make-a-Wish Foundation. It suggests to children who may have serious or even fatal diseases that there “truly” is a force in the universe capable of performing miracles, if they truly believe. What is this force? Apparently, it is anything but God. Why is Disney so fearful of suggesting even the equivalent of what our country unabashedly proclaims on its currency: “In God we trust”? Disney does not need to protect itself against “separation of Church and State” charges; it’s a private company.

Just outside Epcot’s “American Adventure” in the “World Showcase,” during the Christmas season, quite explicit theological accolades are accorded to Jesus, every year, in the “Candlelight Processional.” The “American Adventure” shows Abraham Lincoln relying on God during the Civil War and does not shy away from the Declaration of Independence with its reference to our Creator. Yet, this Creator is strangely absent from Epcot’s account of the origins of the universe in “Universe of Energy.”

Blame it on something called “Occam’s Razor,” named for its inventor, William of Occam. Occam was an excommunicated English Franciscan thinker from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. But, as Burke says, his razor is the “keystone of scientific terminologies.” Occam’s razor requires that explanations be abbreviated to eliminate any elements science might consider unnecessary to explain how things occur. Kenneth Burke refers to Occam’s razor in Attitudes Toward History, pages 59 and 166. He explains the Occamite principle in his Grammar of Motives, pages 80-81:

“If natural structure was the visible, tangible . . . embodiment of God’s will, one would simply be duplicating his terms if his accounts of motivation had both natural and supernatural terms. The natural terms should be enough, in accordance with the Occamite principle (the keystone of scientific terminologies) that ‘entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.’”

(See also Grammar of Motives 71, 95, 98, 107, 120, 138, 178, 248, and 324.)


I comment on Burke’s views concerning Occam on page 53 of my book Revelation: The Human Drama:

“[N]ature is equated with God, as the scene of man's acts, then later God and nature are turned into agonistic terms. What had begun as . . . the view that God created natural laws; hence nature could stand . . . for God . . . developed, due to the Occamite ‘principle’ . . . into the narrowing of a circumference of the scene to simply nature. The ‘natural’ then became contrasted with a no-longer-necessary ‘supernatural’ explanation."

Since the “Universe of Energy” exhibit is based on “scientific terminologies,” supernatural terminology is eliminated, in accordance with Occam’s razor. God is missing from the story. But, we cannot say that God is MIA (missing in “action”), because, without all of the elements of Burke’s Pentad—scene, act, agent, agency, purpose—THERE IS NO “ACTION.” There is no Act, if there is no Agent to perform the Act. Occam’s razor eliminated the Agent—God. There is no Purpose for the Universe, because it takes an Agent to have a Purpose.

But, why should we accept the premise of a William of Occam when the ancient Greek genius Aristotle (with his four causes) and the modern American genius Kenneth Burke (with his Dramatistic Pentad) point out the flaws in such an approach? In my earlier discussion of the syllogism, I point out that the syllogism works only if we accept the premises. Occam’s razor is a premise accepted by scientists, but shown to be flawed by Burke and Aristotle. So, what would change, if God were inserted into the “Universe of Energy” exhibit? The universe would again be endowed with meaning. Humans would be more than just the latest step in a continual, unending evolutionary process. Their symbol-using social nature would be an indication of the great purpose of God. Walt Disney’s motive of building a scene in which families could socialize would be comparable to the choice of God to build a scene in which His creatures, made in His image, could socialize with him. This seems to me to be more conducive to living “happily ever after,” a quite Disneyesque motive.

Disneology #4: The “Ding Dang,” Einstein, and Aristotle

ASSIGNMENT #4: IF YOU DON’T REMEMBER EVERYTHING FROM THE LAST ASSIGNMENT, VISIT THE ATTRACTION “UNIVERSE OF ENERGY” AT EPCOT AGAIN. THIS TIME, PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO WHAT BILL NYE, THE SCIENCE GUY, CALLS THE “BIG BANG” AND ELLEN CALLS THE “DING DANG.” IF A SCULPTOR PLANS TO SCULPT A STATUE, S/HE MUST DECIDE WHETHER TO SCULPT IT OUT OF SOAP, ICE, ROCK, GOLD, BRONZE, WOOD, ETC. WHAT “MATERIAL” WAS USED TO FORM THE UNIVERSE, ACCORDING TO THE FILM? HINT: IT MAY BE RELATED TO THE NAME OF THE ATTRACTION.

