the interplay of habit and creativity in nature as an "unfolding," the literal meaning of evolution, speaking to hidden blueprints; a vector, a force with a direction, leading us to a progressively manifesting, dynamically flowing cosmos, Heraclitus' universe of perpetual change and becoming, rather than static being, albeit within narrowing fields of activity

"To suppose the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin, The Origin Of Species, 1859

“… the thought of the eye made me cold all over." Charles Darwin, letter to Asa Gray, 1860

“[As to] why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods before the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” Charles Darwin, The Origin Of Species, 1859

when the law and the facts do not support your case, then pound the table and vilify the opposing attorney

Editor's note: I presented this featurette on the "Clear Thinking" page but feel it helpful to re-introduce it here.

The following proverb, sometimes called “The Last Resort Rule,” was not taught in Civil Procedure class when I was in law school; however, some attorneys do report of professors who mentioned it.

There are different versions of the aphorism, but it goes something like this:

“If you have a case where the law is clearly on your side, but the facts and justice seem to be against you,” advised an old lawyer to a young attorney, “urge upon the jury the vast importance of sustaining the law."

"On the other hand," the old lawyer continued, "if the law is against you, or doubtful, and the facts show that your case is founded in justice, insist that justice be done though the heavens fall."

“But,” asked the young man, “how shall I manage a case where both the law and the facts are dead against me?”

“In that situation,” replied the old lawyer, “talk around it - and the worse it is, the harder you pound the table.”

Some variants of this sophistry conclude with, not just pounding the table but, attacking the opposing counsel, or yelling with outrage, or shouting at the jury.

It's all a cool calculation. In other words, when the law and the facts are not on your side – and if you lack any semblance of scruple -- you need to do something fast to divert attention from the poverty and lack of substance of your defense; you need to create a scene, manufacture some theatrical charade of moral outrage, produce your own little one-person “mob rule” incident in order to bully your way into a better tactical position – that is, if you want to have any chance of winning your case, and, again, if you lack any sense of moral rectitude and respect for the rule of law.

On the “Clear Thinking” page, I suggested that “The Last Resort Rule” is alive and well within certain political circles as a tool of deception and propaganda. Big Religion, too, very often employs such procedures to justify and promote its anti-humanistic mind-control agenda.

And, unfortunately, we also witness the use of these strong-arm tactics by materialist biologists. The fact that they do use them is proof presumptive that they’ve lost the argument on the merits of the case and must now resort to name-calling and “pounding tables.”

Here's an example of "shouting at the jury," what you do when "the law" and "the facts" are against you:

"If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane." Dr. Richard Dawkins

Is there a 'clockwork universe'? 

READ MORE 

DNA transmits information in a process, in principle, similar to that of computer code. The Cambrian Explosion of new life-forms required, in a geological moment, many new protein structures which had never existed before on planet Earth. These proteins are so complex that, even the simplest of them, require more combinatorial possibilities than all the atoms in the universe. Where did this new bio-information come from?

READ MORE

'the truth is not a fragile thing and will eventually rise to the top of a heap of competing ideas'

Physicist Tom Campbell, in clear language, explains the history and significance of the quantum mechanics revolution of 100 years ago, how its implications were denied by materialists, and why, as Tom sees it, its proper explication might lead to a better world, free from the power-control-force paradigm afflicting all of us today.

READ MORE

give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest

Dr. Rupert Sheldrake: "As my friend Terence McKenna used to say, modern science is based on the principle, 'Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest'. And the one free miracle is the appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe, and all the laws that govern it, from nothing, in a single instant."

what can’t you believe

In the Sheldrake / Abraham / McKenna Trialogues, that took place between 1989 and 1998, the latter participant, Terrence McKenna, also irreverently asserted, to the effect, “If you can believe that all the energy and matter, everything that you see around you, came into existence from nothing in a hot nano-second, then – what can’t you believe?”

Yes – “what can’t you believe?” At times we find ourselves so mesmerized by group mindset and materialist propaganda that we robotically agree to whatever is spoon fed to us; we uncritically accept it, gulp it down like water.

Something-from-nothing is a “religious doctrine” of holy materialism, to be endorsed as a matter of faith. There’s no rational argument for it, but is simply required by the theory to offer semblance of coherency in a spirit of “the joker is wild.” There are, however, more credible cosmogonical explanations.

plowing at night, discussing evolution with my cousin Tom, overturning untenable ideas with the topsoil

As a boy I spent many hundreds of hours, after school, plowing at night. Dad and Uncle Joe would sometimes work together during spring planting. I looked forward to this joint effort as I’d have opportunity to see my cousin Tom. Normally, he and I would run our own tractors, but one evening, I don’t recall why, we spent a few hours together on a ponderous John Deere, lumbering up and down a long field immediately adjacent to Grandma’s old farmyard. It was great fun to talk with Tom. Though 50+ years ago, I still remember our animated discussion of biological evolution, as I shared my findings for the English-class speech assignment. 

