Creavolution By Gunther Ostermann

By Gunther Ostermann
Guest Writer, Dandelion Salad
Kelowna, May 28, 2010

To the Editor

Open letter to Richard Dawkins, author of The GOD Delusion.

Your book The GOD Delusion is very interesting. You debunked many things that I never believed in, but I think you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

Well, you’re not alone. A newspaper reported of a fifty-nine year old Anglican high school teacher who recited his favourite prayer every day on his way to work, and suddenly he just stopped praying. “I stopped because I lost my faith, I now truly loath any sight or sound of religion. I blush at what I used to believe.” He now is an avowed atheist. Sadly, he’s messed up for life, and hundreds of millions like him.

I grew up rather irreligious. When I read the bible, out of curiosity in my twenties, I found nothing I could believe in. My last 50 years have been devoted in trying to understand what an incredible nature and universe we live in that, to my mind, couldn’t be all accidental.

I share your opinion that, ‘God retired’ after the big bang. Because, if scientist can say that the whole universe was smaller than an atom, some 14 billion years ago, which is unbelievable, then is it any less credible to suggest and believe that a CREATOR, who is as intangible and invisible as is our mind, used the big bang to make a material universe possible?

Actually matter, as we think of it, does not exist, as everything is energy. A simple hydrogen atom, whose electron orbits the nucleus with some hundred million billion circuits every second makes ‘matter’ real to us time-space creatures. But where is the dynamo or battery or the source that makes all this possible?

Imagine if all the space within the atoms were taken out of our body, there would be nothing left of us to look at. So much for our present material importance.

I have no problem with the broad term ‘evolution’. But ‘Darwinian evolution’ devoid of ‘mind’ could not have a goal; it selects for what is useful now, not for what it might become useful in the future. When you say that natural selection is a ‘cumulative’ process, then who or what is the ‘selector’? Doesn’t ‘evolve’ suggest that there is intelligence behind it? Or is it all just happenstance, as far as you and atheists believe?

To simplify my personal beliefs of these complex phenomenons that, EVOLUTION IS THE PROCESS OF CREATION; I made up the word CREAVOLUTION, some 20 years ago, and CREAVOLUTION compliments the Anthropic Principle.

It is mind-boggling to read that Stephen Hawking believes that the universe has no creator, yet he believes that the universe can create itself spontaneously out of nothing. Wow!

Yes Mr. Dawkins, fundamental religions have ruled humanity virtually forever, but this could only happen in cahoots with politicians and the money-manipulators. You forgot to mention this. People need to re-discover their birthright.

Regardless, what you or anybody else believes, we have a responsibility, a mandate, to take care of our planet for future generations, and we’re failing miserably. I’m deeply ashamed.

I humbly share the opinion of the late physicist John Wheeler, “We do not know the first thing about the universe, about ourselves, and about our place in the universe.”


Gunther Ostermann
Kelowna, BC. Canada


Stop sleepwalking into the future By Gunther Ostermann

Beyond Theism and On with Evolution: Part One by Eileen Fleming

Jesus: Man, Messiah, or More?

Jewish Marxist Atheist has vision of Jesus

Jesus of Nazareth (1977)

19 thoughts on “Creavolution By Gunther Ostermann

  1. Pingback: The Future of Our Pale Blue Dot is At Stake by Gunther Ostermann | Dandelion Salad

  2. Ostermann is a 96-yr old man, so to criticize his writing skills or make personal attacks of his ideas is mean spirited and as low to the mud as one can get. Shame on you thugs.

    Secondly, Ostermann has his finger on the pulse of the universe as evidenced by ideas generated by quantum science and the Multiverse theory. The recent evidence of the Higgs boson gives credence to these theories.

    It is thought that it would be fairly simple to create another universe: a basement physicist may soon do it: just make a tiny black hole, and voila, a new universe pops into existence on “the other side.” But if the “creator” would leave a message for their creation, it would be stretched so large across the expanding new universe as to become unreadable.

    Multiverse theory also argues that “information” is not lost when passing through a black hole. Thus a space ship trapped and destroyed in a black hole would “seed” the new universe with the information inherent in that ship. Thus the new universe would be as if “programmed” towards the physics to support life and, eventually, intelligent life and space technology.

