A New Science of Life to Replace Survival of the Fittest

Commentary

It is a bizarre fact of our modern world that—despite women’s rights, black rights, and immigrant rights being championed—the rights of little defenseless babies are taken away and they are routinely murdered in the womb. Where is the freedom and equality for them?

Certainly, abortion has existed as long as written history. But why is it now widely accepted in our supposedly enlightened society—with over 1 million abortions last year in the United States? And why can abortion occur (though rarely) even up to the moment before birth?

The problem, I believe, is Darwin’s widely indoctrinated and fallacious theory of evolution, which treats humans as the result of random mutations and survival of the fittest. Through the Darwinian looking glass, fetuses not yet having their own powers of political expression are, as a default, treated as animals who have arrived at their current state of existence through an impartial process just as how the cow or chicken has. From this perspective, having a doctor abort a fetus carries no more moral weight than ordering a cheeseburger. Thanks, Darwin.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, human beings are in the sacred image of God. In Greek mythology, Prometheus sculpted humans to resemble the Olympian gods. In the Eastern tradition, human beings are in the image of the goddess Nü Wa. The Japanese imperial line is traced back to the goddess Amaterasu. In the traditions of India, Lord Brahma split himself to make human beings, etc. Thus, the idea of human beings in the likeness of a higher being is not only a Christian belief, it is a universal, cultural reality that should be treated as a scientific axiom or self-evident truth from which new principles and paths of inquiry are derived.

For instance, from this truth, we may conclude that life exists in ways that are not readily perceivable—a fact confirmed by numerous near death experiences in which a soul exits the body and then returns. We may also conclude that the serious study of life must not be confined to only physical, carbon-based life forms that are easily studied and tested.

As a simplified example, if a man prays for rain and a higher life answers his prayer by making it rain, a similar circumstance under the study of a scientist may not produce rain for a multitude of reasons. The higher life may not be moved by the heart of the one praying, or the higher life may be busy somewhere else. The act of the scientist doing the studying and exercising professional skepticism may itself interfere with the human-divine interaction. Yet, the higher being nonetheless exists. Because of the very nature of such an experiment, it is unpredictable and requires a new set of research methods and boundaries.

In the famous double slit experiment, an electron acts as a wave, moving up and down, when it is not observed; but once it is observed the electron acts as a solid particle. This is called the Observer Effect. The thoughts and intention of the scientist involved actually tangibly and electromagnetically affect the state of the electron. Such an interaction is beyond the currently understood bounds of life.

The British scientist and author Rupert Sheldrake describes what he calls morphic fields—“morphic” just meaning “form.” These are intangible fields connecting similar organisms in a species like radio transmitters and receivers, sending information through similar parts and generating similar frequencies. The more alike the organisms, the stronger the field. Basically, the body and its DNA act more like hardware. Then a signal between similar organisms—like a Wi-Fi connection and cellphone data—carries information between the hardware through a process he calls morphic resonance.

Sheldrake’s morphic resonance does a far better job than genetics at explaining how a microscopic fertilized giraffe egg can grow into an 18-foot tall giraffe. It also explains the intangible connection or sixth sense sometimes perceived among twins, family members, community members, people of a similar race, and all human beings. It also explains birds’ and fish’ incredible navigation sense and frogs’ prediction of earthquakes. There is a real connection and real information is being transferred.

In his book “A New Science of Life,” Sheldrake theorizes that there is an actual collective, instinctive memory through morphic resonance. Research has found rats of a particular breed may learn a new trick at Harvard University, in Massachusetts, and then rats of the same breed in England and Australia are able to learn the same trick faster. The rats, when presented with same predicament, are instinctively drawing on information transferred through morphic resonance.

Returning to the question that Darwin’s theory of evolution was trying to tackle—“Where did life on earth come from?”—we begin to see how far off the mark Darwin was. He is confining his research to perceivable, testable life—just as neo-Darwinians latched onto DNA and genes. No matter how advanced such scientists seem, this is like a caveman finding a radio and trying to figure out how it works and its purpose when he has no concept of electricity, radio waves, music, news, or talk shows.

Of course, people may call my writing and theorizing pseudoscience. But I would emphasize that a certain degree of unrepeatability absolutely must be allowed for when studying something as serious as a higher existence of life. Otherwise, the result is a world that reduces the life of human beings to abortable animals and science itself becomes a shameful abomination. That’s the world we’re living in and it has to change. The first step is accepting two axioms: human beings are in a divine image and life exists in imperceivable ways. Those are the foundations upon which a new science must be built.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.