Tag Archives: Darwin

Deepak Chopra: Can We Influence Our Own Evolution?

Is evolution a complex process that we have nothing to do with, or is there any way we can actually influence our own evolution? In this episode of “Ask Deepak” on The Chopra Well, Deepak explores how can we influence human evolution as well as the evolution of the cosmos.

Our feelings, thoughts, perceptions, cognition, internal mental activity, and behavior changes in every moment. The neural architecture of our brain responds to both internal and external reactions which we create through our own choices. Thus, as we think, feel and emote – we affect the expression of our genes and expression of genes in others. Your genes are activated right now watching this video, and we are influencing each other, and thus, in a sense, influencing evolution.

Subscribe to The Chopra Well and never stop activating your curiosity!

Can the Truth Come Back With a Capital “T”? (Part 2)

Screen Shot 2013-07-08 at 3.58.58 PM

Click here to read part 1!

By Deepak Chopra, M.D., Menas C. Kafatos, Ph.D., P. Murali Doraiswamy, MBBS, and Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D.

In this series of posts we’d like to formulate a new picture of truth that replaces the flawed principles of science as it exists today. What is needed is an expanded science that grows out of facing – and correcting – some mistaken beliefs. Science follows wherever reality leads it. We think that reality has led to a place that isn’t explained by quantum mechanics alone. A new set of principles is needed to replace the current ones:

  1. There is no objective, external universe. What we perceive as physical objects and events are actually reflections of how the human brain perceives things.
  2. Reality is one, a constantly shifting whole. It is pure process in which every event is connected to every other. The process is falsified when it is frozen and chopped up into isolated bits and pieces of data. As Wordsworth rightly said, “We murder to dissect.” Particles have been replaced by events and by relationships between ever-changing fields of energy.
  3. We live in a participatory universe. The observer is blended into the thing he observes. Ultimately, there is no distinction between observer and observed. Both are expressions of consciousness as it unfolds in time and space.
  4. Space and time are not pre-existent and everlasting. They may have arisen with the emerging early cosmos.

Stated this baldy, the principles of an expanded science sound arcane and far-fetched. But that’s the nature of a paradigm shift. Everything gets reinterpreted in a radical way, and if you don’t buy into the shift, the reinterpretation sounds outlandish. To a mainstream scientist, still stuck in the 18th century world view, nothing is more outlandish than the following statements:

  • Consciousness is the ultimate reality. There is only one consciousness, which pervades existence.
  • Out of primal consciousness all the matter and energy in the universe emerged.
  • Primal consciousness continues to play itself out as the evolving universe. But the source of consciousness is inconceivable, since it lies beyond time and space.
  • The human mind is an expression of primal consciousness, which is why we are able to perceive reality in the first place.
  • Mind comes first, matter derives from it.
  • To finally know reality, our subjective experience is a truer guide than the collection of facts. After all, this experience is the only reality we live with throughout our lives.

The last point is where the lives of ordinary people are affected. Facts are no substitute for experience, and to say that scientific rationality will solve everything is a dangerous notion. A physicist might spend his day wondering about the state of the world, fearing the rise of terrorism, arguing with his wife over how to raise the kids, and feeling anxious about amassing a retirement fund. We can all identify with such a day. But if in the middle of the day our physicist collects a new fact about a subatomic particle, only that would be scientifically significant. The rest doesn’t matter, even though in reality the rest matters enormously as experience. We aren’t doubting the value of new findings about subatomic particles, only putting things into perspective. An expanded science cannot afford to shirk subjective experience through an abstract devotion to objectivity.

In the new paradigm, a purely objective science is a chimera, an illusion kept intact by excluding the actual experience of life as lived. One of the dogmas of current science is that everything can be known through the reductionist method. (Quantum theory actually provided limits to everything being known, although most practicing scientists sweep this under the rug.) In other words, the whole is understood by breaking it down into its component parts, the way anatomy breaks down the body into cells, tissues, and organs. Yet the reductionist method is exactly what keeps us from seeing the larger reality we are all participating in. A skeptic will protest, “If you don’t believe in reductionism, you aren’t a real scientist.” To which one can reply, “I’m still a real scientist, just not the kind you are.” This at least offers a choice.