    Quantum science does not valuate a creator god, but it does also not valuate blind Darwinian biological evolution. It does however prove that the tiniest variations on the quantum level produces massive change in our physical plane. Darwin’s “evolution” maybe too macro to see the evolutionary influence that comes from the extremely micro.

  3. Pingback: “The Big Bang as God’s plan”? by Gunther Ostermann « Dandelion Salad

  4. Pingback: There was and is, A CAUSE, prior to the big bang By Gunther Ostermann « Dandelion Salad

  5. Dogger, I’m sorry that I didn’t post your last comment(s) soon enough for you. They are being held in the moderation file until I have the time to read them. Believe or not, I have an unpaid job to do here posting the news.

    A reminder for you from this blog on the left-hand side”


    The views and/or opinions posted on all the blog posts and in the comment sections are of the respective authors, not necessarily those of Dandelion Salad.”

    You are continuing to drag me into this conversation and I don’t like that at all.

    I also don’t like that you continue to ask me to restrict Gunther’s free speech by asking me to remove this post. Not cool.

  6. Pingback: 21st Century Letter to the Churches in the USA « Dandelion Salad

  7. Pingback: It’s Your Soul…… Stupid!!! by Philip A. Farruggio « Dandelion Salad

  8. I have no need for argumentation, defending or postulating speculative theories. I am simply appalled by our collective inhumanity, our self centered operations of grasping and competing with one another instead of forming cohesive communities at all levels of society. Although shared belief systems in a higher intelligence have supported limited caring communities, these beliefs should not be necessary for the healthy sustainability and growth of life on this planet.. A greater preservation and promotion of life and social intelligence is more appropriately aimed at our total collective needs and safety. Evolution of mind ought to be a fruitful direction for study and concerns now. We must forget about petty differences as well as grasping and competing. One life is as valuable as another. Our job is to create harmony amongst living entities and to make sense of our position in this vast universe of time and space.

    • helen , so what you are saying is that we can save ourself . it aint gonna happen . that is why we need the risen Christ. ..and the power he will give to us to live beyond virtue to be living saints in the NOW . mere morals and ethics , and social taboos has not and will not work. it never has.

  9. Dogger, if you care to read my letter again, you’ll notice that I never implied that Richard Dawkins doesn’t care about our planet, and neither did I say that ‘his level of compassion is inferior to my own. And…that I hold him ‘somewhat’ responsible for the miseries of the world is, in your own words, absurd.
    Any comments what Stephen Hawking said? Or my humble admission that I share with John Wheeler, that we don’t know the first about anything, as far as life, nature and the universe concerns?
    I do not believe the well worn phrase that; the love of money is the root of all-evil, but it’s ‘money’ that is the root of ALL evil. And that is destroying the world. No? A normal human being who, as an inhabitant and shareholder of the wealth our planet, as well as of ALL of technology, would never go to war or of drill for oil in oceans or waste his/her life to produce such monstrosities. Nobody, normal human that is, would sit on a computer in Arizona and drop bombs on human being half way around the world, and than goes home and pretends to be a loving person. I could go on, but you can read some more of my rants on google.

    • No. Mr. Osterman. You did imply just that.
      You adressed an open letter to Professor Dawkins. And in that letter you stated, “Regardless, what you or anybody else believes, we have a responsibility, a mandate, to take care of our planet for future generations”. Its called passive aggressive communication. And its weak and pathetic.

      You have a problem with Professor Dawkin’s atheism, and with Stephen Hawking’s atheism. That is why you choose to attack them in your little passages.

      The fact that you also litter these passages with comments about economic injustice, and military violence, arises simply from your prejudice. You oppose the beliefs of these men, and in your rants against them, you muddy your argument with unrelated off topic assertions.

      There are a lot of people that you could be writing open letters to discussing your anxiety about military violence, economic injustice and global degradation. But you choose instead, Professor Dawkins and Stephen Hawking.

      You have shown no good reason why Professor Dawkins should be included in this list. Your rants about money and war have nothing to do with him. You reference them in your letter to him purely as a product of your prejudice against him.