Two thousand three hundred years before Burke explained his Pentad, with its Agent and Purpose, another genius, Aristotle, contended that there was PURPOSE in the natural world. Aristotle’s term for Purpose was one of Aristotle’s four major causes of action. TELOS is known as the Final Cause—the purpose for which things in nature occur. Aristotle also saw an Agent in the natural world--the person, force, or cause that began the act. ARCHĒ is known as the Efficient Cause. Aristotle taught that the agent/ARCHĒ used a third type of cause to accomplish the Purpose. HULĒ is known as the Material Cause.


I explain how these causes of Aristotle relate to Kenneth Burke’s views in my book, Implicit Rhetoric: Kenneth Burke’s Extension of Aristotle’s Concept of Entelechy. Here, I especially want to emphasize the Material Cause—HULĒ. If God created the heavens and the Earth, what material did He create them out of? Was there some sort of preexisting material (HULĒ) that God used?

Theologians since the second century A.D. have debated whether the universe was created EX NIHILO (out of nothing), EX MATERIA (out of some preexisting material), or EX DEO (out of God’s nature itself). If you hold the position (mentioned as a possibility in my previous commentary) that the exact point in the beginning of creating that the first day described in Genesis is somewhere in the beginning, but the Earth is apparently already in existence, albeit in a formless and chaotic state, it is possible (but not necessary) to hold an EX MATERIA “biblical position.” Actually, you are not required, by accepting this translation, to hold any specific position on the origin of the material used to form the universe. You could also hold an EX NIHILO or an EX DEO “biblical position.” Honestly, if you accept this translation, you could even hold an agnostic position on this issue, and still be a Bible believer. You could say that the Bible does not tell us, so we “do not know” (=meaning of the term agnostic).

On the other hand, there is John’s creation theology in the first chapter of his gospel. Even if Genesis 1:1 does not absolutely commit Judeo-Christians to a position that the material world is not eternal, the first chapter of John seems to do the trick, at least for Christians: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. By [the Word] all things came into being. And without [the Word] nothing was made that was made.”

This is where Ellen’s “Ding Dang,” Bill Nye’s “Big Bang,” Einstein’s E=MC², Aristotle’s HULĒ, Disney’s Universe of Energy, and Kenneth Burke’s Logology all converge. And, theological discussions of EX NIHILO, DEO, and MATERIA are not far removed from this issue. According to Einstein, Mass (or Aristotle’s HULĒ) can be changed into Energy, and vice versa. Einstein explains his theory of relativity, as follows:

"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned above. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."

You may listen to Einstein make this statement “in his own voice” at http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/voice1.htm.

The Big Bang theory of the origins of the universe is based on the notion that “in the beginning” there was a huge conversion of Energy into Mass—a Big Bang. But what was the source of this tremendous supply of Energy? Theological answer: God. Even more specifically, for John, the energy present in the spoken Word of God. Although John eventually equates this spoken Word with Jesus, at first he is just stating the Jewish theological concept of the origins of the universe:
• God is Spirit.
• Spirit is spoken word.
• God’s Spirit was the energy source that created the heavens and Earth, originally it their chaotic (formless and void) conditions.
• God’s Word/Spirit brought into being all of the order in the universe.

This view is not at odds with a hypothetical Big Bang theory. In fact, this view supplies an important answer for adherents of the Big Bang Theory that physics and Disney’s Universe of Energy do not supply—the source of the tremendous supply of Energy that was converted into Mass.

Disneology #3: Dinosaurs, Young Earth, Old Earth

ASSIGNMENT #3: VISIT THE ATTRACTION “UNIVERSE OF ENERGY” AT EPCOT. STARTING WITH THE “BIG BANG,” IN A VERY SHORT SPAN OF TIME, YOU WILL VIEW A SEQUENCE OF EVENTS THAT MANY SCIENTISTS BELIEVE OCCURRED OVER A PERIOD OF 13 TO 14 BILLION YEARS. WHAT YOU ARE VIEWING IS DISNEY’S VISUAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE, ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED VIEWS IN PHYSICS. DID THE UNIVERSE ACTUALLY TAKE THAT LONG TO DEVELOP? IF YOU HAVE NOT YET SEEN ENOUGH DINOSAURS, VISIT THE ATTRACTION “DINOSAUR” AT THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. THERE, YOU WILL TIME TRAVEL BACKWARDS TO THE CRETACEOUS ERA, WHICH THE DISNEY RIDE ESTIMATES OCCURRED 65 MILLION YEARS AGO. HAS THE EARTH BEEN AROUND THAT LONG?


