Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

msante

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
And it makes sense if this comes from a realm where information reigns and the boundaries between matter and consciousness are fluid. If that's the work of 4D designers, no wonder the Cs said that their technological knowledge is light years ahead of everything we know!

Since you touch on this topic I'd like to comment that I'm a little confused about who (or what) is the Designer. Everything seems to indicate that 4D STS plays an important role in this "work", but even so I think that perhaps we are not 100% products of their "engineering", but that they use and manipulate at a level that we can barely understand, "engineering" that perhaps comes from higher realms. What's more, I don't think it's far-fetched that we ourselves are also a small piece in this design work. We've discussed before (and Laura has gone into a lot of detail about it) that we create/modify reality, not the way the newagers would like to, but it looks like we do. It has also been suggested in much of the material shared here that our thoughts and emotions modify our DNA. So I think that perhaps the idea of a Designer is something broader or more complex than what we are currently able to understand.

Of course when we talk about the skills as 4D STS designers and compare them to our own, there is not even a point of reference to equate, but I still think that even they have limitations in terms of their creative abilities.
 

Pierre

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Isn't it fascinating how he squirms and weasels? I'm sure what he really wanted to answer but couldn't (because he knew that's too dumb) was that the only evidence he'd accept would be some God descending from the sky or some repeatable miracle or some nonsense like that. In other words: something strictly materialistic.

Some atheists would probably be swayed by such 'evidence'. However, the question (What would you accept as evidence for God? ) is misleading because it presupposes that the position of atheist is evidence-based, that's the old myth according to which science is objective, devoid of prejudice, belief and bias.

The more I read about the topic, the more I think that this scientist atheism is actually a cult rooted in a dark core belief. 'Science' being just a varnish making this ideology more appealing to the masses.

So, like in any deep ideology, no matter how much evidence is provided, the beliefs remain the same.

This being said, what the point of invoking evidence on a topic (the existence of God) that can't be proved or disproved? I think the unprovability of God (and everything that goes with it soul, transcendence, good and bad, meaning) is a good thing.

Indeed, if it was provable, individuals would embrace this path, this alignment not because they fundamentally resonate with it, but because they know where it leads. This choice would not be a matter of faith or deep nature any more but a matter of bargain and anticipation.

In other terms when you reach a crossroad and you know where the path lead, you make a choice based on what you expect, when you don't know where the paths lead to, you make a choice based on you truly are.

In the end, the scientist atheism is as close to the SDS mindset as you can get in third density. And when you think about, the fundamental choice between STS and STO, the two consubstantial principles of the Universe, is not driven by some evidence, but by the deepest nature of the entities that face it and exercise their free will.
 

Hesper

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Some atheists would probably be swayed by such 'evidence'. However, the question (What would you accept as evidence for God? ) is misleading because it presupposes that the position of atheist is evidence-based, that's the old myth according to which science is objective, devoid of prejudice, belief and bias.

The more I read about the topic, the more I think that this scientist atheism is actually a cult rooted in a dark core belief. 'Science' being just a varnish making this ideology more appealing to the masses.

Great points. 'Scientific' atheists of the type you mention commit so many logical fallacies it makes the head spin. For instance, they base their entire life philosophy on a non-sequitur, or "a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement." As David Berlinski points out they argue that, since the major theories of how the physical universe works don't prove anything like a 'God' could exist, then there can be nothing but the physical universe. The problem is the greatest theories concern themselves primarily with the physical universe - they have nothing to say about God. Nowhere in Maxwell's equations does he set out to prove or disprove the existence of God, or in Newtonian physics, etc. I think C.S. Lewis captured the ridiculousness of their logic perfectly:

"But how do you know there is no [God]?"

"Christopher Columbus, Galileo, the earth is round, invention of printing, gunpowder!" exclaimed Mr. Enlightenment in such a loud voice that the potty shied.

"I beg your pardon," said John,

"Eh?" said Mr. Enlightenment.

"I don't quite understand," said John.

"Why it's as plain as a pikestaff," said the other. "Your people in Puritania believe in [God] because they have not had the benefits of a scientific training.; For example, now, I dare say it would be news to you to hear that the earth was round - round as an orange, my lad!"

Well, I don't know that it would," said John, feeling a little disappointed. [...]

But scientists who do concern themselves with the afterlife, consciousness, intelligent design etc are considered 'unscientific' because they do not automatically reject their own field of study (a rejection that's based on shoddy thinking). It's absurd and brain-damaging stuff and, as you say Pierre, I have no doubt many adherents hold dark beliefs about the universe and their place in it.
 