      If you had any real integrity you would ask Lo to remove this post, and you would write Professor Dawkins a letter of apology. Your poor writing does not excuse for your malicious intent. You have a problem with atheists/atheism and your prejudice so clouds your judgment that you can’t even think about, write about, your beliefs without slipping into off topic unrelated attacks.

      I will repeat my previous assertion.

      You should be ashamed.

      • Also. Mr. Osterman.

        You say here that you do not claim that Professor Dawkin’s compassion is not inferior to your own. But your writing shows clearly that you do feel superior to him, and to “hundreds of millions like him”.

        In your original rant you compare him to a particular anglican high school teacher. You lump Professor Dawkins together with this teacher and with “hundreds of millions like him” who are “messed up for life”.

        You quote John Wheeler and try to be humble, but the real truth is that you narcissistically obsessed, seeing everyone that fails to conform to your beliefs as inferior to you. You are a hateful man, and a coward.

        I know that it is easy in contemporary society to be hateful of atheists. To condemn us as “messed up for life”. But really it is no better than anti-semistism, or racism, or misogyny. You are a bully and a creep.

        And I will repeat one more time.

        You should be very ashamed.

  10. I don’t believe that Professor Dawkins ever claimed that evolution has a goal. Nor did he imply in any way the need for a personified “selector”. Your need to personify a natural process is the product of your own confusion. Selection happens without need for a “selector”. The most beneficial genetic differences reoccur not as a product of will, but as a product of benefit. Mutations that increase the ability of a species to survive are more likely retained than those that don’t.

    Also. The word “evolve” does not in any way imply the existence of “intelligence behind it”. You have added this aspect to your personal understanding of the word. Do you believe that the outcome of a dice roll is determined by a “selector”? Do you believe that intelligence determines which number comes up?

    I know that when you say “just happenstance” that you believe that there is something superior about what you believe. I know that you feel that meaning must come from some authority; and that the meaning I find in my life is inferior to yours because it is not constructed by a god.

    I’m glad that you see that we are destroying the planet because of our stupidity. But your desire to critique Professor Dawkin’s understanding of evolution shows your own stupidity. Not just in your decision to do so, but more specifically because of your shoddy, incompetent argumentation.

    Your implication that Professor Dawkins does not care about our planet is juvenile and absurd. Are you suggesting that his lack of belief in a god, makes his level of compassion, care and awareness inferior to your own.

    Atheists did not dump thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf. Atheists did not tell a bunch of lies for the purpose of drawing a nation into war. Atheists didn’t massacre the native inhabitants of this continent, and capture and enslave the people of another.

    I know that it is easier to believe that self is good, and other is bad. But for you to take a look at the world around you, at the violent, unjust, barbarity that is so present; and to decide to write an open letter to Professor Dawkins holding him somewhat responsible for it, while excusing yourself is just pathetic.

    I know that you already stated your shame. and I agree.

    You should be deeply ashamed.

    • Dogger , Dawkins work was dispatched by Antony Flew . Flew wrote 40 books on Atheism when he was one . when he saw that the evidence went the other way he became a Theist.

      Flew shows the inconsistencies and mistakes in Dawkins . besides , Darwin said in his autobiography that he was a Theist. ( pg. 300 ).

      Do Athiests really care about the outcome of this planet ? i dont see much of it in the what is called ”the new atheists ”. i prefer the humanism of atheists like Camus . Chris Hedges deals with this a lot .

      • Do atheists really care about this planet?

        Well I do.

        And the desire that you and Mr. Osterman have to conflate atheism with anti-environmentalism exists only because of your prejudice.

        I know that it is easy to talk about the love of jesus and feel all good about yourself while you condemn others.

        But your condemnation of me is no better than that of Glen Beck, and the tea party. He and they feel superior to hispanics, and women, and blacks, and non-Americans, and non-christians and gays and atheists.

        You’re generalized hatred is smaller than theirs. Are you proud?

        Do Christians really care about the planet?

        Well I believe that many of them do.

        But when I look at Bush and Cheney, and the US Congress that is nearly 100% theists I wonder how christians like you and Mr. Osterman have the balls to get off attacking atheists for their lack of compassion for the planet.