Creationism is a term often embraced by Judeo-Christian conservatives and often reviled by religious and secular liberals. The term refers to a philosophy of the origins of the universe in which an agent (God) is actively involved in the formation of everything in the universe. As suggested in my previous commentary, the presence of an Agent implies an Act, a Scene, an Agency, and a Purpose. The scientific theory presented in the Universe of Energy seems to lack an Agent. Hence, it could be inferred that the origin of the universe was NOT an Act. It had no Scene, required no Agency, and HAD NO PURPOSE. Small wonder that theologians are hesitant to overwhelmingly embrace this view of the origins of our universe! Indeed, this view of origins is clearly capable of supplying a strong motive for some to reject science altogether—to pursue a purely antagonistic stance. Many have been tempted, therefore, to “throw the baby out with the bath water.”

Some atheists, agnostics, and Bible-believers have asserted that the Bible teaches that the universe (heavens and Earth) came into being in six twenty-four hour periods, not 13 billion years. They say that, according to the Bible, the entire process began approximately 6000 years ago, beginning with the six days of creation. To support the believers’ view—countering “scientific” evidence of fossil remains, carbon dating, etc.—they pose the question: “How old did Adam appear when God created him?” Did he look as if he were 25? Then, if God can create a man who, though newly crafted, appeared to look 25 years old, He could create a universe that appears to look 13 billion years old (even though it is really only 6000 years old). True enough, if you accept the premise that God created Adam to appear to be 25. The syllogism works, if the premises are accepted:

• Major premise: God can create things to appear much older than they are.

• Minor Premise: The universe appears to be much older than 6000 years.

• Conclusion: God can create the universe to appear much older than 6000 years.

This reasoning is, of course, tied to the definition of God as omnipotent. Some do not accept the Major premise of the syllogism, but those who believe God to be omnipotent have no problem with the premise. Yet, some of these individuals, while they might accept the premise, wonder about the extended syllogism, concerning the Biblical teaching. They question whether it is actually true that “the Bible teaches that the universe (heavens and Earth) came into being in six twenty-four hour periods, not 13 billion years.” Are people of biblical faith inextricably bound to a view that is in such disharmony with current scientific views?

In the Introduction to my book Persuasion, Proposals, and Public Speaking (2nd edition), I demonstrate how I use the analytical method of Stephen Toulmin. Toulmin extends the syllogism by providing for situations in which some of the premises or conclusions might not be true. In my book, I use the O. J. Simpson trials as examples of Toulminian analysis. In this situation, let’s apply Toulminian analysis to the view that the heavens and Earth are only thousands of years old.

Certainly, it is possible to interpret the Genesis account of creation as stating that the entire universe and its inhabitants (up to and including humans) were completely created in six twenty-four hour periods, just a few thousand years ago. This translation is possible because the word “day” (YOM, in the Hebrew) most frequently refers to “one twenty-four hour period.” We could submit the Toulminian Claim that the Bible possibly teaches that the universe is a few thousand years old. Nevertheless, Toulminian analysis next permits us to attempt a Rebuttal. A rebuttal typically begins with the word “unless.” So, here is one rebuttal: “unless the term day/YOM can mean something other than a twenty-four hour period.” As it turns out, that is the case. In addition to the twenty-four hour denotation, the word YOM also, at times, simply means “light,” as opposed to “darkness”(Genesis 1:5).

YOM also refers to time periods other than the twenty-four hour variety. In the first chapter of Genesis, God created man—both male and female—and gave them instructions to multiply and fill the Earth, all in one YOM (Day Six). In the second chapter, there is an expanded discussion of several steps in this process. First, God creates Adam, a male, and instructs him to keep the Garden of Eden, to name the animals, to refrain from eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, etc. Then, God notices Adam’s loneliness, brings a deep sleep upon him, removes a rib from his side, fashions it into a female (Eve), and brings her to Adam. Later (when Adam and Eve are not together), a serpent successfully induces Eve to eat from the Tree, and Eve subsequently successfully tempts Adam to do so. They invent clothing and hide from God. God discovers them and interrogates them. They are cast from the Garden of Eden and FINALLY told to be fruitful and multiply in the Earth. These are quite a few events to have all been completed in one twenty-four hour period. Nevertheless, Genesis 5:1-2 confirms that Adam and Eve were created in a YOM.

