“A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses. It is an idea that possesses the mind.”

– Robert Oxton Bolt

 

Everyone has beliefs. Those beliefs are based on a person’s perception of reality which is, for the most part, limited to what their physical senses tell them the world is like. These physical senses give rise to logic, a reasoning process which is an intellectual exercise in taking the available information and then trying to determine the truth of the matter (e.g. what is reality?).

However, the best that we can do is come to some approximate understanding of what the physical world is like. That’s the best. Of course, we know that humans’ senses of hearing and seeing are very inadequate so our view of reality is also likely to be lacking.

Interestingly enough, quantum physics tells us that there is a reality beyond the observable universe. Our universe is not all that there is to creation!! Beyond our universe is a non-physical world where consciousness is all that is. As Max Planck, the father of modern physics, stated, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness.”  Yet from a scientific standpoint, scientists cannot prove (scientifically) what lies beyond our universe – because it is not observable. That’s the dilemma that John Horgan discussed in his book The End of Science.

So, where does this leave us?  All that we have to try to understand life is our physical senses. Yet, our physical senses cannot grasp the physical universe let alone the quantum world that our reality arises from. Michael Talbot, in The Holographic Universe, explained just how our reality is shaped by unseen forces from beyond, as follows: “Our brains mathematically construct objective reality by interpreting frequencies that are ultimately projections from another dimension, a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time….”   Carl Jung expressed a similar concept when he said that the psyche and reality are not limited to space and time.

Yet, people generally resist anything that they can’t see for themselves.  Instead, they simply label things they can’t explain as “supernatural.”  This is particularly true of atheists as they reject anything that smacks of the supernatural (which they equate with an admission that God exists).

However living, in my opinion, does require a leap of faith. By leap of faith, I’m not talking here about religion. Rather, I’m talking about having an open mind with regards to the unseen forces of Nature that shape our world. Unfortunately, though, if you’re looking for hard and fast answers you can forget it.  There really aren’t any. The thing to remember, though, as Bernard Werber said is that, “The point is not to 
believe or not believe. 
What matters is to ask 
as many questions as possible.”

 

Epilogue

The human species has been taught to believe that it is a physical species. If so, then why do you not fall out of bed at night?  Yes, the physical body is asleep but something keeps you from falling out of bed when you roll over at night. Further, what part of your body makes you human?  If you lose a hand, arm or leg, do you stop being human? Of course not. Exactly what makes you human then?

So, why is man the only species that can ponder his own existence? The only one. What part of his physical body does man use to do that?  His mind? Well, you should know that scientists have been unable to locate the “mind” in our physical body.  However, they have determined that the “mind” makes decisions before you are even consciously aware of those decisions. So, where exactly do your beliefs come from?  Better yet, who are you?

 

The universe does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators.”  – John Wheeler, physicist

I read a post the other day where a reader commented that one should follow God’s will. That comment immediately raised a couple of questions, at least for me. First off, how do we know that God has a will? At first blush, maybe that seems like a pretty innocuous question. However, how does anyone really know? After all, The Pascal Wager states that, “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible” (i.e. the finite cannot conceive of the Infinite).

That, of course, begs the second question. That is, what kind of a life form might God be? However, we first probably need to define “will,” as in God’s will. The Free Dictionary says that will is “The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action.” In that case, I suppose, God has to be considered to be some sort of a physical life form. The Bible confirms this as it says that God was a man, specifically referring to God as Him.

Aside: Of course if God was a man, then who created God?

Now, I know that some people would say that God does not have to be a Him; that God could be a She or even an It. Fair enough. However, consider this. Some researchers/historians, myself included, believe that the Genesis story (in particular the Creation and Flood stories) was borrowed from older Sumerian writings.

Aside: That was only natural, in a way, since the Israelites actually were descendants of the Sumerians through Abraham.

In the ancient Sumerian writings, God (or more accurately the gods) is referred to as Him because he actually is a man – a real flesh and blood man. This is why the Bible says that man (Adam) was created in God’s image, (i.e. the image of a male, human being).

Aside: That is, man and God have nearly identical DNA.

Naturally, all of this raises more questions than it answers. For example, is God the Prime Creator? Well, certainly, the god of Genesis was the creator of man, at least the modern-day version of Homo sapiens. As for being the creator, the Bible actually says that God is not the Prime Creator. In Deuteronomy 32:8-9, it states, “When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord’s (Yahweh) portion is his people; Jacob (Israel) is the lot of his inheritance.” This shows that Yahweh was, at best, a lower god since Yahweh was subordinate to the Most High. Further, in John 1:18, John says that ““No one has ever seen God.” Of course, John was speaking about the spirit form of God, so the physical god of Genesis could not be God, according to John.

