Darwin's Doubt

Townhall ^ | July 09, 2013 | Frank Turek

[Heartlander]

Darwin’s Doubt

Darwin’s Doubt, the brand new New York Times bestseller by Cambridge-trained Ph.D., Stephen Meyer, is creating a major scientific controversy. Darwinists don’t like it.

Meyer writes about the complex history of new life forms in an easy to understand narrative style. He takes the reader on a journey from Darwin to today while trying to discover the best explanation for how the first groups of animals arose. He shows, quite persuasively, that Darwinian mechanisms don’t have the power to do the job.

Using the same investigative forensic approach Darwin used over 150 years ago, Meyer investigates the central doubt Darwin had about his own theory. Namely, that the fossil record did not contain the rainbow of intermediate forms that his theory of gradual evolutionary change required. However, Darwin predicted that future discoveries would confirm his theory.

Meyer points out that they haven’t. We’ve thoroughly searched the fossil record since Darwin and confirmed what Darwin originally saw himself: the discontinuous, abrupt appearance of the first forms of complex animal life. In fact, paleontologists now think that roughly 20 of the 28 animal phyla (representing distinct animal “body plans”) found in the fossil record appear abruptly without ancestors in a dramatic geological event called the Cambrian Explosion.

And additional discoveries since Darwin have made it even worse for his theory. Darwin didn’t know about DNA or the digital information it contains that makes life possible. He couldn’t have appreciated, therefore, that building new forms of animal life would require millions of new characters of precisely sequenced code—that the Cambrian explosion was a massive explosion of new information.

For modern neo-Darwinism to survive, there must be an unguided natural mechanism that can create the genetic information and then add to it massively, accurately and within the time allowed by the fossil record. Is there such a mechanism?

The answer to that question is the key to Meyer’s theory and entire book. Meyer shows that the standard “neo-Darwinian” mechanism of mutation and natural selection mechanism lacks the creative power to produce the information necessary to produce new forms of animal life. He also reviews the various post-Darwinian speculations that evolutionary biologists themselves are now proposing to replace the crumbling Darwinian edifice. None survive scrutiny. Not only is there no known natural mechanism that can create the new information required for new life forms, there is no known natural mechanism that can create the genetic code for the first life either (which was the subject of Meyer’s previous book Signature in the Cell).

When Meyer suggests that an intelligent designer is the best explanation for the evidence at hand, critics accuse him of being anti-scientific and endangering sexual freedom everywhere (OK, they don’t explicitly state that last part). They also claim that Meyer commits the God of the gaps fallacy.

But he does not. As Meyer points out, he’s not interpreting the evidence based on what we don’t know, but what we do know. The geologically sudden appearance of fully formed animals and millions of lines of genetic information point to intelligence. That is, we don’t just lack a materialistic explanation for the origin of information. We have positive evidence from our uniform and repeated experience that another kind of cause—namely, intelligence or mind—is capable of producing digital information. Thus, he argues that the explosion of information in the Cambrian period provides evidence of this kind of cause acting in the history of animal life. (Much like any sentence written by one of Meyer’s critics is positive evidence for an intelligent being).

This inference from the data is no different than the inference archaeologists made when they discovered the Rosetta Stone. It wasn’t a “gap” in their knowledge about natural forces that led them to that conclusion, but the positive knowledge that inscriptions require intelligent inscribers.

Of course, any critic could refute Meyer’s entire thesis by demonstrating how natural forces or mechanisms can generate the genetic information necessary to build the first life and then massive new amounts of genetic information necessary for new forms of animal life. But they can’t and hardly try without assuming what they are trying to prove (see Chapter 11). Instead, critics attempt to smear Meyer by claiming he’s doing “pseudo science” or not doing science at all.

Well, if Meyer isn’t, doing science, then neither was Darwin (or any Darwinist today). Meyer is using the same forensic or historical scientific method that Darwin himself used. That’s all that can be used. Since these are historical questions, a scientist can’t go into the lab to repeat and observe the origin and history of life. Scientists must evaluate the clues left behind and then make an inference to the best explanation. Does our repeated experience tell us that natural mechanisms have the power to create the effects in question or is intelligence required?