Consider another example of YOM lasting longer than twenty-four hours. In Genesis 2:17, God tells Adam that “in the day you eat” from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, you shall surely die. Since (according to Genesis 5:8) Adam lived 930 years, the YOM in which he ate and died appears to be quite long. In fact, this nearly-one-thousand-year-long YOM appears to be close to the famous formula found in Psalm 90:4: “For a thousand years are in [God’s] eyes as a YOM . . .” Changing the Hebrew word YOM/day to the Greek term HEMERA/day, Second Peter 3:8 declares: “One day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day.” There may be another answer to the rebuttal that Adam died in the YOM in which he ate from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That answer would pertain to the definition of another curious theological word: “die.” I’ll write more on that issue in a later commentary.

A third example of YOM lasting longer than twenty-four hours is found in Genesis 2:4. This verse seems to suggest that ALL of creation—heavens, Earth, plants, animals, and humans—occurred in a single YOM. Even those who suggest that God created all things in 144 hours are hesitant to assert that it all happened within 24 hours.

While sound Biblical scholarship certainly permits the interpretation that the heavens and Earth and all varieties of inhabitants were formed in 144 hours, this is not the ONLY possible interpretation. Those who wish to discredit either the Bible or science on that basis may be mistaken.

Furthermore, a second rebuttal may be advanced against the claim that the Bible teaches that the universe is a few thousand years old. This rebuttal may be phrased: “unless the first word of the Bible has been mistranslated.” The first word of the Bible in the original language of Hebrew is BERESHIT. It is almost always translated: “In the beginning.” There is, however, a problem with that translation. The problem lies in the fact that the term BERESHIT is a Hebrew “construct” form. This means that the term “Beginning” should be connected with another noun by the word “of.” The second word of Genesis is NOT, however, a noun; it is the word BARA’, a verb, translated as “He created.” Among the possible solutions to this translation problem, Hebrew scholars have suggested that the textual helps that lead us to see this as a verb may be mistaken. (These textual helps were not in the original written Hebrew text.) It is quite permissible, if the textual helps are removed, to read BARA’ as a noun (or Gerund): “the creating.” This is how the translation of Genesis 1:1-2 might, thus, read: “In the Beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the Earth, the Earth was formless and void.

If the translation just offered is true, we do not know for certain exactly where the Genesis creation account begins. What is the exact point in the beginning of creating that the first day described in Genesis actually begins? It’s somewhere in the beginning, but the Earth is apparently already in existence, albeit in a formless and chaotic state. Of course, this is not the ONLY possible translation/interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2, but NEITHER is the translation: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.”

So, what am I suggesting? I am suggesting that those who choose to interpret the Genesis account of creation as occurring within a very short time span have some reasonable (syllogistic) basis for taking that position. Yet, those who believe the heavens and Earth took a much longer time to develop need not throw the baby out with the bath water. Young Earth and Old Earth both have possibilities in Judeo-Christian theology. Toulmin just shows how the various arguments are made. On the other hand, what does it matter how long God might have taken to create the universe, if He is truly ETERNAL.

Disneology 2: Imagine that You Were God

ASSIGNMENT #2: VISIT THE ATTRACTION “WALT DISNEY: ONE MAN’S DREAM” AT DISNEY’S HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS THEME PARK. MAKE A LIST OF THE INVENTIONS, INNOVATIONS, AND “CREATIONS” OF WALT DISNEY. WHAT, DO YOU THINK, IS THE DRIVING MOTIVATION FOR THE MAN WHO CREATED THE DISNEY EMPIRE? WHAT IS THE GLUE THAT HOLDS TOGETHER EVERYTHING HE BUILT IN HIS LIFETIME? WHY DID HE DO ALL THESE THINGS?

What would you DO, if you were God?
• If you were unrestricted in terms of resources (you owned everything),
• If you were unrestricted in terms of power (you were omnipotent),
• If you were unrestricted by time (you were eternal),
• If you were unrestricted by knowledge (you knew everything; you were omniscient),
What would you do?

