Future Hi: I’ve found God, says man who cracked the genome

June 15, 2006

I’ve found God, says man who cracked the genome

A 'head's up' for your general discussion. I smell the reek of 'Intelligent Design' ... what do YOU think?

THE scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.

Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man “closer to God”.

His book, The Language of God, to be published in September, will reopen the age-old debate about the relationship between science and faith. “One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war,” said Collins, 56.

“I don’t see that as necessary at all and I think it is deeply disappointing that the shrill voices that occupy the extremes of this spectrum have dominated the stage for the past 20 years.”

For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to “glimpse at the workings of God”.

“When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it,” he said. “But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.

“When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”

Collins joins a line of scientists whose research deepened their belief in God. Isaac Newton, whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe, said: “This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

Although Einstein revolutionised our thinking about time, gravity and the conversion of matter to energy, he believed the universe had a creator. “I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details,” he said. However Galileo was famously questioned by the inquisition and put on trial in 1633 for the “heresy” of claiming that the earth moved around the sun.

Among Collins’s most controversial beliefs is that of “theistic evolution”, which claims natural selection is the tool that God chose to create man. In his version of the theory, he argues that man will not evolve further.

“I see God’s hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way,” he says.

“Scientifically, the forces of evolution by natural selection have been profoundly affected for humankind by the changes in culture and environment and the expansion of the human species to 6 billion members. So what you see is pretty much what you get.”

Collins was an atheist until the age of 27, when as a young doctor he was impressed by the strength that faith gave to some of his most critical patients.

“They had terrible diseases from which they were probably not going to escape, and yet instead of railing at God they seemed to lean on their faith as a source of great comfort and reassurance,” he said. “That was interesting, puzzling and unsettling.”

He decided to visit a Methodist minister and was given a copy of C S Lewis’s Mere Christianity, which argues that God is a rational possibility. The book transformed his life. “It was an argument I was not prepared to hear,” he said. “I was very happy with the idea that God didn’t exist, and had no interest in me. And yet at the same time, I could not turn away.”

His epiphany came when he went hiking through the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. He said: “It was a beautiful afternoon and suddenly the remarkable beauty of creation around me was so overwhelming, I felt, ‘I cannot resist this another moment’.”

Collins believes that science cannot be used to refute the existence of God because it is confined to the “natural” world. In this light he believes miracles are a real possibility. “If one is willing to accept the existence of God or some supernatural force outside nature then it is not a logical problem to admit that, occasionally, a supernatural force might stage an invasion,” he says.

Steven Swinford, The Sunday Times

Posted by Upwinger at June 15, 2006 07:07 AM

Comments

I'm just reading Mary Midgeley's interesting book 'Evolution as a Religion'. Part of her argument is the creationism makes most of its converts among the "hard" scientists, especially biochemists. Her reasoning is that because scientific training is so concerned with being "objective", many hard scientists are naive regarding subjective matters like religion - they lack the strength of flexible, critical thinking about such matters, and are prone to "snapping". Social scientists, and notably, theologians, are, she says, much less prone to creationism.

Certainly makes more sense of recent stories in the UK that in a certain sixth form biology class in London, more than half of the pupils are creationists.

I guess this guy isn't your fundamentalist creationist, i.e. doesn't seem to believe the Bible is literally true. Apart from thinking he's painfully simple-minded about religion, though, I don't see a huge argument to have with him. As long as he sees clearly that his belief that evolution is directed by a supernatural god is just that, a belief, not part of his "science"...

Posted by: Gyrus at June 15, 2006 08:27 AM

Intelligent design is bullshit. But the implications of James N. Gardner's **Biocosm** thesis is NOT. Check out his stuff along with John Smart's stuff, the latter being found at Singularitywatch.com or Accelerationwatch.com. Gardner's **Biocosm** is a magnificent work. See also the work of Seth Lloyd...

Ciao,

Posted by: MCP2012 at June 16, 2006 10:48 AM

"“One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war,” said Collins, 56."

One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that science and religion are comparable to one another and need to be reconciled.