Windmill knight

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Since you touch on this topic I'd like to comment that I'm a little confused about who (or what) is the Designer. Everything seems to indicate that 4D STS plays an important role in this "work", but even so I think that perhaps we are not 100% products of their "engineering", but that they use and manipulate at a level that we can barely understand, "engineering" that perhaps comes from higher realms. What's more, I don't think it's far-fetched that we ourselves are also a small piece in this design work. We've discussed before (and Laura has gone into a lot of detail about it) that we create/modify reality, not the way the newagers would like to, but it looks like we do. It has also been suggested in much of the material shared here that our thoughts and emotions modify our DNA. So I think that perhaps the idea of a Designer is something broader or more complex than what we are currently able to understand.

Of course when we talk about the skills as 4D STS designers and compare them to our own, there is not even a point of reference to equate, but I still think that even they have limitations in terms of their creative abilities.

I would say yes to all of the above! :) I mean, based on what the Cs have said, and the discussions we've had before, in the case of life on earth there's probably not a single designer. It could be that some super ancient primordial life forms were created by Thought Forms, 6D, Archetypes, or 7D itself - maybe they are constantly being created in infinite forms across existence. Then other beings, perhaps 4D, engineer modifications in such organisms once they learn how to. They might even create their own in imitation. At the same time, evolving souls incarnated may 'imbue' new or more sophisticated information into their physical DNA, totally changing it. I guess any and all possibilities apply, and life on earth may be a result of many designers working and re-engineering for different purposes for millions of years!
 

hlat

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
This being said, what the point of invoking evidence on a topic (the existence of God) that can't be proved or disproved? I think the unprovability of God (and everything that goes with it soul, transcendence, good and bad, meaning) is a good thing.

Indeed, if it was provable, individuals would embrace this path, this alignment not because they fundamentally resonate with it, but because they know where it leads. This choice would not be a matter of faith or deep nature any more but a matter of bargain and anticipation.

In other terms when you reach a crossroad and you know where the path lead, you make a choice based on what you expect, when you don't know where the paths lead to, you make a choice based on you truly are.
I think I'm going on the intelligent design path due to the evidence and not faith. In the mainstream, we are only given 2 false choices, mainstream religious creationism and scientific atheism. Early on I gathered the data to reject the mainstream religions so out went religious creationism. Then there was a lot of data to reject specific areas of corrupt science, eg mercury teeth fillings, fluoride, statins. But I didn't have the scientific data to specifically reject darwinism. Only now I do have the data to specifically reject darwinism, so definitively out goes scientific atheism.

It's a pretty huge step for me, to receive scientific data validating creation and intelligent design.
 

JEEP

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
A bit of a fly in the ointment so to speak:

Some years ago while visiting Longwood Gardens, I was marvelling at the amazing, complex beauty of the many varied orchids on display. I kept thinking that although we know plants will adapt to attract pollinators, I had to think that neither insects or animals could fully appreciate the absolute beauty of these flowers - that only a human could! I guess in my own way, I was firming up a belief of intelligent design over evolution, but in the more conventional sense that this spectacular natural beauty was a manifestation of God meant for human eyes and appreciation.

Not quite the same, but somewhat in the same vein is a recent article on Sott:
How beauty is making scientists rethink evolution

Numerous species have conspicuous, metabolically costly and physically burdensome sexual ornaments, as biologists call them. Think of the bright elastic throats of anole lizards, the Fabergé abdomens of peacock spiders and the curling, iridescent, ludicrously long feathers of birds-of-paradise. To reconcile such splendor with a utilitarian view of evolution, biologists have favored the idea that beauty in the animal kingdom is not mere decoration - it's a code. According to this theory, ornaments evolved as indicators of a potential mate's advantageous qualities: its overall health, intelligence and survival skills, plus the fact that it will pass down the genes underlying these traits to its children. A bowerbird with especially bright plumage might have a robust immune system, for example, while one that finds rare and distinctive trinkets might be a superb forager. Beauty, therefore, would not confound natural selection - it would be very much a part of it.