In this commentary series, I am using Walt Disney as my representative anecdote. Walt had restrictions in resources; he was nearly bankrupt several times. He had restrictions in power, time, and knowledge; yet, he DID something. What did he do and why did he do it? Kenneth Burke offers a way of analyzing Walt Disney’s motives: Burke’s Pentad. I devote a chapter of my book Implicit Rhetoric: Kenneth Burke’s Extension of Aristotle’s Concept of Entelechy to explaining how the Pentad works, but (very simply) it proposes that human behavior be viewed as Drama. Every drama requires ACTS that must be performed within SCENES. The acts are performed by AGENTS who use certain tools or methods (AGENCIES) to perform the acts. These four terms are easily remembered by thinking of the game “Clue.” The ACT in Clue is given; it was the “killing of Mr. Body.” Players must determine the AGENT. Was it Colonel Mustard, Miss Peacock, Professor Plum? They must determine what AGENCY was used by the agent—a knife, lead pipe, rope, revolver, wrench, etc. The players must also determine the SCENE in which the killing takes place. Was Mr. Body killed in the kitchen, conservatory, ballroom, study, or library? What is not included in the game of Clue is the PURPOSE. Why did Colonel Mustard kill Mr. Body in the kitchen with the knife? Was Mrs. Mustard cheating on her husband with Mr. Body? Was Mr. Body stealing from or blackmailing Colonel Mustard? Did Mr. Body attack Colonel Mustard, thus forcing Mustard to kill Body in self-defense? Consistency demands an answer. Drama demands that, in the final analysis, we understand how all parts of the drama fit together.

Consider the accomplishments of Walt’s life as one primary ACT. Walt’s consummate act was the production of the most successful family entertainment entity in the world. You listed the elements of this consummate act-- his inventions, innovations, and “creations”—in your completion of Assignment #2. What do all of these elements have in common?

In what SCENE did Walt’s act take place? The answer to this question is two-fold. There was Scene 1—the circumstances that prompted Walt to produce his empire. This scene included personal, family, and national hardships described in the film you viewed at the conclusion of your visit to “Walt Disney: One Man’s Dream.” Scene 2 is the scene Walt personally produced—Disneyland, Walt Disney World, the various motion pictures, etc. Producing Scene 2 involved, technically, several of Walt’s individual ACTS.

What sort of AGENT was Walt? While his theme parks prohibited drinking, Walt personally drank too much. While his movies are usually rated G, his own language would have often earned him an R rating. While his Pinocchio character eschewed drinking and smoking, whiskey and chain-smoking are the agencies that killed Walt. He once remarked, "I know drinking and smoking are sins because you aren't taking care of the body God gave you." Nevertheless, he never changed his behavior. Walt, however, should not be reduced (as an agent) to his vices or his virtues. Consider what his unique character was like (as in a drama). Our goal is not to view Walt as a god, but only to consider how elaborate and consistent God’s creation would be by comparing it with the elaborate-yet-consistent inventions and innovations of the genius Walt Disney. We should consider what type of human would do the things that Walt did. There is an AGENT-ACT ratio to consider. What kinds of agents perform what kinds of acts?

Technology was the AGENCY used most by Walt. Other primary agencies were classical music and classic literature. Motion pictures had been around for awhile, but no one had used high quality artistry and combined it with motion pictures and classic literature to produce something like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. While the technology always seemed to be cutting edge, Walt did not pursue technology for technology’s sake.

So, why did Walt do what he did? What was his PURPOSE? According to Walt Disney, his dream of Disneyland was prompted by his social nature (a nature which, incidentally, biblical texts also impute to God). Walt cites as his motive for creating Disneyland his experience with his own children. He found himself taking the children to a park, and then sitting idly on the sidelines while his children played. He thought it would be wonderful if there were a Scene in which adults and children (Agents) could do things together (Act). He therefore used technology, money, and Imagineering (Agencies) to create Disneyland—his new Scene. Why? He (Agent) created (Act) Disneyland (Scene) with money, technology, and Imagineering (Agencies) in order that families could socialize (Purpose). He wanted adults and children to do happy things together.

The point of this commentary, however, is to imagine what would motivate God, not Walt Disney. The first chapter of Genesis indicates the prime Agent WHO was acting—God/Elohim. The same chapter states WHAT the Judeo-Christian God DID (Act). He created the heavens and the Earth and all that dwell on Earth. Chapter 1 indicates HOW God did what He did. He used spoken Word (Agency). Chapter 1 describes the WHERE, the Scene into which God brought order—formlessness and void (the Tohu and Bohu of the Hebrew text). The second chapter of Genesis offers a glimpse into WHY God did this act. Apparently, it was his social nature (Purpose). We see a picture of God walking with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening. We see God asking Adam to be his collaborator. Adam is invited to name the animals God created. We see God understanding that Adam, himself, was lonely. He needed a companion, Eve. We see God as a parent figure, setting limitations. We see Him disappointed when his newly-formed creatures-in-His-own-image distrust Him and violate the limitations He set. Much later in the Bible, John expresses God’s purpose in one of the most famous verses in the New Testament—John 3:16. “For God so LOVED the world, that He gave his only begotten son . . .”

So, that’s the Biblical account. What kind of Agent does what kind of Act? Imagine that you were God. What would you DO?