We want to show in these posts that truth is very different from the measurements that science relies upon as it explores finer and finer levels of Nature. Like it or not, the pursuit of the truth is edging us closer to the Truth, as conceived of in Plato’s idealism, Indian Vedanta, and Buddhist philosophies. The universe has a source, and it is consciousness.

* * *

Deepak Chopra , MD is the author of more than 70 books with twenty-one New York Times bestsellers, including co-author with Sanjiv Chopra, MD of Brotherhood: Dharma, Destiny, and The American Dream, and co-author with Rudolph Tanzi of Super Brain: Unleashing the Explosive Power of Your Mind to Maximize Health, Happiness, and Spiritual Well-being (Harmony). Chopra serves as Founder of The Chopra Foundation and host of Sages and Scientists Symposium – August 16-18, 2013 at La Costa Resort and Spa.

Menas Kafatos, Ph.D., Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor in Computational Physics, Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University, is co-author with Deepak Chopra of the forthcoming book, Who Made God and Other Cosmic Riddles. (Harmony)

P. Murali Doraiswamy, MBBS, FRCP, Professor of Psychiatry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina and a leading physician scientist in the area of mental health, cognitive neuroscience and mind-body medicine.

Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D., Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, and Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), is co-author with Deepak Chopra of Super Brain: Unleashing the Explosive Power of Your Mind to Maximize Health, Happiness, and Spiritual Well-being. (Harmony)

Can the Truth Come Back With a Capital “T”? (Part 1)

Screen Shot 2013-07-08 at 3.57.19 PMBy Deepak Chopra, M.D., Menas C. Kafatos, Ph.D., P. Murali Doraiswamy, MBBS, and Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D.

In a sense, the modern world was created with a simple editing stroke when Truth lost its capital “T.” Instead of pursuing the Truth, along a hundred paths stemming from philosophy and religion, the rise of Newtonian science and the Age of Reason taught us to seek lower-case truth, which consists of a body of verifiable facts. We have inherited a suspicion about absolute Truth that can be heard in everyday speech. How often do people say, “Well, it’s all relative” and “There’s no such thing as truth with a capital ‘T’.” Between them, relativism and the mountain of empirical data assembled by science have suffocated the notion of Truth. Many truths have emerged, truth about the best form of government, about the value of free markets, etc.

The search for lower-case truth is no less ambitious than the search for God, the soul, higher consciousness, and a transcendent reality that lies beyond the physical world. Those were the basic elements of Truth as it was revered in the past but repudiated by science. We think it’s valuable to try and reconcile science and spirituality, but let’s skip over that for the moment. The truly important issue is to know if we should be going after truths or the Truth. It’s a question that touches everyone’s life personally, because in hidden ways our whole lives are governed by what we believe about truth. Is it just a mass of verifiable facts? Or are facts secondary to an overarching truth that people should live by as they once lived by faith in God an adherence to religious rules?

We’re not proposing the return of religion in its former guise, or making a back-door argument for a new kind of worship. (Ironically, many of the old religious views held that God is an external fact, as the universe is held to be external now.) When it had a capital “T”, truth defined the essence of reality. To say, “God created the world in seven days” was a foundation of reality, an absolute that was superior to everything else that might be observed in the physical world. This literal interpretation was of course contradicted by the findings of science. To a religionist, however, if a fossil dating back a hundred million years contradicted the Book of Genesis, faith required an argument that preserved the absolute Truth, no matter what the cost in rationality.

It hardly needs saying that science turned this scheme on its head, and now we know better than to accept any absolutes about the nature of reality. Not only have God, the soul, and higher worlds flown the coop, when science itself proposes to formulate laws of nature, such as gravity and the speed of light, these new absolutes are open to question. Time and space were absolutes in Newton’s classical physics until Einstein proposed his General Theory of Relativity. Now, at the cutting edge of cosmology research, the discovery that dark matter and dark energy may exist, and if so, they constitute 96% of the creation that emerged after the Big Bang, threatens to overturn the apple cart once again. It has raised doubts, for example, about the accepted truth that gravity dominates the universe and that energy only has positive values.