Back to the issue of God’s will. If God was an intelligent life form with a physical body, by definition he would almost certainly have a will. God then might impose his will on man, if he so chose, similar to what happened in so many of the biblical stories. The problem is that the so-called god of Genesis is not God, as in the Prime Creator. In that case, why worry about god’s will at all? Indeed, why even worship Yahweh?

…Or perhaps, the “god concept” is really just a distraction to keep us from connecting with our real Creator.

 

Epilogue

As Yahweh told man, you shall have no other gods before you. Hopefully, you can now see how that Bible verse makes some sense. That is, there were many Yahweh-type entities running around in ancient times. Yahweh was simply one of many (see Deuteronomy 32:8-9 above). In fact, the Israelites were polytheistic for thousands of years, even after Moses. Yahweh was an important god but the goddess Asherah was just as important, perhaps even more so. However, with the introduction of monotheism, the Israelites were told to have no other gods before them – and certainly not the gods of the Sumerians, the gods of Abraham.

 

The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.”  – Carl Sagan

 

P.S. Of course, “the universe” Sagan mentions is not a life form (i.e. it cannot know itself). When reading his quote, therefore, you need to replace the word “universe” with the word “Creator”.

Imagine

09/29/2016

“There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.”  – Bill Hicks

Imagine that you are a TV monitor looking at another TV monitor. That’s exactly how one’s eyesight works. Of course, you have other senses and they all send messages to the brain where they are interpreted and communicated (fed) to your consciousness. Collectively, then, your perception of reality is defined as the sum total of all these electrical signals which have been transmitted to your brain and, then, subsequently interpreted by it.

Scientists say that our decisions are made in the brain (mind) before we are actually  consciously aware of them. So, it seems that we need to reassess who and what we really are. Consider this – are we more than just our physical bodies, more than just our conscious minds?

Science is continually breaking new ground in their quest to define creation. For example, MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark believes the universe is a mathematical structure. Of course, mathematics, by definition, is information. More to the point, a mathematical structure implies intelligence. Then, there is a new scientific field of inquiry called DNA Wave Genetics which postulates that the genome of the highest organisms is considered to be a bio-computer which forms the space-time grid framework of a bio-system. The logical extension of that theory is that we exist in a bio-system created by a bio-computer which is none other than our own DNA. But, then, who created our DNA?

If you are religious, you no doubt believe that you have a “soul.” However, what then is a soul if not another layer of information which defines who or what we are? Indeed, that information/soul might even come from a higher dimension than the three-dimensional universe that we “exist” in. After all, some cosmologists and physicists believe that there are more than three dimensions in the universe (four counting space/time).

Since science has theorized that there are such things as parallel universes, perhaps we exist in more than one universe at the same time. However, if we are multi-dimensional beings, what then is creation? Well, no less than Carl Jung offered up that all of creation is subjective, a dream…and we are the dreamers. Maybe, Bill Hicks was on to something.

 

 

De-Evolving Man

03/28/2016

People have asked me if I think that man has really been getting dumber as I mentioned in my recent post Real Life, Real Evolution. Well, the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids, didn’t they? For that matter, we have pyramids dotting the landscape around the world.  Somebody built them, right?

It’s really just a matter of DNA. Genetically speaking, man is the by-product of sophisticated instructions contained in our DNA. DNA has software that even Bill Gates admits is far more advanced than any supercomputer. So, tell me, who put those instructions there? If you say that the DNA just evolved then I have to ask you another question. How does DNA just magically evolve and choose, through natural selection presumably, the necessary changes for the survival of the species? Either process requires intelligence.

So, where did the intelligence come from, then? How could man have had a dramatic increase in his intelligence followed by a subsequent, steady decline? Actually, all that it would take is a one-time injection of DNA from another source, a source other than Homo sapiens. You may recall that I have previously mentioned the genetic study by the Harvard Medical School, in collaboration with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Man is said to have mated with an unknown species. Such a mating could easily have produced a spike in man’s intelligence if that unknown species were more intelligent than Homo sapiens.

Thus, my prior reference to ancient, advanced civilizations, civilizations who seemed to have since vanished off the face of the Earth.  Many ancient cultures have stories of intelligent beings who appeared bringing with them the seeds of civilization. For example, the Incas were visited by Viracocha, the Mayas by Kukulkan, the Aztecs by Quetzalcoatl and the Dogon by the Nommos. Most of the “gods” said that they would return, but of course they never did.

The getting dumber part is actually easier to explain, if you assume the scenario I just presented is correct. That is, there would have been far, far more pure Homo sapiens running around than the smarter version. Over time, man’s intelligence would have been diluted, genetically speaking…and it will continue to be diluted in the future until we return to our original intelligence level!