It’s all so strange and unreal to me now; several life-times ago. Also, but for a few small points here and there, most of what we talked about would prove to be incorrect: my data was fragmentary, incomplete, or non-existent; further, there was too much emphasis on biblical creationism. In fact, to my present dismay, I now perceive that I was wrong on just about everything in my life I thought to be true at the time.

However, I will give myself credit for one thing, a saving grace that might redeem unmindfulness wherever it's found. Though my disengaged, lackluster academic efforts in high school heralded no great coming accomplishment, I would soon enter a better mind-frame of staying with certain questions and mysteries over protracted periods of time, years and decades.

Like plowing into the late hours, long fortitude, seeded with research and contemplation, will eventually yield a harvest of good fruit, for any of us.

"The big idea is that the laws of nature are more like habits."

Dr. Rupert Sheldrake: "The big idea is that the ‘laws’ of nature are more like habits. There’s a kind of memory in nature. Things happen as they do because they’ve happened that way before. Every species has a kind of collective memory; every individual [of a species] draws on that collective memory and, in turn, contributes to it… I’m suggesting that this kind of memory works through a process I call morphic resonance, the influence of ‘like upon like,’ across space and time. And this memory is carried and expressed through fields, morphic fields. The word ‘morphic’ comes from the Greek word ‘morphe,’ meaning form or shape. These are fields that order self-organizing systems… These fields organize energy… [This is the] big picture.”

Editor's note: "The big idea," as Dr. Sheldrake has it, is that biological evolution is but mere subset of a vast cosmic progression, a continual reordering of reality.

Fields - the name is Fields, just Fields
 

Quantum of Solace (2008)
Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arterton)

“Matter is no longer the fundamental explanatory principle. Fields and energy are.” Dr. Rupert Sheldrake

Gravitational fields of galaxies, and clusters of galaxies, pull and tug on their constituent members, keeping stars and planets spinning in a gigantic harmonious dance.

Our own Sun’s gravitational field extends throughout the entire solar system. And the Earth’s gravitational field keeps a familiar Moon on a short leash.

Electrons and protons and all other particles are vibrations in quantum fields.

And electro-magnetic fields – invisible waves of gamma, radio, x-ray, infra-red, ultra-violet, visible light – bombard and immerse us constantly, and fill the rooms of our homes.

We live in a universe regulated and led by fields – “regions of activity” -- of all sorts. Virtually all of these fields are invisible to the unaided eye. And it is reasonable to postulate that not all fields have yet been discovered. The evidence suggests that there are morphic fields, the “hidden blueprints,” which lend shape and form to everything we see in the universe.

READ MORE for an example from chemistry

eliminate the impossible, what remains is the truth

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, speaking as Sherlock Holmes: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Editor’s note: Investigating the origin of evolution we find particularly difficult. Certainty will prove elusive, we can only speculate, concerning primordial conditions of the Earth; further, no one has ever actually seen evolution in action; as such, for many of our questions, we cannot apply the classic scientific method, in terms of reproducible and controlled experimentation. Mindful of this systemic challenge, Conan Doyle’s advice becomes an important tool for our searchings.

The mystery of biological evolution, so complex, so shrouded in primeval origin, leads us to despair of arriving at final, absolute answers. However, we can know some things.

Now, many months into this enquiry, it’s becoming clearer that the way forward is to whittle away at the false claims, the standard-fare materialistic promotion, the things that evolution could never be; in time, we trust, with encouragement from Dr. Holmes, the remaining hidden part, a closely-guarded secret of Nature, virtually by default, might reveal its identity.

Sir Arthur, by the way, was also one of the premier afterlife-researchers of his day.

how to dishonestly review a book 

The authors present research findings, many hundreds of archeological artifacts, from anthropologists, biologists, physicians, geologists, and other persons of science. In aggregate, this substantial corpus of information constitutes a compelling case that humankind has existed far, far longer on planet Earth than the more recent dating theorized by traditional Darwinism.

In addition to the book, you will find youtube interviews concerning the authors. Also, I would recommend a 1996 NBC documentary, “The Mysterious Origins Of Man,” narrated by Charlton Heston. See it here.

Therein, some of the evidence from “Forbidden Archeology” is featured. I’ve read that, when this program was originally presented, even back then, the Darwin lobby attacked NBC, wanted to sue, and demanded that it never be aired again. They were terrified.