Meyer writes, “Neo-Darwinism and the theory of intelligent design are not two different kinds of inquiry, as some critics have asserted. They are two different answers—formulated using a similar logic and method of reasoning—to the same question: ‘What caused biological forms and the appearance of design in the history of life?’”

The reason Darwinists and Meyer arrive at different answers is not because there’s a difference in their scientific methods, but because Meyer and other Intelligent Design proponents don’t limit themselves to materialistic causes. They are open to intelligent causes as well (just like archaeologists and crime scene investigators are).

So this is not a debate about evidence. Everyone is looking at the same evidence. This is a debate about how to interpret the evidence, and that involves philosophical commitments about what causes will be considered possible before looking at the evidence. If you philosophically rule out intelligent causes beforehand—as the Darwinists do—you will never arrive at the truth if an intelligent being actually is responsible.

Since all evidence needs to be interpreted, science doesn’t actually say anything—scientists do. So if certain self-appointed priests of science say that a particular theory is outside the bounds of their own scientific dogma, that doesn’t mean that the theory is false. The issue is truth—not whether something fits a materialistic definition of science.

I’m sure Darwinists will continue to throw primordial slime at Meyer and his colleagues. But that won’t make a dent in his observation that whenever we see information like that required to produce the Cambrian Explosion, intelligence is always the cause. In fact, I predict that when open-minded people read Darwin’s Doubt, they’ll see that Dr. Meyer makes a very intelligently designed case that intelligent design is actually true. It’s just too bad that many Darwinists aren’t open to that truth—they aren’t even open minded enough to doubt Darwin as much as Darwin himself was.

[Texas Songwriter]

He doesn't need to explain it, because Borde-Guth-Vilenkin themselves not only don't claim any such thing, they actually wrote: "What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event." Vilenkin himself suggested one such possibility. http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf There are others. There is the possibility, for example, that time is finite but has no boundary. Another possibility is that time has only recently become time-like (in the sense of Lorentz invariance) and at the boundary was actually a space-like dimension. The authors you cite actually don't talk in the absolute terms you're suggesting; and they certainly don't rule out a uniquely quantum beginning to the universe.

He does not need to......Well, I suppose you are right, but it does not change what the theory says. What you quoted was a paper Vilenkin published (not Borde/Guth) in 1982. In the October 1, 2001, they published "Inflation Is Not Past-Eternal" . http://arXiv:gr-qc/0110012v1.

A watershed, of a sort, came with this publication where Borde, Guth, Vilenkin formulated their theory estabishing that any universewhich has on average over its past history been in a state of cosmic expansion. Theorists intent on avoiding an absolute beginning of the universe could previously take refuge in the period of time known as Planck time, an era so poorly understood that one commentator has compared it with the regions of the maps of ancient cartographers marked "Here there be dragons!" But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem does not depend upon any particular physical description of the universe prior to Planck time, being based on a deceptively simple physical reasoning which will hold regardless of our uncertainty concerning that era. It sweeps away the most important attempts to avoid an absolute beginning of the universe. Vilenkin pulls no punches. "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. Moreover, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem requires that the multiverse itself cannot be extended into the infinite past.

I guess Vilenkin learned a lot in 20 years, or from his collaboration with Borde and Guth. I addressed a quantum beginning earlier.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

What I do not have faith in, however, is any form of materialism or physicalism as an exhaustive explanation for the world we see all around us.

You more seem to have faith--probably better to say "confidence"--that such an explanation is impossible.

To the extent that Neo-Darwinist theorizing restricts itself to physicalist/materialist presuppositions, it cannot explain the emergence of life. Period. End of story.

You hope. This is the second time you've referenced Kahre's Law, which I hadn't previously heard of, so I went looking for references to read up on it. And I found a paper (PDF) that acknowledges the "information paradox" you describe, but says "We show that the resolution of the fundamental information paradox may lie either in the chemical evolution of inheritance in abiogenesis, or in the existence of an autonomous biological principle allowing the production of information beyond physics." Further,

If our results will be confirmed, it will turn out that biology cannot be reduced simply to physics, since its genetic, algorithmic and symbolic information content is much higher than that of physics. Our proposal not only allows biology to follow its own, and, necessarily, autonomous first principle not derivable from physics, but allows also to approach biology from a viewpoint that can make theoretical biology to develop into a science with exactness almost reaching the exactness of physics.