Posted by: Jan-Willem Bats at June 16, 2006 01:39 PM

"Intelligent design is bullshit. But the implications of James N. Gardner's **Biocosm** thesis is NOT"

http://www.biocosm.org/

"Intelligent Life is the architect of the Universe"

Written on the front cover of the book.

Intelligent design, intelligent architecture, modern spin/grasping at comfort zones when presented with the same basic inconceivable issue that made even Plato take the easy option out by appealing to God, rather than wrestling with it. Justifying existance without appealing to ignorance. Explaining initial conditions without appealing to 'that which we do not know'. Approaching the principle underlying all of existance, in its entirety. Mind boggling indeed, yet God, or the previous CTP-whatever are all still attempts to do so, but in ways by passing certain philosophical conundrums, usually by their ubsurdity, often by simply ignoring the metaphysical incoherence their ideas make at the basest level. Always failing to be what they claim to be.

I often wonder if the number of 'Total Answers' is directly proportional the amount of time spent avoiding the question of how anything can be.

It is a shame the concept of God, or designer, or 'being behind the shadows' was ever developed way back in our primitive days, because I challenge anyone to infer the presence of God without claiming God must be so because you can think of no other way.

All of these 'answers' have simply become the defination of our chosen comfort zone in the face of ignorance.

And these current crops of pretenders, with their regression to fundamentalism, or plagiarism of Fiction, always seem to AVOID the fundamental issue, and push their own agendas. They receive nothing but contempt for pretending to be new true knowledge, without ever being even on the same page as the few short questions that will collapse their house of cards, however always and unanimously showing an impressive talent for avoidance and wriggling and brushing away the merest hint of a sidetrack towards some real issues.

Thats right, all of you who have theories and ideas that rest upon 'we cant know, we dont know, it just is' have nothing, but the illusion of understanding, and a self imposed prison and cul-de-sac from which you shall find no escape. Same for all you advocaates of 'pertual motion' existances, untill you come up with the principle behind a continually existing 'existance' that also explains why it should exist in the first place, then you have nothing either.

Beleif isnt the offspring of religion, religion is the offspring of belief.

""“One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war,” said Collins, 56."

One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that science and religion are comparable to one another and need to be reconciled."

The greatest tragedy of our time is that people think names matter when your head tries to answer the questions your heart poses.

Posted by: eventhorizen at June 16, 2006 07:28 PM

"The greatest tragedy of our time is that people think names matter when your head tries to answer the questions your heart poses."

What exactly did you mean by this one, EH?

Posted by: Jan-Willem Bats at June 17, 2006 12:00 AM

James Gardner builds on the work of both Lee Smolin and Seth Lloyd. His (Gardner's) thesis (or theses) are empirically testable. There are no empirically-testable propostions promulgated by the 'Intelligent Design' crowd that I'm aware of. 'Intelligent Design' posits a God-like 'Designer', whereas the Biocosm theory says that intelligent life is an integral part of (meta)cosmic evolutionary *development* and is, in fact, quintessential to the reproduction (the reproductive life-cycle) of the Cosmos. There is a RADICAL difference here. While I suppose the Biocosm theory could be integrated with a sophisticated **panentheism**, it is certainly NOT the same thing (and does NOT lend itself toward supporting) the standard, garden-variety 'Intelligent Design' stuff that I'm somewhat familiar with.

I encourage everyone to check-out not only *Biocosm*, but also, again, John Smart's stuff at AccelerationWatch.com.

Ciao...

Posted by: MCP2012 at June 17, 2006 01:43 PM

Instead of "checking out" some things that someone else said, or something that someone else said about something that some other person said, I say we all should start doing our own thinking and observing, and evaluate the data that we gain from that to the best of our ability. Comparing notes is no bad thing in and of itself, and of course we all develop our own interests when it comes to what we choose to spend our time observing, but the basics, the experience of each of us as individual beings, can surely be more clearly observed from a first person perspective. We have to start somewhere, and I don't think that what someone else says about who you are and where you live is a proper starting point for a jopurney of discovery. Oh, and why is intelligent design always linked to some DEITY? You and I are perfectly capable of creating something as useless and ridiculous as these bodies and this universe. I don't see that there's much to it at all. Pretty stupid kind of arrangement, really.