Charles Darwin himself disagreed with this theory.
Although he co-discovered natural selection and devoted much of his life to demonstrating its importance, he never claimed that it could explain everything. Ornaments, Darwin proposed, evolved through a separate process he called sexual selection: Females choose the most appealing males "according to their standard of beauty" and, as a result, males evolve toward that standard, despite the costs. Darwin did not think it was necessary to link aesthetics and survival. Animals, he believed, could appreciate beauty for its own sake. Many of Darwin's peers and successors ridiculed his proposal. To them, the idea that animals had such cognitive sophistication - and that the preferences of "capricious" females could shape entire species - was nonsense. Although never completely forgotten, Darwin's theory of beauty was largely abandoned.

Now, nearly 150 years later, a new generation of biologists is reviving Darwin's neglected brainchild. Beauty, they say, does not have to be a proxy for health or advantageous genes. Sometimes beauty is the glorious but meaningless flowering of arbitrary preference. Animals simply find certain features - a blush of red, a feathered flourish - to be appealing. And that innate sense of beauty itself can become an engine of evolution, pushing animals toward aesthetic extremes. In other cases, certain environmental or physiological constraints steer an animal toward an aesthetic preference that has nothing to do with survival whatsoever.

In regards to that last bit, I'm inclined to think that insects do not possess that attribute. That blossom color or shape no doubt lures them in as a guide for acquiring nectar, an appreciation of beauty for its own sake in this regard would not seem to apply. May very well apply to insect mating preference - "Oh, what gorgeous feelers you have, my dear!"



HOW FEMALE MOTHS SNAG GUYS WITH BIG ANTENNAE


The finding, published in Science of Nature, lends support to one of Charles Darwin’s lesser known ideas.

In 1871, Darwin suggested that a female’s choice of mate could drive the evolution of mating signals in males. The male is effectively advertising his qualities and if a female chooses to mate with him, the genes for his traits are passed on to their offspring in the next generation, which ensures the evolution of the male display and the female’s preference.

The theory of sexual selection has dominated research into animal behavior for decades, and thousands of studies support Darwin’s theory of sexual selection, says evolutionary biologist Mark Elgar, professor in the University of Melbourne’s School of Biosciences.

“But Darwin also proposed that sexual selection can favor males who are better at detecting and responding to signals from females, including chemical signals like pheromones. So males with sensory structures that can better detect female signals may have the edge in finding them in order to mate and pass on their genes.”
[...]
“Our data are consistent with Darwin’s 1871 prediction that sexual selection favors exaggerated sensory receptor structures like antennae,” says Matthew Symonds of Deakin University.

“As evolutionary biologists, it’s very rewarding to be able to support a long-standing idea, originally floated by Darwin, that hasn’t attracted much attention,” he says.

The team also suggests that females adjust their signaling to maximize their encounters with particular kinds of males, rather than to simply maximize encounters with any males.

“Our data suggest that by releasing smaller amounts of pheromone, the female increases the likelihood of attracting males with longer antennae. These males may be better mates because producing and maintaining a large sensory structure is costly and possible for higher quality males only. Those male qualities may be passed onto her offspring,” says Elgar.
[...]
Our results show that females may have a significant and largely unrecognized role in the sexual selection of elaborate antennae, Elgar says.

“For the gum-leaf skeletoniser moth, males that are good listeners apparently make attractive mates.”

How female moths snag guys with big antennae - Futurity

But whose to say the gals don't like large antennae just for the look of them? ;-D
 

Gaby

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I just finished reading "Heretic: One Scientist's Journey from Darwin to Design". The difficulties that these scientists experienced and which are related in this book, portray acutely what could only be described as a fight against forces that seeks to put consciousness to sleep through a strictly and purely materialistic reality devoid of all meaning, purpose and choice.

Leisola and Witt aptly quote Viktor Frankl in the last chapter and how he was "absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers."

Leisola also relates his experiences behind the peer review process and the various mainstream science channels, magazines and documentaries. It is about time that a balanced perspective was offered to counteract the massive programming that people at large have been subjected to. For those of us who have struggled to fit in a reality where materialism and "Darwinism" are the gods, this book comes as an inspiration to understand ourselves better and to redeem science and regain freedom from the various materialistic traps that seeks to negate and stamp out any conscious perspective from our reality.

Highly recommended reading! :-)
 

Ollie

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I just finished reading "Heretic: One Scientist's Journey from Darwin to Design". The difficulties that these scientists experienced and which are related in this book, portray acutely what could only be described as a fight against forces that seeks to put consciousness to sleep through a strictly and purely materialistic reality devoid of all meaning, purpose and choice.
...