So for this scientist at least, the information paradox is not the end of the story, but rather the start.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Sounds like just another "just-so story" to me. Blame the primitives. They were ignoramuses. We know better than they did, today.

Wow. Way to wave away something you apparently find inconvenient to consider. There's no element of blame in Jaynes's explanation, or any attempt to label them as primitive. He's talking about people as recent as the ancient Greeks, the ones who fought the Trojan War. He also doesn't claim that communications from the right side of the brain are valueless. Sheesh, learn about something before you dismiss it, why don't you?

[RFEngineer]

“Meyer investigates the central doubt Darwin had about his own theory. “

Like any serious scientist, Darwin had his doubts, even the author of the article admits.

So most of the creationist comments are inapplicable.

Militant Creationists set up a straw argument that science deals in absolutes, rather than the best scientific explanation possible with the data available. When new data comes available that scientifically contradicts any aspect of a previous theory, then that constitutes a “lie”.

As the author points out, Darwin presented research and data and published a theoretical position - and at the same time expressed the potential pitfalls of his conclusions that he thought were relevant at the time.

That militant creationists are still arguing with Darwin, who is 150 years dead, yet they still can’t win the argument is telling, and is more a statement to their stunning insecurity and lack of Faith than it is to any failure of Darwin’s best scientific explanations at the time.

Science is science. Faith is Faith. Neither reveals all answers with certainty, but each attacks the other because of the others uncertainty.

[FredZarguna]

You are mistaken.

The quote is from a paper by Borde-Guth-Vilenkin in 2003, which weakens the conditions of the paper you cite from 2001. To wit, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf. It is not from Vilenkin alone.

Even though this requires weaker conditions, and is therefore a stronger result, the authors of the paper IMPLY NO SUCH CONSEQUENCE AS YOU ERRONEOUSLY MAINTAIN.

You are also mistaken in this claim: [applies to] any universe which has on average over its past history been in a state of cosmic expansion

The authors do not claim this to be so. There are assumptions in their theory, and Vilenkin [post 2003] himself merely says, "almost all."

In particular:

"[If] someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…”

Theorists intent on avoiding an absolute beginning of the universe could previously take refuge in the period of time known as Planck time

They could but they didn't have to; because there are theories which have a bounded time dimension which still has no beginning or end.

But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem does not depend upon any particular physical description of the universe prior to Planck time, being based on a deceptively simple physical reasoning which will hold regardless of our uncertainty concerning that era

The reasoning is neither deceptive, nor is it simple. It is based on the paths of geodesics in differential geometry constrained by Lorentz invariance and is largely inaccessible to laymen, which may be one reason why it is so largely misunderstood by them.

It sweeps away the most important attempts to avoid an absolute beginning of the universe.

No, it doesn't, as the quote from the 2003 paper clearly shows.

You then proceed to quote -- not from a peer-reviewed paper at all, but from a popular book Vilenkin wrote in 2006, Many Worlds in One . The fact that Vilenkin wrote this book alone with the collaborators from whom he "learned so much," appears not to bother you very much:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. Moreover, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem requires that the multiverse itself cannot be extended into the infinite past. "

This is not research, simply an opinion in a popularized book on Cosmology. Unfortunately for your thesis, though, on the very same page of the book you think makes such a strong statement, Vilenkin has this to say:

"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist."

Which is anything but a ringing endorsement of your position. [Nor could it be, since Vilenkin himself has offered at least one speculation which supports a Creator-less origin.]

I addressed a quantum beginning earlier.

If by "addressed" you mean "said something completely wrong," then we are in agreement.

[Texas Songwriter]

I saw the same video you saw. We will have to agree to disagree. I think Craig is correct in his explication of the theorem. I believe Vilenkin states equivocally that the only possible cosmology is creationism...that is a cosmology of an absolute beginning. I do acknowledge your quote of Vilenkin statement regarding his atheism. He is an atheist. But he did say what he said regarding a beginning. Prior to singularity, you and I inductively reason. We arrive at different places regarding the metaphysical reality. We will agree to disagree.