Posted by: G at June 17, 2006 08:13 PM

Its all clap trap anyway based on implications and possibilities and 60s sci fi TV shows, or interesting fiction persued as theory, avoiding all the issues that would blow it out of the water.

If you are going to suggest the cosmos has a reproductive cycle, then I suggest you explain yourself without me having to purchase this guys book.

If you wont explain yourself then as far as this discussion goes the Universe does not have a reproductive life cycle, thats merely an insubstantiated claim.

And supposing the cosmos does have a reproductive life cycle, I dare you to explain the cosmos' birth.

I look forward with extreme anticipation to your explanation of cosmic evolution, but more so your explanatation of the presence of cosmic evolution itself.

Without these explanations, as I said above, you have nothing. A gradiose vision of the mechanics of existance, without answering the question as to how it is present to be gradiose.

I have no interest in following agendas or belonging to individual crowds, so rest assured I will study your claims with the fairest and most clear analysis I am capable off.

This isnt the first time you have spoken about some wildly all encompassing viewpoint on the very nature of the deepest questions of existance, as if it is common knowledge and widespread held.

I wish to know if there is anything more to these claims, than the 'humanity develops technology to escape Universal death' I am expecting.

As for claims like these
"the Biocosm theory says that intelligent life is an integral part of (meta)cosmic evolutionary *development* and is, in fact, quintessential to the reproduction (the reproductive life-cycle) of the Cosmos."

Not only are they totally meaningless, because they are stating the obvious, like claiming matter is integral to the fundamental development of our cosmos, or gravity, or galaxies, but they are inherently indicitive of the poor state of intellectual discussion online just now.

"I made a grand statement about intelligent life, so intelligent life must be overwhelmingly and fundamentally implicit in all things"

Its bullshit, this is where peoples agendas start getting in amongst real thought, and starts producing monumental wave of utter claptrap after wave of claptrap.

I will admit that having not read 'Biocosm' I am unsure exactly what it is that is being presented,
is it a modern reinterpretation of the concept of nature? Or is it yet another attempt to attribute biological life and hence mind with being the instigator behind all of existance?

However if you make claims, yet hide behind a book (which others may or may not have read) you are hiding from having to present your arguement in its fundamental concept(s) which can be discussed or even debated.

The previous topic about CPT is a blatant rip-off of supersymmetry, combined with 'cosmic-mind' theories, which themselves, insofar as what I have come across, are based upon speculation and cultural movements, and meetings with elves.

"Creationism of physical world and life exists, but it is not projected or imposed by someone else. It is all internal. Each group of C-energy Units existing behind anything or anyone creates its, his or her own reality. No one else creates it. No one else affects it. No one else imposes it."

"Each Event is created out of its own sequence of conditions related to such an Event only. Its creation does not depend on the time, the person creating it, or anyones opinion about the Event. When a proper sequence of conditions is created such an Event will happen in our physical world."

Now either my reality is all internal, and everything present is projected and imposed by me, or the C-units that correspond to my physical presence, OR my own reality is NOT internal, and is subject to imposition and projection from external events I have no control over.

There is one other alternative, but that other alternative is rendered irrelevent due to the usage of the words 'each' and 'individual groups'.

"How do you think every single cell, molecule and billions of other single cell organisms of your physical body know what to do? Do you believe they are getting signals what to do via brain or blood?
No they are not. All atoms, molecules and cells in human body know exactly what they are supposed to do thanks to C-energy Units existing behind such. These C-energy Units are also aware of each other and each other’s purpose. It is C-energy and T-energy Units behind the cells of your physical body that create it and keep your body functioning."

This is a disgrace, DNA is a remarkeably simply mechanism, as are all other processes going on in the human body at their most basic level. The overall complexity of all these process considered is staggering and awe inspiring, and is responsible for the machinery of life, if not the guiding mind in the driving seat.

