3.a.1. Theory of Creationism vs. evolution
We mention Creationism and other religious philosophies because indeed, they relate to the theories of evolution and many people agree with them in one or another way.
As the theory of Creationism does not follow the scientific method, the critic cannot base on logical thinking, so we can only show our deep respect for religious beliefs.
Similar problematic arises when studying the positions or theories on the existence of the soul-body (monism and dualism) and, although in a smaller degree, the concepts mind-brain (logical behaviorism - Wittgenstein, identity, and functionalism) to be in the scope of theology and philosophy more than in science.
In any case, we think religious positions such as Theory of Creationism can be compatible with any evolutionary theory, with a metaphorical interpretation of specific explanations to the origin of life with a religious character.
3.a.2. Intelligent Design
The General Theory of the Conditional Evolution of Life does not coincide with the Intelligent Design movement such as the pseudo-tautological idea of the design of the universe to admit biological life, as we know it. However, it coincides with its argument of the existence of a teleological or finalist evolution consequence of an intrinsically vital impulse.
Naturally, it undergoes the same attitudes when some humans confuse the Conditional Evolution –an entirely evolutionary theory– with the Creationism and do not accept its scientific nature. As if excluding a theory’s character without any reason were purely an act of pure science!
Despite the fact Conditional Evolution is wholly rooted in the scientific method and experimental research; as far as any possible religious connection to the Intelligent Design movement is concerned, Conditional Evolution supports a spiritual vision to the extent in which all religions come together. That is to say, the objective existence of the aforementioned vital impulse that seems to give meaning to life.
However, any scientific evidence of evolution being finalist would not imply, in its case, that any particular aspect suggested by the movement or theory of Intelligent Creationism in a broad sense is correct, given its range and heterogeneous nature.
Furthermore, strictly speaking, the Conditional Evolution is not a part of this trend or movement.
Nevertheless, in our opinion, the subject of Intelligent Design seems particularly significant for the following reasons:
It is a crucial step that part of religion, call it Intelligent Creationism, Scientific Creationism Theory, or Intelligent Design movement, decides to try to make its beliefs compatible with the physical reality of our world, which is represented mainly by science and experimental research.
Thus, science, or rather, the scientific community, will find itself forced to the corresponding; that is, not to reject something that it has no evidence to disprove and, therefore, accepting that some ideas like those of Intelligent Design could be valid.
The scientific community also would be obliged to recognize that their preferred evolutionary theory of Darwin is neither proven nor rigorously formalized and that they have made a severe error in the past by accepting it as such.
The entry into science would prompt a greater seriousness in the Intelligent Design as well as in the Darwinian Theory of evolution, or the currently widespread Neo-Darwinism.
For example, both theories should explain the concept of Life, when and how they think it began in the universe and persisted until the present time. Note that until now one focused on Life and the other on species!
Along the same line, both Creationism and Darwinism should separate from the context of science the non-verifiable assertions –such as a tautology or anything appearing out of nowhere without being able to say precisely when.
Another essential element of the Intelligent Design’s dynamics is that it represents a small revolution within its ideas because its defenders find themselves imposed to place their designer in this world if they want to accept evolution.
That is to say, there is an intelligence producing small changes throughout time, which makes evolution take place. Therefore, it seems sensible to think that this intelligence would be low, not typically human, and even belonging to a micro scale. If you want to call it Scientific Creationism, humans are no longer the only intelligent beings and with the spirit of improvement.
If the Intelligent Design movement is evolutionary theory and we would like to believe it, the religious sentiment would be transcending beyond young humanity, which is, in our opinion, encouraging and implies it is becoming more rational.
Now all that we needed for modern science is to undertake a similar route and abandon some of its nineteenth-century premises preventing it from being neutral regarding essential concepts, such as the evolution of life.
3.b.1. Lamarck's theory of evolution
Lamarck theory is based on environmental factors and summarized as “the function creates the organ.”
We consider Lamarck's theory of evolution valid but not general.
Among other concepts, the evolutionary theory of Lamarck should explain the controls imposed by nature to avoid the development of modified characters due to non-permanent environmental changes.
Likewise, Lamarck's theory is too simple for the knowledge of our days. Lamarck only adds a portion of the ideas needed to explain the complexity of the evolutionary dynamics.
There is a brief description of the Theory of Lamarck in chapter 9.