[betty boop]

If our results will be confirmed, it will turn out that biology cannot be reduced simply to physics, since its genetic, algorithmic and symbolic information content is much higher than that of physics. Our proposal not only allows biology to follow its own, and, necessarily, autonomous first principle not derivable from physics, but allows also to approach biology from a viewpoint that can make theoretical biology to develop into a science with exactness almost reaching the exactness of physics.

Looks to me that Kahre — though he acknowledges a potential "either/or" situation — has decidedly come down on only one side. And it is definitely not on the side of abiogenesis as an explanation of the emergence of life.

Please read his statement — carefully — again.

Also please note: We are speaking of Kahre's LAW, not Kahre's "hypothesis," or Kahre's "theory." Science is very careful about attributing the status of a "law." It goes without saying (perhaps) that a LAW is a stronger thing than a hypothesis or a theory.

[betty boop]

He also doesn't claim that communications from the right side of the brain are valueless.

Not in so many words. He just suggests they are irrelevant. Then, and presumably now.

[betty boop]

p.s.: The excerpt you gave was not Kahre's Law. It was simply a disclosure of the reasoning that Kahre used which led to his finding. Which was entirely proper for him to do, in the interest of "full disclosure." (Niels Bohr — one of the greatest scientific epistemologists who ever lived, in addition to so much else in his life's work — would have approved, I'm sure.)

Kahre's Law is simply this: Physical systems cannot produce more information at their output than was present at their input.

I hope this will further clarify matters.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Looks to me that Kahre — though he acknowledges a potential "either/or" situation — has decidedly come down on only one side. And it is definitely not on the side of abiogenesis as an explanation of the emergence of life.

The paper I quoted is not by Kahre, it's by a Hungarian scientist with the charming name of Attile Grandpierre. It refers to his (and Ashby's) law several times in describing the information paradox, but he is proposing a way out of the paradox--without resorting to an external agent.

Also, he does not dismiss abiogenesis but it looking for an explanation beyond that. He writes

Within the present state of biology, it seems that there are only two ways out of the informational paradox of biology. The established way is that of the abiogenesis. They realised a foundational work concerning the details of the chemical evolutionary process. The chemoton theory has the ambitious aim to follow chemical evolution until life’s development.

I am not finding any results for "chemoton theory disproved," so I guess it's still a line of research.

Finally, a law isn't really stronger than a theory. A law is merely an observation--"when we do this, that happens." It's a law because it happens every time we test it. A theory is a proposed explanation for why it happens. To use your terminology once again, that makes it higher quality than a law. (Also, of course, laws are only laws until an observation conflicts. Usually that just means their domain has to be restricted. For example, Newton's laws were laws until relativity--and they still are, so long as you leave out certain extreme states of matter. Similarly, Kahre's law may have to be restricted to nonbiological systems, if Grandpierre's theory stands up.)

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Not in so many words. He just suggests they are irrelevant. Then, and presumably now.

No he doesn't! Where are you getting this stuff?

[betty boop]

The paper I quoted is not by Kahre, it's by a Hungarian scientist with the charming name of Attil[a] Grandpierre. It refers to his (and Ashby's) law several times in describing the information paradox, but he is proposing a way out of the paradox--without resorting to an external agent.

Why did you rest on the "Hungarian scientist with the charming name," and not google Jan Kahre himself?

Of course, this "Hungarian scientist with the charming name" is "my friend the astrophysicist." I have been collaborating with him over the past decade as his English-language copy editor. And I can assure you that he rejects abiogenesis theory out of hand, while at the same time seeking a "B_N" explanation for the rise of life.

In retrospect, your quote sounded a whole lot like my friend. I should have picked up on that....

He and I have been having conversations for a long time now re: "B_I" vs. "B_N." He has told me that he has found such conversations "stimulating" and "valuable."

Over time, he has come to see that the "eternal universe" cosmological model (his preference) really doesn't work. And now accepts that the universe had an origin.

And that changes everything.