As we review this subject, we discover that credentialed scientists have lost their careers, have been blacklisted, by daring to challenge the Darwin lobby in the presentation of said archeological artifacts. All of this, in a supposedly free society, is very troubling. However, this kind of censorship is now common, not just in anthropology but, in any field, the official narrative for which the vested establishment would seek to safeguard and maintain.

a book review from the Ministry Of Truth

A quick survey of the reviews on Amazon for “Forbidden Archeology” offers standard establishment push-back. See the “1 star” reviews. There we find the usual charges of “conspiratorial drivel” or “the authors aren’t credentialed to offer an opinion” or “no mainstream scientist would agree with their conclusions" or "they probably believe in ghosts and UFOs too". They sound like bullies on the playground in fifth grade. With this kind of bigoted, self-serving dynamic, they purport to have “debunked” “Forbidden Archeology”. I think not.

But with all of the diatribe from the Darwin lobby, there is one thing that they will never do in these book reviews. They will never offer one concrete example to support their charges of “pseudoscience.” Instead, they hide in the tall grass of self-righteous pietism, of generalized platitudes, always seeking refuge in the vague and ill-defined indictment.

The real issue here is the artifacts themselves. Doesn't really matter who presented them. But factual objects, with hard edges, are stubborn things, and so it's much easier to kill the messenger.

On the “Clear Thinking” page I discuss many fraudulent debating tactics, and what we’ve seen, right here in these biased reviews, is a popular method among those who would censor “misinformation” and silence contrary opinions. Allow me to quote:

The charges are always indistinct and fuzzy, long on venom, short on veritas - because they don't want to talk about facts. The accuser predictably seeks shelter in the unclear and indeterminate.

The way to respond to these accusations is to bring it all back down to earth with a logic-jarring demand:

'give me one example, let's talk about it'

"You say I've told 5000 lies; well then, give me one example of one lie."

Yes - give me one example, and then we’ll look at the context, we'll carefully consider, what was actually said or done, and we’ll see if the facts corroborate the charge.

And if the facts are in dispute, then we’ll call in witnesses who actually know. And if the interpretation of the facts is questionable, or intentionally obfuscated, or presented in a one-sided manner, then we’ll employ cross-examining attorneys to search out the truth.

However, no flamboyant demagogue desires this kind of careful scrutiny of allegations. They're not interested in the truth. They’d rather keep repeating a lie, amplified by the fake-news media, in a propaganda effort to “poison the well” of public opinion. This is the diversionary tactic of "The Last Resort Rule" (see above).

All this duplicity is rather predictable conduct from those who cannot speak plainly about what they're up to, those who are willing to say anything, and do anything, to further their power-and-control schemes.

And the quickest way to pop this illusion of fluff-prevarication is to demand:

'give me one example, let's talk about it'

See them demand censorship to protect their indefensible propositions. Kangaroo courts, in which only one viewpoint is allowed expression, come crashing down with penetrating questions.

"You say my view is 'misinformation', well then, give me one example, let's talk about it. You say I'm a purveyor of lies and 'conspiracy theories', well then, give me one example, let's talk about it."

The totalitarians loath this kind of exactitude; much better to hide in the vague generalizations of smear tactics. 

Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch (1863-1944), On The Art Of Reading: "A very well-informed person is an object of terror."

before one might credibly address the biology of evolution, one must begin with chemistry

Editor’s note: On the “evolution” page, I have offered 100+ articles discussing various errors of Darwinism and the merits of Intelligent Design. There are many excellent teachers and researchers from whom we can learn much. However, if pressed to choose a favorite, I might have to vote for Dr. James Tour.

Dr. James Tour is considered to be one of the top ten chemists in the world, and one of the top fifty scientists. The level of knowledge and insight he brings to the discussion of evolution is astonishing. He informs us that organic chemistry serves as basis of biology, and, therefore, before one might credibly address the biology of evolution, one must begin with chemistry.

It is a popular myth supporting Darwinism that "simple" cell life is nothing more than a glob of protoplasm. For a long time, however, we’ve known that there is no such thing as “simple” life, but this error continues to be repeated and promoted in textbooks.

The intricate processes of even the “simplest” cell – as there is no such thing as simple life – because even the simplest consists not just of mind-numbing complexity, plus a vast array of functions that must all work in concert, immediately, or not at all. This bewildering byzantine complexity grows yearly with new discoveries.

'more time' does not help Darwinism at the level of chemistry

Further, Darwinists’ salvation, that of “more time” eventually making pigs fly, will not offer benefit, for, as Dr. Tour points out, the processes of the cell, many of them, on the level of chemistry, are so fragile, and so short-lived, that the component chemicals quickly degrade and break down into different chemicals. More time actually works against evolution on the level of chemistry.

It is the biologists, typically, not understanding the inner-world details of organic chemistry, who make grand and unwarranted pronouncements concerning “life created in a test-tube” and similar. This is nonsense, says Professor Tour.

The media then takes these sensational statements and aggrandizes the error even more as fake-news. And now we have many millions of people who believe in the myths of an artificial synthesizing of life.

We today are actually much farther away from discovering the constituents of life than we were in 1952 with the Miller-Urey experiments. This is so because we are continually learning of greater and greater complexities within the cell, all of which pushes back any final understanding of origins in this area.