So, there you have it.  You probably won’t agree with my explanation but I think that you will find it hard to completely ignore. As Arthur Schopenhauer said, the truth usually works that way.

Science says that man evolves by natural selection, although it’s never been shown exactly how that works. Along comes molecular evolutionary biologist Masatoshi Nei who says that mutation, not natural selection, drives evolution. Whether its natural selection or mutation, or a combination of both (or neither), it has never been enough to sustain a species since 99% of all species that ever lived, including every one of man’s hominid ancestors, have become extinct. As the fossil record demonstrates, extinction is a perfectly natural response to changing environmental conditions. So, is man next?

We have been taught to believe that man is constantly, yet ever so slowly, evolving in an upward direction over thousands, if not millions of years. At least, that’s what we have been taught to believe.  At the end of the last ice age, man was barely eking out an existence, all the while living in caves. Suddenly, in the 4th millennia B.C., man overnight (in evolutionary terms) started doing miraculous things, like building fantastic pyramids. This process occurred supposedly over a period of two thousand years, give or take. Again, that’s what we’ve been taught.

There is a certain amount known about the two great civilizations that developed after the last ice age – ancient Egypt and Sumer (Mesopotamia).  Strangely enough, though, both of those civilizations arose abruptly and disappeared almost as abruptly.  So, the question is this: Where did the knowledge and advanced technology come from to build these civilizations and why did their knowledge simply vanish? Great pyramids were built in China, Egypt, Eastern Europe, South and Central America, among other places. The thing is: Has anyone built a great pyramid lately? Why not? From the end of the Indus Valley civilization in 1300 B.C. to the nineteenth century, a period of over 3,000 years, man actually accomplished precious little.  Having built the pyramids, among other great archaeological works, man was still  driving around in a horse and buggy (chariots having been first invented around 2500 B.C.).  That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Here’s how it’s possible, though. You see, underwater ruins from around the world are an indication that an advanced civilization existed on this planet prior to the end of the last ice age. The rise in the world’s oceans that accompanied the end of that ice age, sent monolithic structures, and even whole cities, to the bottom of the sea where they remain today. The world is just now rediscovering such sites – from India to the Black Sea to the North Sea to the Caribbean to the South Pacific, among others. This radically changes the evolutionary timeline for modern man, pushing it back by thousands of years, assuming, that is, that modern man even built these sites. Perhaps, there were even two different civilizations living side-by-side with one another.  After all, a recent genetic study shows that in ancient times modern man had sex with an unknown species. 

Unbeknownst to many, de-evolution has already been observed in nature. For example, recent genetic research has shown that the worm has evolved to be less sophisticated than its ancestors. The implications of this discovery are quite profound in that it shows that a species can de-evolve to a more primitive form. That really shouldn’t come as a big surprise because man used to have a much bigger brain as revealed by scientists’ discovery of the remains of a 28,000 year-old Cro-Magnon man.  Further, the results from recent scientific studies show a decline in man’s intelligence. Exactly in what direction, then, is the species really headed? It might just be possible that man has actually been de-evolving.

 

Epilogue

Some geneticists claim that man’s DNA is currently in the process of evolving from a 2-strand double helix to a 12-strand helix. So, possibly we could see yet another dramatic spike in evolution, not unlike the Cambrian Explosion which was biology’s equivalent of the Big Bang whereby a vast number of life forms came into existence in a blink of an eye, so to speak.  Either way, de-evolution or evolutionary spikes, evolutionary theory will need a major rewrite.

 

“Trying to read our DNA is like trying to understand software code – with only 90% of the code riddled with errors. It’s very difficult in that case to understand and predict what that software code is going to do.”
– Elon Musk

The origins of the Jewish people are a real mystery. That is, there is little to no evidence of exactly who they were, not even in the Old Testament (which is essentially a history of the Jewish race).

The Jewish people believe that their roots go back to the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible). For example, in the Old Testament, the Jewish people are called Israelites and prior to that Hebrews. However, these designations only appear in the Bible and they have never been placed in the context of ancient history. So, let’s explore who the Jewish people really were.

Biblically speaking, the origins of man, and by definition the Jewish people, goes back to the Garden of Eden. Now, the Garden of Eden is generally considered by biblical scholars to have been in the Middle East. Where, exactly, has been somewhat difficult to pin down, however. The Bible does say, though, that Abraham and his family came from the city of Ur and since Ur was located in the ancient Mesopotamian kingdom of Sumer, Abraham was by definition a Sumerian. Since Abraham was a Sumerian, so too were the Jewish people since they were Abraham’s descendants.