So, what was the date of the paper you are quoting here? If he has recently gone into "chemoton mode," it would be news to me.

[betty boop]

No he doesn't! Where are you getting this stuff?

It's called: reasoning from evidence.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

It's called: reasoning from evidence.

I'm not sure what you're using for evidence, but you're drawing incorrect conclusions.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Why did you rest on the "Hungarian scientist with the charming name," and not google Jan Kahre himself?

I googled "Kahre's Law of Diminishing Information" and that was the fourth hit. The first three didn't really do any more than state the law, which you had already done, so they didn't provide any context.

Of course, this "Hungarian scientist with the charming name" is "my friend the astrophysicist."

Really? Cool! You know, that even occurred to me while I was reading his paper. I don't know, I guess the paper just sounded like some of his quotes that you've posted or something.

So, what was the date of the paper you are quoting here? If he has recently gone into "chemoton mode," it would be news to me.

It says "Received: 15 September, 2005. Accepted: 15 October, 2005." (I gave the link in my earlier post, if you want to download it.) It'd be interesting to know what he meant when he wrote, "We think that chemoton theory is basic and will remain fundamental even when we turn our attention to a complementary aspect relative to chemical evolution: to the quantitative understanding of the origin of genetic information." [emphasis added]

[betty boop]

Really? Cool! You know, that even occurred to me while I was reading his paper. I don't know, I guess the paper just sounded like some of his quotes that you've posted or something.

Oh really? Well, that must just mean that I have learned a thing or two from him over the course of many years of association.

Why don't we just cut to the chase and ask him what he means by "chemoton theory," and how it dovetails with "the quantitative understanding of the origin of genetic information?"

I just sent him an e-mail. I'll get back to you on this question when I have a reply.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

I’ll look forward to his reply. Oh, and in case it wasn’t clear, my comment on his name was entirely sincere. Very cool name.

[betty boop]

Hi HHTVL!

While I'm waiting to hear from AG, here's an abstract regarding Tibor Ganti's Chemoton theory [1971] , of which he was the pioneer.

As far as I can tell, Ganti's approach strongly differs from Bauer's [c. 1920s–1930s]. Bauer's work was principally driven by physics (thermodynamics), where Ganti's main interest is chemistry.

Ganti, Like Erwin Bauer, was a Hungarian biological theorist and like him, worked behind the Iron Curtain. The theory's claim is that chemistry can evolve living systems. It seems it would have to violate Kahre's Law [c. ~ 1960s] to do this.

Jan Kahre's field was mathematically-based information theory, not chemistry.

A good treatment of Chemoton Theory is given in this overview of Ganti's The Principles of Life, which was first translated from the Hungarian into English in 2003.

Hope this helps!

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Thanks, BB, that’s very interesting. And kudos for posting a link to something which may contradict your position in some ways—shows a lot of integrity.

In the paper I linked to, your friend seemed to be suggesting that there might be an Action Principle in biology, as there is in physics, that lets (if that’s the right word) living things somehow direct their own development, and that that’s where the additional information can come from. I may have that all wrong; I’ve been trying to read a little about the Action Principle in physics, which seems to be well established, and I don’t really get it yet, so I’m way from fully grasping what it means in biology. But like I said above, maybe Kahre’s law doesn’t apply to living systems?

[betty boop]

...your friend seemed to be suggesting that there might be an Action Principle in biology, as there is in physics, that lets (if that’s the right word) living things somehow direct their own development, and that that’s where the additional information can come from.

Yes; That's what AG — a self-described atheist who, like Schröedinger, has strong Buddhist sympathies — is up to. Except to note that the selection of biological endpoints for physics to work on is somehow an informed process. Which is to say the information doesn't "come from" the process; rather it antecedently guides it in some way. And this is the point we are trying to understand.

It seems it is almost universally accepted nowadays that there is an ubiquitous "action principle" in physical systems in nature. It is the so-called "principle of least action." What my friend is proposing is that there is an action principle working in biological systems as well — "the principle of maximal action."