        Your generalized attack of others non-belief counters everything you pretend to espouse when you talk about love and forgiveness and so much else that you pretend.

        Oh. And I have read much by Chris Hedges and respect him deeply. And you sir and Mr. Osterman are nothing like him. He sees tension and difficulty and explores difference intelligently. You and Mr. Osterman attack the other that is different than yourself because you lack the depth and integrity to do anything else.

        • dogger — ”( raising my right hand ) ”i have not now nor ever been a member of the Tea party , nor do i listen to Glen Beck ”.
          i hope that placates your Mccarthyite tendencys .

          now , on a serious note — dont take all this shit so serious . give yourself a license to chill. i aint judging anybody . i know my faults tooooooooooo well . believe me . this is not personal. of course there are different kinds of atheists. i am a big Hitchens fan . in fact i am reading his memoirs now . Dawkins comes off way to dry for me . so does Dennet. now Sam Harris is on to something with his ”transcendental atheism ”.

          but lets face it , they dont make atheists nor Christians like they used too . where are the Albert Camus of our generations ? now that is a real humanitarian atheist with a brain . and where are the Dorothy Days or Thomas Mertons ? once again –real humanitarian Christians .

          you want to check out my kind of atheist living today , read Nat Hentoff .

          my point in bring up Antony Flew is important because of his lifelong atheism and his defection toward Theism . His new book ”There is a God ” says it all .

          Flew comes from the old school of analytic philosophy . he is a hard man to fool . its worth the read .

        • you tell me to chill.

          and say you ain’t judging anybody.

          but these are your words aren’t they:

          Do Athiests really care about the outcome of this planet ? i dont see much of it in the what is called ”the new atheists ”.

          It sounds really quite judgmental to me.

          And no I didn’t say that you were a member of the tea party. I know that politically you are far left of them, nothing like them.

          But still you make judgmental anti-atheist statments frequently. You condemn and judge other christians because they don’t get the christ story right, and you condemn many atheists because they aren’t getting that right. You’re very well read and try to be intelligent. And you look down on just about everybody. Except jesus, and Camus, and hitchens, and hedges….

          I know that you think that you know your faults all toooo well but really you don’t. You read and quote others, but you don’t think. You’re religious because you depend upon the appeal to authority constantly as you lack confidence in yourself. You read and talk about what you read. You quote and guide people to read what you have read. And you rely too completely personally on the cruthch of divine authority as foundation for all, because you lack the confidence to create and define meaning yourself. And that is to bad because if you could let go of all of that, and confidently think for yourself you could perhaps make a great break through.

          If I were you I would close right here by telling you about something you could read by a remarkably insightful man. But that’s the last thing you need.

        • you know dogger , God can heal anyones bitterness . that is what the cross is for . my knowledge just did not come from books . i was an enemy of the gospel , a real enemy . but what does one do when love breaks thru ? tell me ( bear with my folly ) ..hypothetically –what would you do if it happened to you ?
          me critizing other christians ? yep . you know why ? they are misrepresenting the good news of christ and turning it into an imperial message of war and agression . that is called exposing deception . i hate what these people are doi ng worse than you do . but i dont hate them . some of them are dear freinds of mine .
          there is a time to expose falsehood . to rip the mask off. Christ was not a one dimensional figure. no great figure in literature is .
          and i dont judge you . if i tell you the truth about christ does that make me your enemy ? no . on the contrary . many people have hated me for confronting them with the gospel , and got saved , and years later came back and thanked me .
          so i aint out to win any popularity contest.

          concerning the new athiests ( so called ) . most of them are imperialists . you tell me –what is the difference between the pro-imperialists so called christians , and the pro-imperialists athiests ? not much to a mother dying of grief whose baby has just been slaughtered by solders from the American Empire.
          that is why i side with the humanists –no matter what they believe. or not believe.

        • there is a big difference between judging a person in a condeming way , and pointing out falsehoods or deceptions . alot of people think that they are the same . but they are not . besides the gospel means ”good news”. but what happens when one chooses to reject good news ?

Comments are closed.