Family trees aside, there is virtually no real history in the Bible prior to Abraham. For a period covering over one thousand years, all that we have is two stories, the Creation Story and the Flood Story. The elephant in the room is this. Why is there no real family history of the Jewish people prior to Abraham? Why?

Since Abraham and his family were Sumerians, let’s start by examining Sumerian history. Now, the Sumerians were perhaps the greatest civilization that ever existed on the planet up until the 20th century, far beyond that of the vaunted Greek civilization that came over 1,000 years later. What’s important to realize is that the origins of Western Civilization go back much farther than Greece. Their origins actually go all the way back to Sumer, as the Sumerians almost single-handedly invented civilization.

Samuel Kramer, in his book History Begins at Sumer, lists 39 “firsts in history” which began in Sumer, including the first written language. The Sumerians wrote the first Great Flood and Creation stories, long before Genesis was penned by Jewish scribes. Not surprisingly, many historians and scholars have concluded that the Bible’s own creation and flood stories are actually of Sumerian origin, drawn from more ancient Sumerian texts. When you think about it, why shouldn’t the Jewish scribes have patterned their creation and flood stories after Sumerian writings. The Jewish people were Sumerians, after all. The Sumerian writings were their legacy.

The Jewish people wandered around the Middle East for the better part of two thousand years – from Sumer to Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) to Egypt to Judea and Samaria (modern-day Israel) and then on to captivity in Babylon in the 6th century B.C. When they wound up in Babylon, their journey had come full circle back to ancient Sumer, as Babylon would have been part of Sumer if it had existed back then. When the Jewish people were in captivity in Babylon, the Persians ruled over most of the Middle East, the Achaemenid Empire it was called with Babylon as its capitol. The Jewish people thus became a very tiny minority within that empire.

Up until that time, no civilization on Earth had a monotheistic religion except one, the Persians. The Persians’ religion is called Zoroastrianism. Their God is named Ahura Mazda and he was considered to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.  Creation was accomplished in six days and began with a single couple. Just like Moses, the Persian prophet Zoroaster received God’s commandments on the top of a holy mountain. Perhaps, you can already see where I am going with this.

Now, here’s where it gets interesting. Up until this point, the Israelites were basically polytheistic. However, their beliefs were about to get a face-lift as Israelite culture would collide head-on with the religion (Zoroastrianism) of the ruling Persians. Furthermore, in Babylon, they came face-to-face with their forgotten past as the ancient Sumerian texts had been preserved and were available for the Jewish scribes to read.

The mixture of these elements was tantamount to cultural dynamite and the result was the Old Testament and a new radical worldview – monotheism.  Over time, monotheism would spread around the world through Christianity and then Islam.  As for the Sumerians, they have been all but forgotten… although, today, some of them constitute what is commonly referred to as the Jewish people.

 

Epilogue

A genetic study of Ashkenazi Jews traced the roots of many Jewish people to just four women whose genetic origins come from an unknown source. It appears that their unknown genetic origins may have been confirmed by a DNA study done by the Harvard Medical School, in collaboration with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. That study found that ancient man had sex with an unknown species. Yes, the Ashkenazi Jews and ancient man both received DNA from an unknown species – unknown to everyone, except for the Sumerians who wrote about it in their ancient texts. They referred to this DNA as the DNA of the gods. This, then, was the legacy of the Sumerians – a bloodline that reached back to the gods, a bloodline which, by virtue of its genetics, gave them and their descendants a divine right to rule.

 

“With stunning abruptness… there appears in this little Sumerian mud garden… the whole cultural syndrome that has since constituted the germinal unit of all the high civilizations of the world.”

   – Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God 

Legends from around the world tell of blue-eyed gods. For example, the god of the Incas was called Viracocha, the Mayas had their Kukulkan and for the Aztecs it was Quetzalcoatl. These gods were all described as having blue eyes. Likewise, the ancient Sumerians and Egyptians thought that blue eyes were a sign of the gods (and royalty), as many of their statues show. Even statues of Buddha show him with blue eyes, as traditionally Buddha was regarded as having the Thirty-two Characteristics of a Great Man (one of which characteristics was blue eyes). It makes one wonder if God could have possibly had blue eyes.

Science says that in the beginning man had dark eyes. Life began in Africa, right?  However, a funny thing happened on man’s sojourn out of Africa. A recent genetic study at the University of Copenhagen says that 6,000 to 10,000 years ago a person was suddenly born with blue eyes, for the very first time. Before that, we supposedly all had brown eyes.