It is a disgrace to see personal ignorance viewed as universal ignorance, and used a the motivation behind formulating your own half baked theory for feelings of self importance, and for FINANCIAL GAIN.

This place is fast becoming a hive of idiocy.

It is time you guys start putting forward arguements, if you are going to be continually discussing these subjects.

Page after page of shaky and down right rediculous 'evidence' to back up view points shows that deep in your own heart and mind you do not have the slightest clue about what it is you are promoting.

A 'Futurist' writer once said 'if you want to view the entirety of human progress, simply look in your kitchen. The microwave oven, one of the most modern pieces of equipment encompassing the current level of human progress, and the kitchen knife, the most ancient and basic of tools still in use today. Technology is not simply equipment and machines, technology is part of humanity, part of who we are, society and institutions and politics are all technology. We humans are great at accelerating technological progress of machinery and equipment, but we are not so good at accelerating social technological change. We need to find a way to accelerate social technological development'.

I wonder if what I witness around me today is the death of the 'brighter' future, and the beginning of the Age of the Lost.

Drezen Premate, Advice on how to improve your memory of C-Domain experiance, only $19.95 (advice on minimizing negative effects of ecstasy usage is free btw), join our club, and also join in on the arrival of the study of non-physical phenomena, and progress in the next decade to eclipse all previous progress of human existance.

Plato's symposium, A dinner party attended by Socrates, is critically aclaimed to be the defining treatise on the nature of love, and part of the foundation for such movements and ideaologies as seen on this website, transcedance through spiritual love, and a cosmic force.

My copy cost less than $10, but I am a bit dissapointed he skirts around the issue of 'existance' and appeals directly to God.

Well it was written over two thousand years ago, and many concepts used to tackle that issue today were not present back then.

I would say that most definatly is the study of the non-physical, and written by a guy who was involved in the formation of democracy as both a philosophy/concept and an applied form of government, social technological progress, in my opinion.

This Drezen guy sounds like a tool, pardon my language. (and he doesnt do Tesla any favours either)

Posted by: eventhorizen at June 18, 2006 08:02 AM

Occam's razor always cuts away deities since they are inconceivably complex and science is based on Occam's razor.

Therefore science and religion are fundamentally incompatible.

Science doesn't always give you the right answer, but it seems to converge to the right answer over time.

Religion doesn't seem to converge; it's just whatever it is.

Posted by: Ian Woollard at June 18, 2006 05:11 PM

Occam's razor would cut away deities if there was a less complex alternative.

Go on, tell me one.

Inconceivably complex may be the answer of least complexity, untill you come up with one that is less complex.

Again, a brilliant example of personal agenda getting in the way of clear and concise thinking, I thank you for that example.

There is nothing that 'proves' God doesnt exist, except a better theorem. You cannot 'prove' God doesnt exist by appealing to science, nor to nature, nor even to logic, unless you are lead an understanding of the nature of existance that answers all your questions, yet is not God.

Stating that it is an absurd concept created thousands of years ago by frightened and confused homonids proves nothing.
They highlighted a puzzle at the core of existance, and trying to discredit archaic viewpoints gets no one any nearer the truth of the matter.

Science and religion stem from the same basic root of asking tough questions about the nature of existance and life itself.

The questions Einstein, and Zarathustra found themselves struggling with at their very core would have been one and the same, however their approach, their path, and their outcomes are as varied as human life can be.

You need to realise that people adhering to a religion are not engaged in the same practice, for the most part, as those individuals whos contemplations and thinking form the core beliefs of a religion.

Religion at its heart is the rawest form of philosophy, the unashamed contemplation of the single mightiest question, the 'mechanism' behind existance.

Science is the practical application of thought and experiment to the world we live in, in an attempt to further understand it, spurred on in the heart of every true scientist by a desire to understand completely this existance.