At first glance, the toppling of old verities seems merely technical. Ordinary life isn’t impacted by contending theories of quantum gravity and superstrings. Dark energy, if indeed it exists, is pulling the expanding universe apart at an accelerating rate, a startling finding that has profound consequences for how the cosmos might end, but who will be around billions of years from now when the end-point arrives? Anyway, quantum physics, which replaced Newtonian mechanics in the great quantum revolution of the early twentieth century, basically states that what the senses perceive is not reality itself, reinforcing the view that the Truth either doesn’t exist or is inaccessible. In a word, there is no place in a sea of constant change for anything absolute.

Despite the profoundly different world view that quantum mechanics ushered in, most scientists still practice science as conceived by the now outdated classical physics, believing resolutely that their task is to gather facts about fixed objects, akin to Newton’s falling apple or billiard balls bouncing off one another in a dance of cause and effect. This kind of science finds itself in a troubling place when it comes to explaining reality, however. New findings about the very early phases of the universe are already nibbling away at the edges of the three foundational principles that all of science is based on:

  1. There is an objective universe “out there,” external to observers.
  2. The universe reveals itself through the collecting of facts, measurements, and data.
  3. Once enough objective data has been assembled, we will understand the universe completely, which is the same as saying that we will understand reality.

These statements are the equivalent of holy writ for scientists; they are assumed without question to be valid, and as anyone can attest who has mounted an argument that doesn’t depend upon these principles, cries of heresy arise. It is strange that these cries of heresy seem to ignore quantum theory and its profoundly different world view. Rational researchers suddenly become hot-headed and ad hominem. One is quickly branded an enemy of science. When tempers cool, personal hostility turns into a more rational dismissal: To speak of a reality beyond the physical universe, one that isn’t known by collecting data, is simply “not science,” “metaphysics,” or even worse, “pseudoscience.”

In this series of posts we’d like to formulate a new picture of truth that replaces the flawed principles of science as it exists today. What is needed is an expanded science that grows out of facing – and correcting – some mistaken beliefs. Science follows wherever reality leads it. We think that reality has led to a place that isn’t explained by quantum mechanics alone. A new set of principles is needed to replace the current ones.

(To be continued.)

* * *

Deepak Chopra , MD is the author of more than 70 books with twenty-one New York Times bestsellers, including co-author with Sanjiv Chopra, MD of Brotherhood: Dharma, Destiny, and The American Dream, and co-author with Rudolph Tanzi of Super Brain: Unleashing the Explosive Power of Your Mind to Maximize Health, Happiness, and Spiritual Well-being (Harmony). Chopra serves as Founder of The Chopra Foundation and host of Sages and Scientists Symposium – August 16-18, 2013 at La Costa Resort and Spa.

Menas Kafatos, Ph.D., Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor in Computational Physics, Director of the Center of Excellence at Chapman University, is co-author with Deepak Chopra of the forthcoming book, Who Made God and Other Cosmic Riddles. (Harmony)

P. Murali Doraiswamy, MBBS, FRCP, Professor of Psychiatry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina and a leading physician scientist in the area of mental health, cognitive neuroscience and mind-body medicine.

Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D., Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, and Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), is co-author with Deepak Chopra of Super Brain: Unleashing the Explosive Power of Your Mind to Maximize Health, Happiness, and Spiritual Well-being. (Harmony)

Deepak Chopra: From Quanta to Qualia — What Nature Is Really Telling Us

By Deepak Chopra, MD, FACP, Menas Kafatos, Ph.D., Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor in Computational Physics, Chapman University, and Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D., Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, and Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH).

 

What would it take to make the universe a living thing? What would it take to make it human once again, a secure home for us instead of a cold, meaningless place? What would it take to give God a future? As disconnected as these questions may seem, they are on the minds of some farseeing thinkers. And the deeper one looks, the more it appears that all three issues – a living universe, a human universe, and a universe that holds a place for God – start to merge.  If they actually do merge, nothing will ever be the same again. Not just science but everyday existence will be completely overturned.

There have been great physicists who were deeply religious, such as Sir Isaac Newton, or who had a religious feeling when confronting the universe, such as Albert Einstein, but God isn’t the right place to start with these huge issues. God, in fact, is a red herring. No matter who or what created the universe, it’s here now, and we have to relate to it. How?  One of the oldest ideas, which can be found in every culture, holds that Nature is a mirror.  We relate to it by seeing ourselves, but not passively. Messages are constantly going back and forth about birth and death about constant change and the bond between our life and Nature itself.  To the ancients, a natural disaster – fire, flood, or earthquake – showed that Nature was angry. If Nature was appeased, the harvest was good and the sun shone.