Today, the catch phrase in science is that blue eyes were caused by a mutation, which of course means that scientists don’t really know how it first occurred. Supposedly, one person was born with a mutation in the gene that controls eye color which resulted in blue eyes. This was followed by identical second and third mutations, and so on until finally the mutated gene became so prevalent that blue eyes occurred naturally in child births.  I said, supposedly.

Certainly, there were changes in the DNA but the real question is where did these changes actually come from? That is, either DNA has the innate ability to change on its own or it can be altered by outside forces, or perhaps even both. However, science seems unsure which it is. All they say is that blue eyes were caused by a mutation. The scientists at the University of Copenhagen who did the genetic research say that this particular mutation was  “neutral” in terms of whether it improved the chances of the species survival. Neutral is, I believe, a first for science. That’s because either scientists believe in natural selection (a positive change) or conversely believe that mutations have always been shown to be the result of defects in genes (a negative change). In any case, if a mutation was not due to a defect, it would certainly imply some sort of intelligent design of DNA which allows the DNA to adapt on its own to its environment.

According to the University of Copenhagen study, blue-eyed people migrated from the Black Sea area to various parts of the world – east to China, south and east to India, west to North Africa and Europe (and eventually North America) and south to Egypt and the rest of the Middle East. Linguistics has also traced these very same people through the progression of languages of what’s referred to as the Indo-European family of languages.  In essence, it’s one family and one bloodline and it now stretches virtually around the world. By some estimates, there are 300 million people today with blue eyes. Despite historical migration, the highest percentage of people with blue eyes in any one country still live fairly close to the epicenter (the Black Sea). For example, in Estonia, a vast majority of people still have blue eyes.

However, what very few people are talking about is that fair skin and blond hair also mutated in the same timeframe as the mutation associated with blue eyes. A case-in-point is the recent scientific study by an international team of researchers headed by Harvard University which says that Caucasians first arose some 8,000 years ago. In addition, the scientific consensus is that Caucasians also came from the Black Sea area. So, both blue eyes and fair skin arose in the very same timeframe and in the same geographic area, the Black Sea.

What this really amounts to is a “poof” moment. Some people just suddenly (poof) got blue eyes instead of brown, blond hair instead of dark hair and fair skin instead of dark skin. One could even go so far as to say that the very first blue-eyed person also had fair skin and blond hair. Those three physical traits are genetically linked in ways that science does not yet fully understand. After all, almost all people who are blond with blue eyes have fair skin. 

After leaving Africa, other unexplainable changes took place in man, especially in Europe. About 40,000 years ago, Neanderthals were replaced in Europe by Cro-Magnon man. Some mutation; we literally got a whole new species, with Cro-Magnon being considerably larger than Neanderthal.  Since Cro-Magnon man was also larger than Sub-Saharan Africans, their geographic origins are in doubt. However, the bigger question is how did they evolve, since they were a mutation that was so great and so sudden that they don’t fit in the context of evolutionary theory. Then, Cro-Magnon man disappeared some 12,000 years ago and was replaced by modern man who is smaller than Cro-Magnon (including having a smaller brain size).  Somewhere along the way, modern man wound up with three different skull types, only one of which is obviously of African origin. Confusing, right? Try fitting evolutionary theory into that scenario.

Then there is the curious case of Rh negative blood. It’s a real can of worms. Science is stumped as to how man originally came out of Africa with Rh positive blood and then developed Rh negative blood, especially since Rh positive blood is incompatible with Rh negative blood. The mystery only deepens when you realize that almost no Africans or Asians have Rh negative blood. It’s basically a European (Caucasian) thing.

In the final analysis, we have fallen back on the concept of mutation because we don’t have a plausible explanation for how man evolved.  Like I said earlier, either DNA can evolve on its own (with all the implications of intelligent design that this would entail) or there were outside influences which would explain the sudden and significant evolutionary changes in man.

The elephant in the room is that blue eyes, blond hair and fair skin may be linked to one ancient gene pool that carried all three of those genetic traits. That is, we all didn’t evolve from just one gene pool. Religiously speaking, we didn’t exclusively evolve genetically from Adam and Eve.  For example, in the Bible there were the Sons of God who mated with the daughters of ancient man.  You may not buy into that story, however, a new DNA study from the Harvard Medical School in collaboration with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, found that ancient man had sex with a still unknown species.

No doubt, this relates to the results of a genetic study of Ashkenazi Jews which traced the Ashkenazi origins back to just four women carrying distinctive mtDNAs that showed that they were not related to each other and that their genetic origins are unknown. The same could be said for man in general.  His true origins are simply unknown. God may have had blue eyes, after all.

 

Epilogue

Interestingly enough, this might lead to what some would consider to be a politically incorrect worldview. That is, the difference in races is caused by man’s evolution from more than one gene pool. In other words, not all of our genes came “out of Africa.” Now, you may be wondering why you haven’t heard about this before.  Like I said, it’s politically incorrect – a dirty little secret that has been intentionally suppressed from the history books…but, of course, now you know.