These two 'viewpoints' dont exist seperatly, anyone who is engaged in one is engaged in both. There is not a single philosopher who is staring at God that is not using their total knowledge of the world and life to argue and debate and think to themselves, and there is not a single scientist that is not tormented and teased by the nagging question of the fundamentals of existance.

They exist seperatly on paper, but analyse yourself and your colleagues, and all true 'seekers' and you will find within them their own personal mix of knowledge, philosophy, and religious questioning, as these things are the search for truth.

When someone tells me 'search for God', they receive my deepest respect, admiration, and even wonder.
When someone tells me 'I have found God/there is no God', I know they have missed the point entireally.

So mister 'Occams razor cuts away deities', explain existance to me. Thats what it means when you make claims about God. No matter the hype and hysteria and popular culture views on the issue. 10s of thousands of years of minds better than yours and mine have devoted their entire being to this question, so you better have something awsome to say when you step into their territory.

I await your revelation on the nature of existance, or expect your silence in future when you wish to make claims regarding the question.

Posted by: eventhorizen at June 18, 2006 09:10 PM

No offense EH, but you need to seek counseling.

Posted by: Jan-Willem Bats at June 19, 2006 03:37 AM

Off topic: I really wish we could get the forums working! I often think of many questions and ideas that I would like to post, but I don't know of any communities that are interested in such a range of things that will actually give intelligent answers/replies. I really enjoyed browsing through the posts while they were there. If there is anything I could do to help make them accessible again, please let me know...but all I know in terms of website design is a little html. Please email me if you reply to this.

Posted by: Brad at June 19, 2006 07:10 AM

Occhams razor is a tool, not a law.

In no way whatsoever is science 'based' upon Occhams razor.

It cannot be used to 'prove' anything, the very nature of the principle of Occhams razor is to show favour to the most simplistic theory.

Newtonian mechanics versus relativistic mechanics.
Which is most accurate across the largest range of observable motion? Which is the most complex theory?

Occhams razor does not provide the individual with the truth, but with simplicity.

Conversely because Occhams Razor favours the most simple, does not prove the theory to be true.

A tool, not a law.

Think of this little 'imaginery scenario'.

Imagine the Earth became devoid of life around the 16th century.

An alien species discovers Earth, and studies some weird shaped structures on the planets surface that hint at life, but there information is incomplete and sketchy, for whatever reasons, and they are unable to detect any other proof of life.

Using Occhams razor they would be driven to theorise that, given no other information, those structures were natural phenomena as opposed to created by intelligent life.

However once they are able to fully interprete their data and analyse the surface and come to the correct conclusion studying all the factors, Occhams razor becomes irrelevant as they are now able to find the truth without it.

Occhams razor is used to remove untestable complexity from a theorem, providing the most 'likely and simplistic' theory of that system, untill such time as better methods are developed to DISPROVE the alternatives.

A theory is NEVER proven.

THIS is science.

I may need to see a councillor, you need to stop avoiding direct challenges to your claims, and either back up what you say, or withdraw your claim.

I find flavour of the month internet arguements to be tiresome, and sidestepping challenges to claims via personal attacks to be highly revelatory of an individuals psyche, and most repugnant.

If none of us can admit when we are wrong, we shouldnt be opening our mouths, and if you dont want to accept you are wrong, you better present an arguement to my arguement and prove that I am wrong.

Otherwise you have nothing more to add, and I would ask you not to add anything.

Posted by: eventhorizen at June 19, 2006 08:47 AM

EventHorizon: First, Steven, I apologize for not having properly responded to your e-mails to my Yahoo acct a few weeks ago. I've been intermittently both very busy and under-the-weather over that timeframe (and still now, for that matter). I shall do my best to repsond to you soon.

You said: "As for claims like these
'the Biocosm theory says that intelligent life is an integral part of (meta)cosmic evolutionary *development* and is, in fact, quintessential to the reproduction (the reproductive life-cycle) of the Cosmos.'