It was unquestioned that the universe meant something, and usually it meant that a loving deity had created a special place for his children.

It’s astonishing how quickly a timeless worldview was utterly destroyed by science. The demolition project that included Darwin, Freud, Einstein and all the other quantum pioneers doesn’t need retracting. We relate to a completely mechanistic universe devoid of purpose, one that operates through random chance, perfectly meshed with evolution operating through random genetic mutations. The mirror has shattered. We no longer see ourselves because there’s nothing meaningful to see, no purpose, no Creator. Even more absurd is the notion that Nature is sending us messages – from the collision of quarks to the collision of galaxies, nothing is happening “out there” to reflect human existence.

It would be ironic if quantum physics demolished its own conclusions, since more than any other science, quantum physics delivered Nature to its present state as random and meaningless.  Solid physical objects became clouds of invisible energy, the certainty of cause-and-effect turned into “probability waves,” and time and space became flexible, to the point that a cubic centimeter of empty space contains enormous virtual energy while the arrow of time can turn on itself and go backward. The reliable world of the five senses was undercut by the quantum world, where nothing known to the five senses holds true. It seems totally impossible that the gap between the two worlds could ever be closed.

Yet it can’t remain open, either. Human life is meaningful, not random. It is filled with purpose, intelligence, creativity, and values like love and compassion. If you start at the quantum level, you can’t get there from here. No one has explained how matter and energy acquired purpose, meaning, and all the rest; we are a species with no foundation. We can only relate to the mindless cosmos with a shrug of the shoulders.  Electrons and hydrogen atoms floating in the bleakness of outer space bear no resemblance to the electrons and hydrogen atoms in your brain. Their random activity somehow turned into the most orderly, intelligent, creative activity in the known universe. How?

Let’s say we want to take this question personally, instead of leaving it to professional scientists. Reality is an interesting topic, but it becomes a fascinating topic when it’s your personal reality. If you knew where your own intelligence came from, why you are alive, where you are going, and what the next leap in your evolution will be, everything would change for you. In their pursuit of a Theory of Everything, the holy grail of modern physics, scientists neglected a Theory of Me, an explanation for why each of us matters.  That, in a nutshell, is what’s at stake.

We are immensely excited by a new science that can fill the gap created by the quantum revolution, which we call qualia science.  The word quantum was plucked from the Latin dictionary to give the strange new world of subatomic physics a tag. In the same way, qualia, which is Latin for qualities,” is a tag for a world that is as far-reaching as quantum physics but pointing in the opposite direction. Quanta are “packets” of energy, an innocuous term that wound up having explosive effects. Qualia are the everyday qualities of experience – light, sound, color, shape, texture – whose explosive effects are barely hinted at.

You experience the world as qualia. It’s the glue that holds the five senses together. The scent of a rose is a qualia (we’ll use singular and plural as the same word), so is it velvety texture and its crimson color.   Looking at everyday experience through the perspective of the brain, psychiatrist and neural theorist Daniel Siegel reduced reality “in here” to SIFT: sensation, image, feeling, thought. No matter what’s happening to you right this minute, your brain is registering either a sensation (I’m hot, this room is stuffy, the bed sheets are soft), an image (the sunset is brilliant, I see my grandmother’s face I my mind’s eye, my keys are on the dining room table),  a feeling (I’m pretty happy, losing my job makes me worried, I love my kids), or a thought (I’m planning a vacation, I just read an interesting article, I wonder what’s for dinner).

Qualia are everywhere. Nothing can happen without them, which means that if you see the universe using a human brain, reality consists of qualia. If there is a reality that exists outside what we perceive, it is inconceivable, literally.  Once you subtract everything you can sense, imagine, feel, or think about, there’s nothing. Because qualia are subjective, they directly attack the objectivity of modern science. Because experience is meaningful, qualia attack the model of random, meaningless Nature. Yet even more is at stake.

Since the only way we know reality is through experience, qualia, not quanta, are the building blocks of Nature.

Quantum physics undercut the notion of solid physical objects while attempting to retain the physical universe. Qualia science says that this is a cheat. The physical universe needs to be tossed out as a frame of reference.