Highly recommended reading! :-)

I have just started to read this book, whilst waiting for Darwin's Black Box to arrive (because of a Christmas error on Amazon's behalf). Whilst only on Chapter 1, I concur totally with what Gaby has written above. The potential for this to be a good book to read is already evident.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
There are some animation clips on Youtubes made by https://illustramedia.com which I found via Illustra Media - Origin - Film Clips which was published as a link to a youtube that illustrate some of the issues of the origin of life; the first clip presents different theories for the origin of life:
The second about the chances a small amino acid would form spontaneously in the right sequence:
The above was also available from this link which in the comment has several references to the information given
And the last one is about the function of a cell:
 

Anthony

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I just finished reading "Heretic: One Scientist's Journey from Darwin to Design". The difficulties that these scientists experienced and which are related in this book, portray acutely what could only be described as a fight against forces that seeks to put consciousness to sleep through a strictly and purely materialistic reality devoid of all meaning, purpose and choice.

Leisola and Witt aptly quote Viktor Frankl in the last chapter and how he was "absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers."

Leisola also relates his experiences behind the peer review process and the various mainstream science channels, magazines and documentaries. It is about time that a balanced perspective was offered to counteract the massive programming that people at large have been subjected to. For those of us who have struggled to fit in a reality where materialism and "Darwinism" are the gods, this book comes as an inspiration to understand ourselves better and to redeem science and regain freedom from the various materialistic traps that seeks to negate and stamp out any conscious perspective from our reality.

Highly recommended reading! :-)

It is interesting that the materialistic perspective has such a sway on science, and many other fields as well, such as psychology. There is obviously an agenda behind it, since evidence points to information/design/intelligence/complexity and not randomness and materialism, as shown in the the recommended reading material. One of the reasons for this, I think, has to do with the control system, 4D STS influences that want to keep us enslaved for their personal profit, and ensure that we keep playing in the mud, so to speak.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Just started reading David Stove's "Darwinian Fairytales". Excellent so far! The author believes in Darwinian evolution, so we need to keep this in mind, but his focus is more philosophical and he brings a major piece to the puzzle that we haven't talked about a lot yet I think: namely the incredibly (!!) pathological thinking in Darwinism then and now!

For starters, Darwinism is THE ultimate schizoidal declaration! Men are mere animals, engaged in a ruthless fight for survival and producing offspring! And Stove points his finger to something that should be obvious and that is also supported by the Cs' cosmology: namely that there is a massive distinction to be made between humans and animals - we live in different worlds (or densities)! But as always with the materialist swines, they want to drag us all to their level of pigs. And they commit fallacy after fallacy in doing so, making up all these incoherent claims about human nature and history that the author delightfully brings to light.

Some preliminary thoughts: Darwinists, including those in evolutionary psychology, always come up with these stories about why even though it doesn't seem that way at all, life can totally be reduced to a materialist struggle for survival. Nobility, altruism, consciousness and so on only seem to paint a different picture, but at the end of the day, it all serves survival, full stop. What a dim view of the world. It - again! - does completely away with anything higher, any true spiritual striving. As if consciousness didn't exist. As if good and evil didn't exist!

Now, the traditional, religious view strikes me as far more accurate and sensible. There are two distinct elements there:

First, the struggle between our base, animal nature and our higher nature (the flesh vs. the spirit). This seems to provide a far better perspective to analyze what happened historically and what happens now. Of course, our animal nature plays a big role, and it's important to study it as "the machine". But we are not animals! The history of humanity is also a history of the fight between the flesh and the spirit in each individual, playing out and producing certain results in a myriad of ways. We can be better than our animal nature or "flesh", and indeed often are (and perhaps were more so in the past), despite all the efforts to drag us down.

Perhaps equally important, instead of just eliminating our higher impulses from the equation, a more conclusive view would be to also regard human shortcomings as a distortion of our spirituality, a distortion of our higher impulses! Which brings us to

Second, the idea of a "fall", or "original sin". This of course is also in line with what the Cs said, namely that by a conscious choice, humanity got entangled with STS and offered the "evil forces" a way to manipulate our consciousness, to divert and distort our spiritual force.

What seems to have happened is this: by our "fall", we allowed someone to tinker with our DNA/biology, creating a "backdoor" as it were (the Cs mentioned jealousy for example as the result of such tinkering). Through this backdoor, the higher evil guys can "hack us", using the media, pathological ideas, false flags etc. - think of Martha Stout's "paranoia switch" and countless other examples.