But, if all you knew were the brash statements from the popular press, you’d think that everything is already mapped out and all done. We are nowhere near that, and our horizon of ignorance ever recedes.

READ MORE

all facts are important

J. Arthur Hill: "Facts differ in importance, but it is a fundamental article of ... science that all facts are important in some degree.

all facts are important for, as they gather, an underlying tapestry of reality is revealed

"The import of some of them may not be clear at first, but continued collection brings about the possibility of valuable inferences. An orbit cannot be computed from one or two points given; many are necessary.

all facts are important and none of it is 'minor', for all knowledge is connected, Nature is of a piece and unfurls seamlessly, but only to the mind patiently assembling the data

"Similarly a number of facts — the more the better — may be required before we see their meaning. But there is a meaning, and it is worth our while to amass details patiently. This is the modern spirit [of science] — to inquire of Nature instead of building philosophic word-structures into the blue. Observation and record are the watchwords.”

consciousness, not matter, is the ground and substance of all reality

Amit Goswami is a professor and writer of textbooks of quantum physics

consciousness does not exist within us, we exist within consciousness; consciousness is the only objective reality, the only thing that’s ‘real,’ with all other elements of the universe deriving being from consciousness

Big Religion became the most powerful institution in the Western world by manipulating the fear of death, thereby controlling whole continents and civilizations

Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, PhD philosophy, PhD computer science, interviewed by Beshara Magazine:

“[Scientific] materialism didn’t become mainstream without reason. One of its biggest advantages is that in one fell swoop it eliminated the biggest fear humanity has had throughout its history, which is: what are we going to experience after we die? In Christian terms, are we going to go to hell? This fear has dominated human life to the point that the Church could control whole continents and civilizations and became the most powerful institution in the Western world. It is this fear that makes us feel guilty, which imbues us with anxiety and a sense of responsibility for what we do. But if we don’t believe in anything beyond material existence, we don’t need to worry.”

READ MORE

in the quantum paradigm, biological evolution is but one small facet of a universe led by creative impulse, a mandate for greater complexity, an upward spiraling of increased awareness and sentience

Interviewer: “What’s wrong with the old worldview?”

Dr. Goswami: “The old worldview was Newtonian, [a strictly cause-and-effect clockwork universe]. In that worldview, everything is deterministic, we are machines, and cannot change.”

READ MORE

Natural selection is a useful bio-evolutionary concept, directing minor variations and population growth within existing species. It does us no good, though, until we have something to “select.” Natural selection, of and by itself, cannot produce a new species and will not take us to where we want to go in this investigation.

Biologists Jack King and Thomas Jukes stated: "Natural selection is the editor, not the composer, of the genetic message."

The classic “black moth vs. white moth” natural-selection example found in all high school biology texts: We are led to infer that species were fundamentally changed, but only population numbers were affected. It’s not mentioned that, later, when the black soot diminished, population levels of the moths shifted again. In either case, each version of the moth remained exactly the same.

You think you know how the world works? You think you know what's real? 

The Ancient One: “You think you know how the world works? You think that this material universe is all there is? What is real? What mysteries lie beyond the reach of your senses? At the root of existence, mind and matter meet. Thoughts shape reality.” 

at the architectonic, the elemental, level of reality, pure consciousness gives rise to phenomenal existence, what we call matter, which is but one expression of consciousness

Editor’s note: “Doctor Strange” offers a glimpse of a hidden quantum world in which pure thought directs and controls the definition of what is real. The movie, however, in Hollywood form, mixes too much error with fact for it to serve as faithful guide; nevertheless, this cinematic production manages to introduce an extremely important principle concerning how the universe works. We will be looking at this in detail later as we examine new “double slit” experiments and how these impact the subject of biological evolution. In the meantime - reminiscent of a timepiece Christine offered to Stephen – ask yourself, “What mysteries lie beyond the reach of your senses?” 

dismantling Darwinism at the British Royal Society

In London, November 7-9, 2016, at the venerable British Royal Society (founded 1660), "300 scientists from around the world gathered to evaluate a sea change in evolutionary theory...  What was new, at the world’s oldest scientific society, was that 1) a public quorum of 300 scientists acknowledged the centrality of these [anti-Darwinistic] discoveries... and 2) there was no longer any room to discourage or demean these findings...
 

"This meeting had no mainstream precedent. Such a conference would NEVER have happened five years ago. It would have been too politically incorrect, too threatening to the Neo-Darwinian monopoly." Perry Marshall, Evolution 2.0

Dr. Denis Noble of Oxford, Fellow of the Royal Society, critic of Neo-Darwinism and organizer of the conference. Author of Dance to the Tune of Life: Biological Relativity, he also edits the cross-disciplinary journal Interface for the Royal Society.