 

“The falsification of history has done more to mislead humans than any single thing known to mankind.”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau

 

 

One thing that distinguishes man from other life forms is his ability to ponder his own existence. More fascinating perhaps even than that is man’s innate ability to evolve. A little thing called DNA is the reason.

DNA is a miracle of life. Yes, a miracle. Of course, evolutionists will say that it is the by-product of some random cosmic accident and deists will say that it is proof of God. So, who is right?  In any event, one thing that I’m pretty sure of is that with respect to our view of creation… DNA is a real game changer. Let’s check it out.

What makes DNA so unique is that without it life as we know it would not exist. It’s capabilities are otherworldly, beyond anything that science fiction could have ever imagined. One way to think of DNA is that it is a digital communication and storage system which incorporates language. However, even that grossly over-simplifies its capabilities.

Think of it – sitting in the nucleus of every cell is an extremely sophisticated and high-powered software program which contains a unique set of instructions for how the human genome works. It provides for billions of those instructions per second in the process of directing the body’s 100 trillion cells. The topper is that DNA is self-organizing, self-directing and self-replicating. Yes, all by itself. Only something that is very intelligent can do that.

How intelligent? Well, consider that DNA’s information systems is more complex than anything ever devised by man, using algorithms far beyond anything in a supercomputer. Even Bill Gates can attest to that. In addition, the language of DNA, which is in the form of a four-character code, is composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. Yes, a language with three billion letters. That’s what makes it possible for DNA to determine all life on earth. Now, that’s real intelligence for you.

Science has recently discovered that the human genome contains genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree. That is, DNA can be changed through what geneticists call horizontal gene transfer; no natural selection is required. Of course, I can already hear the deists congratulating themselves and the atheists asserting that this doesn’t prove that God exists. However, I wonder… what if they are both wrong?

 

Epilogue

In the late twentieth century, Antony Flew was one of the world’s most renowned atheists.  He was originally a proponent of the theory of evolution, but he eventually changed his views  stating that, “Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.” Now, that’s what I call an intelligent view of creation.

 

 

 

 

In a recent post, I mentioned that Richard Dawkins freely discussed the possibility that evolution may have been the result of an “intelligent designer.” I got some flak, understandably so perhaps, because Dawkins has repeatedly said that he doesn’t believe in Intelligent Design. Of course, what he discussed with Ben Stein calls into question how strongly be believes in that belief system.  What follows is a transcript of the interview that he did with Ben Stein. So, you decide.

 

The interview

Stein: How did it (the universe) get created?

Dawkins: By a very slow process. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

Stein: What was that?

Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

Stein: How did it happen?

Dawkins: I told you. We don’t know.

Stein: So, you don’t have any idea how it started.

Dawkins: Nor does anyone.

Stein: What do think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in evolution?

Dawkins: It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe some civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology and designed the form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility. I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence of that when you look at the details of our chemistry or molecular biology of some sort of designer. That designer could well be a higher intelligence than elsewhere in the universe. That higher intelligence would itself had to have come about by some inexplicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously.

 

The remainder of the interview dealt with questions about things like the existence of the gods of religion so I did not bother to detail it here, although you can watch the entire interview on YouTube if you so desire.

So let’s recap, what Dawkins said.

Dawkins on the origin of life: It comes from a self-replicating molecule. However, no one knows how it happened.

Comment: Nor can science even trace life back to a self-replicating molecule. So, if no one knows how it happened, then you can’t say with any confidence what the origin was. Ergo, the concept of a self-replicating molecule is based on an ideology. That is, as Dawkins said, “We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.” To be more precise, Dawkins knows the kind of event which is consistent with his own ideology. As Paul Feyerabend, a well-known philosopher of science, once said,Thus science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit… it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages and its limits.”

Dawkins on an “intelligent designer”: An intriguing possibility.

Comment: So intriguing, in fact, that he laid out a whole scenario of how it could have happened.

The Dawkins scenario: Possibly due to a highly advanced extraterrestrial civilization which seeded life onto this planet.

Comment: Sound familiar? It should because it’s the Directed Panspermia Theory of Francis Crick.

Dawkins: “That designer could well be a higher intelligence than elsewhere in the universe.”

Comment: Dawkins admits that the origins of life (the first self-replicating molecule) are unknown but that it might have been caused by an extraterrestrial civilization. Bottom line – Dawkins admits that evolution is not a fact.

Dawkins: “…it’s possible that you might find evidence of that when you look at the details of our chemistry or molecular biology of some sort of designer.”