To give an example of how this framework makes more sense than the crazy and illogical Darwinian story: It is often claimed by evolutionary psychologists (such as Bret Weinstein of IDW fame) that we "evolved" tribal behavior, which now stands in the way in a globalized society, and that we need to overcome this. First thing to point out is that he seems to commit what David Stove calls the "Caveman Fallacy": either we really are determined by pure Darwinism and therefore can't change; or we can overcome Darwinian impulses using consciousness, but then there's no reason at all to believe that people in the distant past couldn't also have used their consciousness to decide stuff, against Darwinian impulses, thus screwing the whole Darwinian narrative of a dog-eat-dog world of natural selection. Darwinians seem to make the mistake of considering past humans as mere animals (sic), primitive cave men without consciousness living in a Darwinian jungle. And since their thinking is so rooted in biological evolution via random mutations/natural selection, it's easy to see why they can't recognize the "quantum leap" between animals and humans. But humans were not animals then as they are not animals now.

So here's a different version of the story: What if practical considerations and survival are just one factor to explain tribalism? What if our ancestors valued spiritual community, being among friends and forming deep relationships, higher goals and so on just as much as we do? What if indeed such values can be stronger than the survival instinct? Wouldn't many people prefer to die relatively young among their brothers and sisters in a fulfilled spiritual community, striving towards nobility and higher values, than surviving until old age alone in the Darwinian jungle?

Following that line of thought, today's tribalism is not only, and maybe not even primarily, based on a simple drive for survival. It's also the soul's longing for community, for higher values, for spiritual striving and meaning. But this impetus was hacked by STS forces, so that people fall like flies to pseudo-communities such as "the left", "the right", various ideologies and so on. It's not merely our "animal nature" but a distortion of spiritual expression, a distortion of our souls - a redirection of our spiritual energy, using their "hacking", which produces negative energy.

So it seems to me that it's important to study our machine as the product of biological tinkering and mind-hacking, but that many of the far-fledged evolutionary "fairy tales" and "explanations" are not that helpful and distort our view of history. Rather, we should take Collingwood seriously and try to put ourselves in the shoes of our ancestors as best we can instead of embracing the deeply pathological, materialistic view of Darwinism that considers men to be mere animals, or even worse.

In other words, the history of humanity is not characterized by Darwinian evolution, but a spiritual "fall" and the subsequent "upper hand" of evil in the eternal struggle between good and evil in our hearts. It's a struggle at the 3D level, not the 2D level!

So to sum up, it seems the Cs' teachings are spot-on and the process looks something like this:
  1. Observe reality left and right so that you learn to recognize the ongoing "hacking job" both on the mind and on the body
  2. Strive towards overcoming "the flesh" via conscious suffering: feel the pain that is produced by seeing and getting rid of the "hacks", realizing your illusions and malicious bodily programming
  3. This new painful awareness in tandem with painfully struggling to stop the expression of the "malware" leads to DNA changes
  4. These DNA changes in turn "tune" you to an even better awareness to create a feedback loop between awareness and DNA changes (the Cs said our DNA acts like an "antenna" for the information field)
  5. Once this feedback loop reaches critical mass, a tipping point might be crossed and off we fly into the next "evolutionary" phase, having fought our way out of "the fall"!

Anyway, even though I'm at the very beginning of the book, I wanted to share these thoughts. I'm looking forward to continuing reading it!
 
Last edited:

Breo

Jedi Council Member
So it seems to me that it's important to study our machine as the product of biological tinkering and mind-hacking, ...

So to sum up, it seems the Cs' teachings are spot-on and the process looks something like this:
  1. Observe reality left and right so that you learn to recognize the ongoing "hacking job" both on the mind and on the body
  2. Strive towards overcoming "the flesh" via conscious suffering: feel the pain that is produced by seeing and getting rid of the "hacks", realizing your illusions and malicious bodily programming
  3. This new painful awareness in tandem with painfully struggling to stop the expression of the "malware" leads to DNA changes
  4. These DNA changes in turn "tune" you to an even better awareness to create a feedback loop between awareness and DNA changes (the Cs said our DNA acts like an "antenna" for the information field)
  5. Once this feedback loop reaches critical mass, a tipping point might be crossed and off we fly into the next "evolutionary" phase, having fought our way out of "the fall"!
Luc,
I read this thread with highest interest. And I am far behind with reading.
I carry around since long these questions: How conscious suffering works on the DNA? As the "fall" opened to tinkering what effects it has on the DNA? Where and how to find a scientific take on these questions without ideological influence? And now in this amazing thread through Lauras research its all developed and layed out for us. Wow. Your post is such a brilliant, helpful summary of connecting so many dots for us beginners. I am thankful that you put so much in an easy to understand picture and structure. Makes so much sense to me.