In its most outrageous claim, qualia science declares that only subjectivity is reliable. So-called objective measurements are a disguise for the total fluidity of experience. The universe we carefully measure is merely the reflection of the human nervous system. Even a die-hard materialist (the preferred term is now “physicalist”) like Stephen Hawking, who has no doubt that the universe exists “out there” as a given, admits that science doesn’t describe reality. Science measures things and events to deliver data according to a mathematical scheme. Another physicist, Freeman Dyson, says, “Life may have succeeded against all odds in molding a universe to its purposes.”

There is the key: We have created a human universe. Behind the mask of a cosmic machine whose parts can be calculated and tinkered with, the universe is humanized. There is no other way it can exist, in fact, since nothing “out there” can be experienced except in our own consciousness.  We are following the trail pioneered by the British physicist David Bohm, among others, when he wrote, David Bohm put it, “In some sense man is a microcosm of the universe; therefore what man is, is a clue to the universe.”

The mirror of nature is back, in other words. Strangely, by dismantling the certainty of time, space, physical objects, and cause-and-effect, quantum physics paved the way for a paradigm shift it could never have predicted.  The cosmos has meaning, as we wish to show in the next few posts.

(To be cont.)

 

Deepak Chopra, MD, FACP, is the author of, God: A Story of Revelation (HarperOne).

 

Menas Kafatos, Ph.D., Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor in Computational Physics, Chapman University, co author with Deepak Chopra of the forthcoming book, Who Made God and Other Cosmic Riddles. (Harmony)

 

Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D., Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, and Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), co author with Deepak Chopra of the forthcoming book, Super Brain: Unleashing the Explosive Power of Your Mind to Maximize Health, Happiness, and Spiritual Well-being. (Harmony)

 

 

www.deepakchopra.com

Follow Deepak on Twitter

Rethinking Darwinism: How We Can Expand Our Own Ideas on the Evolution of the Universe

This year, the world celebrated Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday. But now that all the backslapping is nearing an end, it may be time to reflect on where things really stand. When Darwin finished writing "Origin of Species" in the fall of 1859 — exactly 150 years ago — the theory of evolution became part of the Newtonian world picture. However, since that time, major puzzles of mainstream science have forced a re-evaluation of the nature of the universe that goes far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

One new theory — called biocentrism — proposes that an accurate understanding of the world requires putting observers firmly into the equation, and that life may not be the accident of physics and chemistry that evolution suggests (Lanza and Berman, Biocentrism, BenBella, 2009). In short, the attempt to explain the nature of the universe, its origins, and what is really going on, including evolution, requires an understanding of how the observer — consciousness — plays a role.

The current model proposes that the universe was until rather recently a lifeless collection of particles bouncing against each other, and obeying predetermined rules that were mysterious in their origin. The universe is presented as a watch that somehow wound itself and that, allowing for a degree of quantum randomness, will unwind in a semi-predictable way. But there are many problems with this paradigm — some obvious, others rarely mentioned but just as fundamental. But the overarching problem involves life, even if the way it changes forms can be apprehended using Darwinian mechanisms.

Why, for instance, are the laws of nature exactly balanced for life to exist? There are over 200 physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that it strains credulity to propose that they are random — even if that is exactly what contemporary physics baldly suggests. These fundamental constants (like the strength of gravity) are not predicted by any theory — all seem to be carefully chosen, often with great precision, to allow for existence of life. Tweak any of them and you never existed.

Beyond these laws and constants, consider everything that had to happen to bring about humans. There are literally trillions of events that had to be just right — ‘this way’ and not ‘that way’ — for us to be here. Consider the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs — if its trajectory had been slightly different, or the asteroid had been slightly larger, we might not be here. The odds are astronomically against everything happening exactly right. So the question is, is it dumb luck? But if you say something is an accident, it usually means you don’t understand the reason for it.

Being here may be no more an accident than the sun rising in the morning. Perhaps biocentrism is right — perhaps the past is simply the spatio-temporal logic of the observer. No physicist challenges the fact that particles do not exist with definite physical properties until they are observed. If the present determines the past as Stephen Hawking, John Wheeler (who coined the word ‘black hole’), and others have suggested, then it couldn’t be any other way.