Catherine Crowe, The Night Side of Nature (1848): “… this hasty and precipitate opposition … instead of investigators, they become partisans; having declared against it in the outset, it is important to their petty interests that the thing shall not be true, and they determine it shall not.”

Perry Marshal, an electrical engineer / computer programmer explains: 

'DNA is not like code, it is code' - a kind of digital programming code

“If I email you a picture of a fender, you can’t attach that fender to your car. But I can certainly email you a program that welds fenders on cars.”

Similarly, Marshall points out, the nucleotides in a DNA strand – the molecules of adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T) – do not become “fenders” in the cell but merely send instructions on how to build components of the cell.

"DNA is not like code, it is code." Information entropy is “noise” in the system. And new coded information can never come from “noise.” Random mutations are “noise” and cannot lead to new organisms or positive evolutionary change.

Transposition: a Nobel-Prize winning achievement, one of the greatest scientific discoveries of the 20th century, but ignored and censored by the Darwin Monopoly

After the Russian launching of Sputnik I on October 4, 1957, Americans felt compelled to more vigorously emphasize science in high school curricula. One response was the creation of the “BSCS” biology textbook, considered to be college prep. I decided to order a copy, the very one I studied (or offered illusion of such) in 1966, to see what I’d think of it today. I was disappointed. Where was the rigorous scientific mindset meant to compete with the Russians?

Instead, on page after page, I discovered the soft-underbelly of Darwinism, the squishy belief-system, the unverified dogma, the untested and untestable theory posing as knowledge. The very subtitle of the text, "Molecules To Man," speaks to "upward causation," an unproven materialistic metaphysical assumption. We didn't realize it then, but partisan writings such as these become de facto Darwinian catechisms, suitable for indoctrinating the young herd.

Worse, some of the greatest scientific advancements in genetics, well known to the biological community by the 1960s, were conspicuously absent from the evolution discussion. This could only happen by design – a dishonest ploy, a preemptive strike of censorship by the Darwin Monopoly which controls the production of textbooks in the United States.

Perry Marshall: “I found there are two versions of evolution: There’s the real-world evolution practiced by scientists and medical researchers. And there’s a largely fake, dumbed-down version that they bicker about [at] Kansas school board meetings [and] currently being taught in schools.”

Geneticist Barbara McClintock discovered “Transposition” during the 1940s. Transposition refers to the cell’s ability to edit and rewrite its own DNA code, especially during times of stress, privation, and danger. This means that an organism can direct its own evolution, very quickly, virtually in “real time,” without the need of endless eons and natural selection.

In 1983 McClintock received a Nobel Prize for her discovery of Transposition. In 2005 the above postage stamp was issued in her honor.

And yet, to this day, introductory biology texts, in both high school and college, ignore and censor McClintock’s Transposition, continuing to preach the worn-out and disingenuous Darwinian doctrines. It is only in upper-level biology college courses, where the real world can no longer be avoided, that Transposition is given its due, and the dark-age "religious" teachings of Darwinism finally are set aside.

dis guy died and nobody told’em

The movie *61 recounts the exciting year of baseball, 1961, with Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle vying to break Babe Ruth’s home-run record.

The film offered a memorable wise-crack. The Baseball Commissioner, gaunt-faced and aged, stands beside Mrs. Babe Ruth in a ceremony awarding Maris the 1960 MVP award. Noting the ashen-demeanored visage, the irreverent Whitey Ford leans toward Mickey and jabs, “dis guy died and nobody told’em.” It was funny.

But it’s not as funny when an entire branch of physics dies, is knocked down from high pedestal, but whose corpse, nevertheless, is propped up by fake-science, acting as if Bohr, Heisenberg, and Einstein never existed.

Darwinian evolutionary biology, by the admission of its promoters, is built upon Newtonian physics – which has fallen from grace; but you wouldn’t know this from what they say.

Newtonian physics, while still valuable within a certain limited context, has been superseded by the larger paradigm of quantum mechanics and relativity. Everyone in science knows this. Even so, Darwinists, insisting that biology is an extension of deterministic physics, haven’t bothered to update high-school and college texts; they just keep "pounding the table."

Twentieth century advancements in physics have changed everything, but "upward causation" evolutionists continue to preach a doctrine that is based upon premises as obsolete as the dodo bird -- “dis guy died and nobody told’em.”

The “old story” of science is Newtonian, cause-and-effect, materialistic, but the “new story” is quantum-based, probabilistic, such that “the conscious observer has become essential as a participator in the scientific measurements.” Sir John Eccles, Nobel laureate, brain research

Robert M. Augros, PhD	George N. Stanciu, PhD

At the time of this writing, I am now two years into this project. Even though the subject of biological evolution had been an interest since high school, I was not prepared for the many layers of complexity, the widespread sweeping-under-the-rug of evidence supporting quantum theory, the brash and outright fraud by the Darwin monopoly; nor did I appreciate early on that biological evolution is not a mere stand-alone subject but part of a much larger view of how the universe works.