Comment: Yes, Dawkins used the dreaded “d” word (again).

So, perhaps there is a disconnect on what Dawkins has said and how it has been interpreted.  After all, it was Dawkins who said at a recent TED conference that now he has proof that evolutionary theory is correct. The implication is that he must not have been certain in the past even though he said that he was. Based on the Stein interview, Dawkins may not “believe” in Intelligent Design but he certainly acknowledged the possibility of it, even referring to it as intriguing. After all, we’re talking about theories as to the origin of life.  You may believe in one theory and yet acknowledge the possibility of other theories.  The point is that, in this case, none of these theories have yet to be proven.

So, evolution is still just a theory, not a fact. Does that sway anyone to change their support of evolution? Probably not. After all, ideology is virtually unassailable.  Interestingly enough, though, atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel, in his book Mind and Cosmos, does argue that the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false. Disclosures can sometimes come from the most unexpected places.  Just ask Richard Dawkins.

 

Epilogue

Jim Gates, a theoretical physicist and a pioneer of supersymmetry, has found that scientific equations which describe the fundamental nature of the universe contain embedded computer codes. The same thing could be said for DNA, as Bill Gates readily admits.  So, if DNA and the laws of nature contain computer codes, where’s the programmer?

 

 

“A scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.”

   – H. P. Yockey, physicist and information theorist

 

 

 

Although not a scientist, I still occasionally opine on things scientific… without ever using any sort of scientific method. Oddly enough, science sometimes does the very same thing, itself. That’s how we got theories like the flat earth, the sun rotates around the earth…and the current poster child, The Big Bang Theory.

Some say that there’s a number of glaring scientific deficiencies in astronomical theories. Not being a scientist, though, it’s not something for me to expound on. I work on logic, with lots of intuition liberally applied.

 

How did we get here?

It has been my observation that scientists sometimes violate their own rules. That is, they simply fail to observe (and measure). So, just how is it possible that something so basic to the scientific process is so completely ignored? Well, Robert Lanza, a scientist himself, offered up an explanation of sorts, “We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature.”

Speculative extensions of nature and hypothetical entities, those are big words.  What exactly did he mean by that? Speculative extension of nature has to do with the fact that science has pushed beyond what’s observable in nature. When that happens, you can no longer observe…so they speculate and hypothesize instead…and then pass it off as valid scientific theory. So, today, cosmological theories dealing with such things as black holes, singularities and dark matter, are just that – theories, and speculative theories to boot. None of them are based on observation and so none of them have followed the scientific method.

Aside: Einstein, himself, published a scientific paper saying that the existence of black holes would violate his Theory of Relativity.  Other scientists have since concurred that gravitational collapse is impossible.

Even scientific geniuses like Einstein recognized the struggle to find certainty in their own work. As Einstein stated, “The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe.” In other words, the fundamental laws of nature are beyond man’s ability to comprehend them. Yet, it didn’t keep Einstein from trying (The Theory of Relativity, for example).

By definition, theoretical science produces theories, not proof.  Part of the problem is that these theories are generally based on mathematics and their formulae exist only on chalkboards, rather than being based on experiments performed in the laboratory as one might expect. Worse, these very formulae use fudge factors like eternity, dark matter or Einstein’s infamous “cosmological constant.”  Einstein, himself, referred to the problem with math, as follows: “As far as mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” 

So, what we wind up with is theories in search of some relevant facts. This is exactly backwards when compared to the proper process of scientific inquiry. Accordingly, even the scientists working on these theories often decry the state of affairs. For example, with respect to singularities, Professor Andrew Strominger of Harvard University, said that, “A singularity is when we don’t know what to do. What’s so embarrassing about singularities is that we can’t predict what’s going to come out of it.” That’s because scientists can’t even say for certain what a singularity is. I mean they believe that it exists because its part of their formulae, but no one has ever observed a singularity. As for The Big Bang Theory, Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago, stated, “If inflation is the dynamite behind the Big Bang, we’re still looking for the match.” In other words, as Prof. Strominger admitted, there are a lot of things that scientists don’t understand, and yet, strangely, they still describe them in a very precise way. That explains Richard Dawkins statement to a recent TED conference that now he has proof that evolutionary theory is correct.  The implication is that he must not have been certain in the past even though he said that he was.

Aside: Of course, since the Big Bang had a match there must also have been a match lighter. So science has developed some new, exotic theories to try and explain away the problem (see below).

 

The theory of everything

So, now that you understand a little bit of the process as to how science works, let’s tackle what Einstein and Stephen Hawking spent their whole careers searching for (in vain) – the Theory of Everything. Again, I’m not a scientist so I come from a totally different point of view. For me, such a theory can only be valid if it explains the basis of life. After all, a theory of everything, by definition, must explain how life operates and where it came from.