To try to explain that, he alleges that biological systems have the natural ability to select the "endpoints" that harness the physical laws towards the realization of specifically biological ends and goals. Necessary biological functions— necessary in order for a system in nature to be "alive," such as cell repair, respiration, reproduction, etc. — must be realized by means of physical processes. And unlike natural processes governed by the principle of least action (which are discrete and instantaneous), such specifically biological functions proceed over long time scales in a way that involves the whole organism, as causally orchestrated from a non-local source.

When such long-time-scale functions cease, the biological system is no longer alive. It reverts to being just a "physical system," inexorably subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the increase to maximum entropy which it predicts.

That's putting it into my words; so it may not be entirely "correct."

Anyhoot, my friend regards the principle of maximal action and the principle of least action as first principles that are both fundamental and antecedent to the operation of biological and physical laws, respectively. Further, he thinks there are specifically biological laws which are more fundamental than the laws of physics. Indeed, he suspects (along with the late, great mathematician Robert Rosen among others) that biological laws are general and universal; and that the physical laws pertain to a "special case" — physical systems in nature.

He defines a first principle as follows:

A fundamental law can be regarded as a "first principle" if and only if all of the fundamental laws of the given branch of natural sciences (in physics, that of classical mechanics, hydrodynamics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, theory of gravitation, and quantum physics, including quantum field theories and string theory) can be derived from it.

What he describes here is true of the Action Principle called "least action." Which is a principle that the scientific community appears to almost universally embrace. It is by AG's definition a fundamental, or "first principle."

To put this into context, AG holds that the real Universe "is built up from (i) phenomena, (ii) laws and, ultimately, from (iii) first principles." He gives an illustration:

Today it is a frequent view that the origin of the idea of infinity is an unsolvable enigma, since infinity cannot arise from a finite brain. Our model offers a natural explanation: our brain consists not only from a finite number of finite atoms. but also from laws and principles of Nature. [FWIW, what I would call "apperceptive reality," which complements and expands on directly "perceptive reality."] Since the laws and principles of Nature are unconstrained regarding their domain of application, therefore our brain consists not only from finite atoms but also from infinite laws and principles. Now since the brain works by those laws and principles [i.e., in apperceptive reality], it has a natural source of infinity.... Our Universe does not exhaust in physical phenomena.... — "Foundation of the Universal Science," in Analectica Husserliana: The Yearbook of Phenomenological Research, Volume CVII — Astronomy and Civilization in the New Enlightenment, 2011, A-T Tymieniecka and A. Grandpierre, eds.

Just some stuff to think about.

Dear HHTVL, I hope that you do not think that somehow, I am engaged in the pursuit of a "proof" for the existence of God. I do not need any such "proof"; which is a very good thing, because there is nothing about God that can be subjected to a "proof" according to the methods of science. Plus I don't need to "prove" anything that I regard as "antecedently True" from the very bottom of my soul.

Rather, I want to understand the Universe of which I am "a part and participant." And when I read these lines from Menas Kafatos, professor of Physics at Chapman University, I almost fell over from pure joy:

Today's science has achieved remarkable successes and is an indispensable aspect of humanity. Without science, there can be no progress. Yet, science cannot explain, it is not equipped to explain anything that is not subject to algorithmic rules, to ordinary mathematical descriptions, or in the case of physical systems, partial differential equations. It cannot explain the qualitative aspects of reality. Present science cannot completely explain not only living processes in large aggregates of cells, organisms, etc., or what we may term holistic organizations (it certainly has had great success to account for molecular biochemical processes), but also noetic aspects of reality, mind and consciousness. It cannot explain or even account for the experiences of art, for the entire experience of human life, driven by the emotional levels of the psyche. And certainly it has little to say about the deep underlying nature of the cosmos, or reality, in general.... We believe that present-day science needs to be extended beyond its present limits and it needs a new ontological model of reality, what we term here the science of wholeness. — "The Science of Wholeness," ibid.

In short, we are in the early throes of a paradigm shift. And my friend the astrophysicist is a fellow seeker along those lines.

Thank you kindly, dear HHTVL, for your recognition of my "integrity." Given the quest I'm on, I can make all kinds of "mistakes." But if I make mistakes, I want to be corrected. I am not defending any dogma; I am seeking the Truth of Reality.