To properly understand “evo,” we need a wider perspective on how quantum-mind and consciousness bear upon the process. To this end, I’m introducing Augros and Stanciu’s, “The New Story Of Science.” Each page bristles with insights. Their chapter on “Mind” I’d hoped to acknowledge with a few quotations, but now I feel compelled to summarize the entire section. See it in the next link-icon.

the dog-eat-dog, each against all, vicious- competition view of Nature is profoundly errant

The Darwinian paradigm of nature at war with itself, of ruthless competition among species, of creatures engaged in a zero-sum game of survival, while seemingly accurate from a very narrow perspective, fundamentally, is deeply flawed.

Careful research reveals another world of widespread cooperation; moreover, a harmonious, carefully balanced, ecosystem seemingly designed to minimize, and even eliminate, competition in both the plant and animal kingdoms.

"Animals fulfill God's will most faithfully: they live to fulfill their Creator's purpose. We do not do this. We meddle with the work of the Creator. But the animals are themselves, and they fulfill the will of God within them in a true and faithful manner." Dr. Carl Jung

Single-celled organisms’ flagellum, in fact, is a rotating electric motor, able to shift gears, a tiny molecular machine, of fantastic design.

Single-celled organisms’ “flagellum” has Latin roots meaning “whip.” Early biologists thought this propeller to be nothing more than a bit of extended protoplasm whipping about.

However, electron microscopy reveals an astonishing level of complexity. The purported glob, in fact, is a kind of rotating electric motor, able to shift gears, a tiny molecular machine of fantastic design.

So complex is this organic machine that it could not have evolved over time.

“Genetic knockout experiments by microbiologist Scott Minnich show that the flagellum fails to assemble or function properly if any one of its approximately 35 genes is removed. In this all-or-nothing game, mutations cannot produce the complexity needed to evolve a functional flagellum one step at a time, and the odds are too daunting for it to assemble in one great leap.”

READ MORE

Dr. James Tour, author of 1000+ research papers, arguably, the greatest chemist in the world, says that the 'fetid-swamp with lightning bolts' model of the origin of life is a 'scam' and 'nonsense.'

Tour informs us that the “fetid swamp” model goes back to the ancient Babylonians. It’s a “scam” because a single cell is far more complex than most biologists know.

At the time of Darwin it was believed that early life was little more than a glob of protoplasm and that, with a few tweaks, it could burgeon by itself. This is far from the case.

Many of his colleagues agree that the "fetid swamp" constitutes error, but the only ones promoting are those “who are making money from it".

READ MORE and see the video, a discussion with Dr. Stephen Meyer.

Cambridge biologist Dr. Merlin Sheldrake and his new book “Entangled Life” featuring the ecological interconnectedness of organisms

READ MORE 

the ‘Cambrian explosion,’ the sudden appearance, without intermediaries or ancestors, a myriad of new species in the fossil record

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer

Editor’s note: Six times in his “Origin of Species,” Charles Darwin employed the Latin maxim “natura non facit saltus” – “nature makes no leap”; in other words, he preached a strict doctrine of gradualism. While this view accurately describes some of evolution’s work, it ignores the huge biological advances occurring virtually overnight, seen from the geological perspective.

'Scientism isn’t the same as science. It’s the opposite of searching for truth.'

The following is reported by Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove, writing for the Bigelow Institute For Consciousness Studies:

"Scientism isn’t the same as science. It’s the opposite of searching for truth. Scientism is the unquestioned belief that the mechanistic, materialistic worldview ... can provide us with a complete explanation of everything. In this era, academics, scientists, and professionals largely ignore the massive accumulation of evidence for postmortem survival – as if it never existed…

circular reasoning's new respectability

"For example, a recent article by two prominent psychologists, Arthur Reber and James Alcock, in The Skeptical Inquirer makes their profoundly unscientific 'skeptical' position clear when they claim:

Parapsychological claims cannot be true ... the data are irrelevant.

a new dark age of scientism

"This untenable position reflects the mainstream academic approach... In scientism’s dark age, we have ... presum[ed] dead matter is the foundation of reality. That’s why we say, when something is important to us, it matters. In this dark age, we give precedence to external sensations over intuitions and feelings. That’s also why, when we agree with some statement, we say it makes sense.”

Editor’s note: This new dark age comes with accessories, its own inquisition of unbelievers, holy doctrines of the primacy of matter, the one-true-church of materialism, and infallible temple priests, in white robes, who must not be questioned.

The average person, unfamiliar with the dirty politics of scientism, assumes that a materialistic paradigm, if espoused by those in labcoats, must be the “way it is.” But even a modicum of investigation reveals the indefensible soft underbelly of what passes, with a wink, for objective assessment.

