|
Nonphysical.org
If this Makes Sense to You, Please Send the Link to Someone Who May Be Interested! |
|
|
|
The Issues
|
Dedicated to a Revolution in Biological Theory
The God Issue
Discussion of the possible nonphysical nature of life is highly charged. Should one propose that that life or the mind are a mysterious, conscious force, one immediately confronts the issue of religion. For what is a vast dimension of conscious intelligence but another name for God? And generally, when people in the West hear the word God, they immediately think of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. However, if such a mysterious, unacknowledged force exists, who should attempt to characterize its action on the material realm, scientists or theologians? The scientific community comes down hard on the issue. Most insist that should life be a nonphysical force, it is not the duty of science to acknowledge or characterize it (1). Scientists argue that science only deals with the material world as defined by the existing laws of physics. They argue that speculation on nonphysical forces is pointless since the nonphysical realm cannot be isolated in the laboratory. Anything else, they claim is the realm of priests and philosophers, but not of scientists. In this line, the scientific community takes a strong stand against the proponents of Intelligent Design. They aggressively dismiss the possibility that the complexity of living physiology is evidence of the Creator's intent. They characterize those who promote the theory of Intelligent Design as fundamentalist Christians who only want to introduce religion into public schools. In court, scientists argue that Intelligent Design is not a scientifically verifiable theory theory. Scientific textbooks, articles, and journals do not discuss the need for an alternate theory of life. Instead, they attack those who disagree with science's material view. As a consequence, dissent is silenced. The gross inadequacies in science's purely material theory of life, mind, and memory are unexplored and ignored. Scientists who may embrace the nonphysical nature of life or the mind tend to keep their views to themselves. But if an unacknowledged force directs the motion of living matter, should science ignore it? Should we ignore evidence that does not fit into the existing material framework? Should we ignore an existing theory's improbabilities and logical conundrums? Or do we enlarge our theoretical framework of life and the mind to provide a unified reality? Suppose the discussion did not involve the existence of God, but if physicists were to observe an unexplained physical phenomena? Suppose a group of astrophysicists observed matter near a black hole act in an inexplicable way? Or suppose particle physicists watched elementary particles in an atom smasher dash about in a manner that cannot be explained by the four known forces of physics? Should they ignore this fact? Or should they acknowledge the possibility that the existing explanatory framework needs to be revised or modified? One hundred years ago, physicists faced this exact crisis. The theories of classical physics that proved so powerful in most cases, suddenly reached their limits. The existing framework could not explain new observations such as the quantum effect and black body radiation. With great reluctance, physicists had to let go of their common sense view of reality and embrace the mind-bending weirdness of quantum mechanics and relativity's thickness of time (2). Initially, great physicists attacked the new theories. They disparaged Einstein's theory of relativity as pointless, occult speculation. One cannot use a measuring stick to quantify Einstein's higher dimension time, so why discuss it? Yet today, physicists have no trouble with conflict. Modern physicists readily contemplate the profound strangeness of a multidimensional universe. Physicists heatedly debate conflicting views of reality. They quickly seize upon logical gaps in existing theories to promote new ideas. Should not science promote the same lively debate on the nature of life, mind, and memory? The logical conundrums presented by science's material theory of life are clear. Foremost, the existing theory cannot provide a tangible mechanism by which the reactive forces of the nonliving world become the proactive force of life. The current theory cannot explain life's baffling chronological organization of molecular motion. It cannot explain what directs this motion to construct the intricate architecture of the living body. It cannot explain how the brain's material substance creates the conscious mind endowed with choice, perception, and emotion. It cannot explain mind's chronological organization of memory. It cannot explain why consciously acquired skills, such as a human's ability to walk, appear identical to an instinctive ability such as a newborn horse's capability to walk at birth. To steadfastly ignore the glaring short comings of existing theory does nothing to celebrate the objective, free-flow of ideas. It does nothing to further our understanding of ourselves or the Universe. If life is a nonphysical force that organizes molecules into the structures of plants and animals, should we refuse to acknowledge the fact because it acknowledges the existence of God? Today's material theories of life and the mind are simply a patchwork of observations. They lack a true mechanism to explain life's organization and operation. Until science is willing to get past the "God issue," science will never provide a unified theory of life and the mind. Our understanding of life will be no more than a fragmented series of observations that lack true explanation. It is time for the biological sciences to follow the profound revolution in physics and embrace the quest for a unified understanding of reality.
References (1) The eminent Harvard biologist, Ernst Mayr. The Growth of Biological Thought. (2) The Nobel Prize Physicist, Werner Heisenberg. Physics and Philosophy. |