Darwin’s theory of evolution is an enormous over-simplification. It’s helpful if you want to connect the dots and understand the interrelatedness of life on the planet — and it’s simple enough to teach to children between recess and lunch. But it fails to capture the driving force and what’s really going on.

It is time to step back and take a look at the big picture. Evolution reminds us that we evolved in the forest roof to collect fruit and berries, not to ponder the nature of life itself. The challenge, alas, is to peer not just behind our ancestral way of thinking, but to grasp the world in a way that is at the same time simpler and more demanding than what we are accustomed to.

Published in the San Francisco Chronicl

 By Robert Lanza and Deepak Chopra

Robert Lanza, MD is considered one of the leading scientists in the world. He is the author of   Biocentrism-Consciousness-Understanding-Nature-Universe

www.deepakchopra.com.

To follow Deepak on Twitter, go to www.twitter.com/Deepak_Chopra.

 

Evolutionary Psychology Under Attack?

The hot new field of evolutionary psychology is coming under attack from all sides. Let’s just make sure we don’t throw the baby of evolutionary thinking out with the bathwater of questionable science.

evo-psych

The war over evolutionary psychology seems to be escalating these days. And from the pages of The Nation to a recent article in Newsweek, evolutionary psychology, once the darling of pop media, seems to be taking it on the chin. Now remember that evolutionary psychology is the popular new field of science that suggests that human psychology is written in our genes and in our brains. It suggests that certain psychological impulses that we experience today are the result of adaptations that were selected hundreds of thousands of years ago in the lives of our ancestors. Evolutionary psychology also dovetails with brain science in the sense that proponents argue that the record of these psychological predilections given to us by our ancestors are largely writ in the structure and workings of our brain. On the surface, the idea makes a lot of sense. Continue reading

A response to Dennett

Daniel Dennett wrote a book called "Darwin´s dangerous idea, evolution and the meanings of life" In this book, he sides with the Renaissance scholars who oppose the middle age thinking that "God Created it all". In the same way early Christians once destroyed the library of Alexandria in an attempt to destroy the remains of Hellenic culture, he now takes revenge and tries to destroy the idea of a Universe created by God. In order to do this, he energeticaly defends the idea of Darwinian evolution, stating that "It´s all the products, of cranes, not skyhooks." Design, according to him, is a function of structure not creation.
 
My goal here is to clarify some of the misconceptions that evolution and God are contradictory concepts. I want to show that design through creation, and through structure aren´t opposites.
 
Dennet defends the idea the world was created through cranes, not skyhooks. But if we consider the idea the God to the late Egyptians was the Sun, and that no life on earth is possible without it, it makes sense to attribute all life on earth to the Sun.  What is the Sun, if not a beautiful skyhook, one that pulls everything towards it with so much energy that our planet revolves around it, and it´s life is totally dependent on it ?  Without the skyhook of the Sun, there wouldn´t be any biological cranes on earth to begin with!  
 We can say that God(in this case the Sun) created(fed with energy) everything on this planet. If we consider God to be The Universe, than it provided the structure for life through the laws of nature, the Sun, and the Earth, and everything in it.  He create the beings of the earth through the algorithm of evolution. When a human being sets out a creative taks, he first decides what his goal is, and then focus on it. We call it creativity. But if we look closely, someone in creative focus is akin to biological energy inside an isolation(or structure) and that energy later ends up acquiring the properties of the structure in which it stayed for a while. The  creation of that person is easily compared to the generation of a new biological creation through evolution(energy inside an isolation).  Therefore,  creativity and "design through structure" are really the same. 
 
Darwin´s ideas. aren´t dangerous. They were 150 years ago.

The Real Evolution Debate :: Part 2

As the evolution debate these days in the media seems to be as hot as ever, I thought I would continue the thread I started regarding alternative ways in which to view evolution.

The entry below is called “The Collectivists,” and it is part of a larger collection of different perspectives on the evolutionary process in the latest issue of What Is Enlightenment? magazine. They can be viewed online here.

The Collectivists

Evolution is driven not only by competition between genes but also by symbiogenesis, cooperation and altruism between organisms.

WHAT THEY SAY . . .

In 1966, Lynn Margulis published a landmark paper in which she argued that millions of years ago, protozoans symbiotically acquired photosynthetic plant cells and that, working together, they eventually developed into an entirely new life form