Notice Dr. Mishlove’s assertion: these imposters to science not only “ignore the massive accumulation of evidence” to the contrary, but act “as if it never existed.” It's a propaganda scheme that would make Orwell proud: just keep repeating the dysinformation until it debuts as status quo.

Materialists rewrite the history of science; for them, the last 100 years never happened. Bohr, Heisenberg, Planck, Einstein, Shrodinger, Pauli, Tesla, Born, and others -- arguably, the greatest scientists of all time -- never led the quantum revolution, never upended determinism, never produced their world-shattering findings that consciousness, not matter, constitutes the undergirding of reality. Instead, those of the "rival religion," scientism, continue to worship their favorite patron saint, Isaac Newton.

But Newtonianism has been long superseded as leading icon - and everyone in science knows this; even so, the prevarication of scientism continues, in textbooks and the popular press, cheerleading the primacy of matter. It is a jaw-dropping conspiratorial chutzpah, but also a tired ploy taken from the pages of 1984, or a Big Religion cultism.

And look at this hardly disguised circular reasoning:

“Parapsychological claims cannot be true ... the data are irrelevant.”

The "data are irrelevant"? - since when is any data irrelevant? The whole point of science is investigation, precisely because we don't know, and can never know, what's relevant. Before we could grant license to discard anything, we would require a complete accessing of all knowledge in the universe, what it all means, and how it fits together. Until then, as we stumble in a fog of endless mystery, we might want to keep an open mind.

• Physicist John Wheeler: "We live on an island of knowledge surrounded by an ocean of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance."

And concerning "circular reasoning," even a high school debating team would shred this kind of shallow, illogical argument; of painting the target around the arrow, of seeing only what you want to see, of very selectively reviewing evidence.

In other words, we endure scientism's sophism: “We begin with the unsubstantiated conclusion as our premise, we refer to the question under review as if it's already been verified. That's ok because we already know we’re right, there's only one answer, we can't be wrong, so there's no use allowing you to speak, it's just a waste of time looking at new data, as we’ve already decided, for sure, what the outcome has to be.”

Is this science? - or some Jim-Jones guru-ism at a tent-meeting? Why is fanatical materialism not embarrassed to pontificate this way? In the "levels of consciousness" article we discussed that those on its lowest rungs lack the sensibility even to feel shame in their impropriety. All of this casts a shadow over the reputation of science, and the objective analysis we expect from it.

Special “irrelevant data” note: Those who cavalierly trample upon language and logic to win a debate provide highly suggestive data, not irrelevant, of a short path, if opportunity presented itself, to the denial of civil liberties and human rights; those who censor and stifle others' opposing viewpoint, and haughtily vilify their right to express it, would soon brutally suppress, if they had the chance, the defiance speaking to the contrary. We should not doubt this. It’s all around us in the world today, it's an old lesson of history. But, then, not to worry, they intend to rewrite history.

Oxford professor of philosophy, Antony Flew, 'the most famous atheist in the world,' changed his mind

Antony Flew (1923-2010)

There are many articles featuring Flew’s new understanding. Here is one of them: https://www.bethinking.org/does-god-exist/a-change-of-mind-for-antony-flew

In the professor's own words:

“I now believe there is a God...I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”

 “Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature.”

“If you had an equation detailing the probability of something emerging from a vacuum, you would still have to ask why that equation applies. Hawking had, in fact, noted the need for a creative factor to breathe fire into the equations.”

Breathing fire into the equations is an extremely important point. In other words, even if Darwinism were granted as much time as desired, even a span of years exceeding the duration of the universe by trillions of times, yet, in all that immensity, no life would be produced. It takes more than time to produce life; it takes some First Cause to have breathed fire into the equations.

Editor’s note: What finally convinced the professor? His reasoning is not complicated, in that, as he suggests, nature is far too complicated, an “unbelievable complexity of the arrangements,” to have arisen by randomness; of necessity, there must have been some sort of First Cause. This assessment is but alternate verbiage concerning what many other thinkers have asserted, the need to consider “the cumulation of probabilities,” that “single facts can never be 'proved' except by their coherence in a system,” or that truth will be determined by “the whole evidence taken together.”

Editor’s note: Top computer scientist, Frederico Faggin, inventor of the world’s first computer chip in 1971, also speaks out against dogmatic materialism. In recent interviews, he has repeatedly stated, to the effect: “We have Nobel laureates saying that the universe is meaningless, that nature itself is absurd. Is this logical? The universe and nature were the forerunners, producing us. This would make humans absurd. Or is the preaching Nobel laureate absurd? Modern materialistic science places high faith in chance and randomness as causal factors leading all that we see around us. And yet these same scientists also have great regard for the intricate beauty and complexity of mathematics, and they would be the first to remind us that mathematics reveals a hidden reality, that equations outline the ontology of the material world. Fair enough, but if mathematics draws the veil from the inner workings of physicality, which, they say, is intrinsically random and chaotic, how would this be possible when mathematics itself, the roadmap to physical reality, at its core, is highly structured, highly rule-based, the very essence of order and system? What are we to make of this farce, this self-blindness, an extremely selective viewing of the data, a disingenuous assessment of the nature of things?”