Back in the nineteenth century, world-renown microbiologist Louis Pasteur helped develop the Law of Biogenesis. Today, Pasteur has been relegated by many to the dustbin of science, although his theory is as valid today as it was then. What’s so important about his work is that Pasteur proved that it was not possible for life to have evolved from a bunch of dead chemicals (read: primordial soup). Life could only come from life. Even George Wald, an ardent evolutionist, eventually admitted that it had been scientifically proven that spontaneous generation of a living organism was impossible.

So, any theory which deals with the origins of the universe (e.g. The Big Bang Theory) has to allow for the evolution of life, especially that of man. Needless to say, The Big Bang Theory does not provide such an explanation.  Darwin, you understand, simply said that we evolved, randomly mutated as it were. Richard Dawkins expounded on Darwin’s theory saying that,”… life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA….”

So, for Dawkins, DNA is superior to man, and why not.  DNA is a miracle. There are trillions of cells in our body each encoded with DNA instructions on how to operate and grow our bodies.  Bill Gates has said that, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” More importantly, the work of Russian molecular biologist Pjotr Gariaiev, who was part of The Human Genome Project, has shown that DNA is self-organizing, self- directing and self-replicating. Further, neuroscientist David Eagleman duly noted that the brain’s neural circuitry uses algorithms undreamt of in modern science.  So our bodies are operated by a “living” biological system whose programming is far more advanced than any supercomputer. So, in one sense, Dawkins is right in that the level of sophistication of DNA virtually makes it a life-form unto itself.  

Aside: Yet, Dawkins never explained who created DNA. Inexplicably, science has been unable to identify the origins of DNA or the intelligence behind it.  Up until recently, most scientists even said that DNA was 90% junk – in other words, useless.

All of which brings us to consciousness, which is the nothing short of the trade secret of cosmology. Physicist Max Planck said, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness. ” Yet, cosmologists usually eschew research on consciousness. Why?  That’s a big question but, for starters, consciousness infers Intelligent Design which is totally incompatible with evolutionary theory. Then, there’s all the sacred cows in cosmology which would have to be jettisoned (along perhaps with peoples’ careers). I, for one, wouldn’t lose any sleep over it, but I sincerely doubt that the scientific community would ever allow such a thing to occur.

 

The end of science

So, what we’re stuck with are a bunch of theories that have never been observed, let alone proven. For example in his much-discussed book, The End of Science, John Horgan talked about the limitations of science as it goes into areas that are unobservable (e.g. what lies beyond space and time). In order to remain relevant, science seems to feel obliged to try and go further back – back beyond The Big Bang. Otherwise, what we would all be left with is the incredible miracle of the universe instantaneously appearing out of nothing, and from nowhere. Oddly enough, the only people who might believe such a miracle would be the creationists, because that’s what they said that God did.

Accordingly, we now have a bunch of new theories that attempt to explain that while The Big Bang really was the beginning of our universe, it was not the very beginning of life. Life apparently came from other worlds (the Multiverse). However, if true, that only changes the question of how our universe was created to a question of how the Multiverse was originally created. Since that question will most assuredly never be answered, it will make it possible for anyone, indeed everyone, to espouse their favorite theory.  Since science will presumably not address the issue of life having to be created by life, it might even lead some people to posit that DNA might be some artificial form of intelligence, and that it created itself! Are you listening R.D.?

As shocking as that may seem, what’s more shocking is that Dawkins has actually admitted that DNA might have been the result of an “intelligent designer.”  Really, he said that?  Yes, in an interview with Ben Stein.  Check it out for yourself on YouTube.  It sort of harkens back to the Directed Panspermia theory of Francis Crick who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the molecular structure of DNA.

My conclusion is that the objections to Intelligent Design by scientists are usually based on ideology, rather than science.  As I’ve always said there are many different disciplines in science but really just two kinds of scientists – those that believe in a Creator and those that don’t.  Accordingly, science has developed a series of cosmological theories that I believe really have only one point – that the universe does not have an intelligent designer. Unfortunately, for some, DNA cannot be explained away in the usual fashion.  Genetics is moving so fast that it’s beginning to eclipse science in other disciplines, like cosmology and biology, with respect to the origins of man.

Epilogue

So that’s my take on everything from the Big Bang to the human genome. Like I said, my thinking is not scientific – but maybe that’s a good thing. After all, what would children’s books say if there was no Big Bang Theory. I might have to read a fairy tale to my kids entitled Once Upon a Bang-less Night.

 

 

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”

– Max Planck, physicist