You guys just ROCK!

I can only second that:clap:.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Yup. Things are really congealing. I think what is going to be in order is to write a sort of "catechism" of C's cosmology/anthropology/christology/science, etc. Maybe you geniuses can think about that. Kind of a Summa Cassiopaea.
 

fabric

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
At this point in his account, Harner writes in a footnote at the bottom of the page: 'in retrospect, one could say that they were almost like DNA, although at that time, in 1961, I knew nothing of DNA.' So, I would like to know what was the source and nature of these nearly universal visions that occurs in these shamanistic practices; the various creatures including serpents and bird-headed dudes, and so forth? What is the source of these hallucinations?

A while ago I read the Cosmic Serpent and it was a very interesting read. Apparently the double helix imagery and its associations with serpents (and other things as well) were found across many tribes all over the world. It’s like our higher density creators (or perhaps more like meddlers) had left their ‘calling-card’ in there to be found, though only in an altered state could it be perceived since higher density realities are so unlike anything we can imagine. The fact that it was perceived as such across cultures and different times via different hallucinogens is notable I think.

What’s so fascinating about this new more detailed look at our biological structures is seeing the depth of ‘thought’ that is inherent in the design. From an engineering point of view, it’s like they’ve covered every scenario one could think of except here’s where it gets more interesting: it's not all them. From a 4D STS view, their aim appears to be a ‘body’ which can be easily and completely subjugated. And so far it looks like they’ve done a very good job of it too. However, they’re not the only game in town and there also seems to be a counteracting force that affects DNA to make changes for the better. So in some respects, it’s like the battle is quite literally through us and not so much an abstraction as I once thought it was.

The mechanisms for non-random ‘mutations’ (or perhaps better to call them 'changes') still aren’t fully known nor are they really even explored. Imagine if they were? The field of epigenetics is a step in the right direction but I think we’d be much further ahead had it not been for Darwinism stepping in and keeping everyone stuck in ‘random mutations causes evolution;’ which sounds more and more ridiculous each time I hear it! So there's something quite apparent in it being used for the specific purpose in slowing down our understanding (as in humanity's) in this area.

Take a look at this video of the Electron Transport Chain:


Quite amazing isn't it? And it’s also the best explanation on that process I’ve seen, which I confess I didn’t quite fully understand until I saw this.

This got me thinking – we are directly interfacing with ‘matter’ at a subatomic level here. In the video he describes the different complexes and their function but in particular, the complexes have “redox centers which are clusters of atoms that have different affinities for electrons based on their unique atomic configurations”. Now that is some extremely high precision going on there! For a structure in our body to very precisely work with sub-atomic particles in that way is incredible. That is no happy accident.

The atoms which are being processed to provide energy must also include information at a quantum level. The information encoded in it is more than just the nutrients that were present at some earlier point... perhaps something akin to Gurdjieff’s ‘impressions’.

Given what we know about quantum particles tells us that at these levels, ‘reality’ itself exists only in potential and probabilities of thought whereby our observation of what we expect brings it into the order manifested in the material. It’s also the junction between the spiritual and the material, where it is said that science and religion meet. So add that to the latest in molecular biology and the materialists’ “matter is everything” theory simply doesn’t hold up.

It’s that probabilistic potential that lies in the most basic construct of everything else that exists provides the ever available potential to things to unfold. It removes absolute determinism from the equation. Another way to describe it is to say, "look this is your free will, built right into everything." When you make a choice, it collapses the function and reverberates right through everything else, starting with the sub-atomic particles which make your atoms then molecules which make your DNA and instruct your body to do certain things; make certain chemicals. This affects your thoughts, your moods and so on right up through ever higher level manifestations of said choices. It’s also true in reverse, where higher level influences make their way through in reverse order. In such a way can we see the effects of positive and negative feedback loops either improving one’s life in astonishing ways or the opposite - where they disintegrate so fast you won't even believe it.

There seems to be a very nuts and bolts element directly built into the universe at the most fundamental levels and we are at the stage where we can now directly observe some of it. What we see is demonstrating with even more clarity the intelligence of the universe. The beautiful irony is that the very same ‘materialism’ that denies anything spiritual or higher is also the same thing that brought us to closer to the spiritual through its search for its own validation.
 
Top Bottom