READ MORE

Consciousness creates new species by collapsing quantum possibility waves into actuality. This is the observer effect.

Amit Goswami is a professor and writer of textbooks of quantum physics

“In quantum physics, objects are depicted as possibilities (a possibility wave); yet when an observer observes, the possibilities collapse to an actuality (the wave collapses to a particle, for example). This is the observer effect. Most importantly, quantum collapse of possibility into actuality is discontinuous, so the discontinuity of the punctuation marks of evolution (i.e., the Cambrian Explosion) is instantly accommodated if we see them as instances of quantum creativity – discontinuous collapse of quantum possibility into actuality. This premise forms the core of the theory of creative evolution.”

“… gene mutations are quantum possibilities and must be treated as such, as changes in quantum waves of possibility. In macroevolution, consciousness creates new species by creatively choosing from genetic variations that exist as quantum possibilities.”

The concept of Universal Intelligence or God or Overmind “as an agent of downward causation (in terms of collapsing quantum possibility waves) has emerged in quantum physics as the only legitimate explanation of the famous observer effect.”

The Cambrian Explosion represents a collapse of quantum possibility waves, bringing into actuality, by activating the 'hidden blueprints' of morphic fields, a myriad of new species via the observer effect. Universal Consciousness acted as agent of the reification of the quantum waves.

Editor’s note: This collapse-of-wave phenomenon is explored in “the double-slit experiment,” which will be discussed below.

The Big Bang: collapsed probability waves produced the first matter, immediately shepherded by quantum morphic fields

As we learn more about the inner workings of quantum mechanics, we begin to perceive the nature of the origin of the cosmos.

Dr. Goswami speaks of Universal Consciousness paring down the infinite quantum possibilities. This pruning and narrowing led to a generalized embedded philosophy of how things should work in the universe, as expressed in its “laws,” habits, and characteristics.

This philosophical basis became codified in quantum morphic fields, says Dr. Sheldrake. These fields are “hidden blueprints” which organize energy, and constitute the underlying shaping essence of apparently self-organizing systems.

And so what we have, 15 billion years ago, concerning the Big Bang is the initial “creative discontinuity” of Universal Consciousness. Just as matter, material particles, are brought into existence by a process revealed in the Double-Slit experiments, so too, 15 thousand million years ago, in a hot explosive instant, Universal Consciousness collapsed probability waves to create matter.

This newly-created matter was then immediately shepherded by morphic fields which fashioned the inchoate matter, progressively and over time, into the familiar systems we see in the universe today.

Sheldrake and Bohm

During their 1982 talk, Sheldrake and Bohm discussed common ground between their theories of morphic fields and the implicate order.

However, Dr. Sheldrake made comments germane to our study of evolution. He referenced conversations with his professional friends in biology:

“The interesting thing about the big bang theory is that the minute you have to address the question of the origins of the laws of nature, you’re forced to recognize the philosophical assumptions underlying any sort of science.

“People who think of themselves as hard-nosed mechanists… practical scientists getting on with the job. But you can force them to realize that their view of the laws of nature as being timeless, is in fact a metaphysical view.

“I talk with biological friends, and they say, Oh, what you’re doing is metaphysics.

“So I say, Wait a minute, let’s look at what you’re doing.”
 

READ MORE

The cells in your arms and legs are exactly the same, contain the same chemicals and DNA, the same genetic makeup, yet somehow these cells “know” how to form and construct diverse body parts. By what process? There is no "tiny blueprint" within genes and DNA.

Genes and DNA are like a pile of construction materials - bricks, nails, drywall, and lumber - but these cannot assemble themselves; and, even if they could, wouldn't know what to make. Where is the blueprint?

Amit Goswami is a professor and writer of textbooks of quantum physics

“Consciousness [is like] a programmer [producing software to create blueprints] using downward causation … The program-like behavior is built into biological form-making, a process that starts with a one-celled zygote [a fertilized egg].”

How do the geometrically multiplying cells of the zygote “know what to do” and "to become”? All of the cells of any organism's body – the cells forming hands and feet, liver and brain, spinal column and blood – derive from a single original cell, the fertilized egg; and yet, like military legions with specific missions, these dispatch themselves to perform particular functions in constructing life-forms.

This “form-making process [issuing from an invisible de facto blueprint] is called morphogenesis… The blueprints of biological form-making are called morphogenetic fields [which are quantum probability fields], the fields that help program biological life."

you can have it all laid out in front of you, but it won't make you think 

Concert for George
Royal Albert Hall
November 29, 2002 

Horse To Water