That **intelligent** life (or, indeed, even just life, period) plays a very fundamental and integral role in cosmic evolutionary development is something new, hardly something 'obvious' (at least from a scientific perspective). Until recently, Life (and, *a fortiori*, Mind), at least from a more-or-less reductive physicalist perspective, were just anomalies, anomalous occurances. We now, though, have a clearer perspective which indicates that we are, interestingly enough, at 'center stage' in terms of cosmic evolutionary development.

Let's not blow it (wink...)....

Posted by: MCP2012 at June 19, 2006 05:57 PM

The comments were a much more interesting read than the article itself. It's refreshing to see everyone else took this poor deluded man's testimony for what it is: bullshit.

Posted by: Thirtyseven at June 19, 2006 07:04 PM

Why is the universe bio-friendly? Bioastronomy, once an intriguing and speculative sideline, has become a major focus for cosmologists. James N. Gardner presents a startling hypothesis for how our apparently bio-friendly universe began and what its ultimate destiny will be. Originally presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals, his radical “Selfish Biocosm” hypothesis proposes that life and intelligence have not emerged in a series of Darwinian accidents but are essentially hardwired into the cycle of cosmic creation, evolution, death, and rebirth. He argues that the destiny of highly evolved intelligence (perhaps our distant progeny) is to infuse the entire universe with life, eventually to accomplish the ultimate feat of cosmic reproduction by spawning one or more “baby universes,” which will themselves be endowed with life generating properties. In this explanation of the role of life in the cosmos, Gardner presents an eloquent and lucid synthesis of the most recent advances in physics, cosmology, biology, biochemistry, astronomy, and complexity theory. These disciplines increasingly find themselves approaching the frontier of what was once the exclusive province of philosophers and theologians. Gardner’s Selfish Biocosm hypothesis challenges both Darwinists and advocates of intelligent design, and forces us to reconsider how we ourselves are shaping the future of life and the cosmos.

The basic idea is that life and intelligence are the primary cosmic phenomena and that everything else—the constants of nature, the dimensionality of the universe, the origin of carbon and other elements in the hearts of giant supernovas, the pathway traced by biological evolution—is secondary and derivative. According to this theory, the emergence of life and intelligence are not meaningless accidents in a hostile, largely lifeless cosmos but at the very heart of the vast machinery of creation, cosmological evolution, and cosmic replication.
Under the hypothesis, the capacity of the universe to generate life and to evolve ever more capable intelligence is encoded as a hidden subtext to the basic laws and constants of nature, stitched like the finest embroidery into the very fabric of our universe. The oddly life-friendly laws of nature that prevail in our cosmos serve a function precisely equivalent to that of DNA in living creatures on Earth, providing a recipe for development of a living universe and a blueprint for the construction of offspring (so-called “baby universes”).

Under the “Selfish Biocosm” hypothesis articulated in BIOCOSM, the immense saga of biological evolution on Earth is a minor sub-routine in the inconceivably lengthy process through which the universe becomes increasingly pervaded with ever more intelligent life. Thus, BIOCOSM does not argue against Darwinism but seeks to place it in a cosmic context in which life and intelligence play a central role in the process of cosmogenesis. Put differently, the hypothesis reconceives the process of earthly phylogeny as a minuscule element of a vastly larger process of cosmic ontogeny.

The hypothesis is inconsistent with traditional monotheistic notions of an unknowable supernatural Creator. Freeman Dyson has famously written that the idea of sufficiently evolved mind is indistinguishable from the mind of God. The Selfish Biocosm hypothesis takes Dyson’s assertion of equivalence one step further by suggesting that there is a discernible and comprehensible evolutionary ladder by means of which mortal minds will one day ascend into the intellectual stratosphere that will be the domain of superminds—what Dyson would call the realm of God. To use Dyson’s terminology, the hypothesis implies that the mind of God is the natural culmination of the evolution of the mind of humans and other intelligent creatures throughout the universe, whose collective efforts conspire, admittedly without any deliberate intention, to effect a transformation of the cosmos from lifeless dust to vital, living matter capable of the ultimate feat of life-mediated cosmic reproduction.

Is BIOCOSM really just a religious screed in disguise—a subtle form of creationism or “intelligent design” proselytizing like Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box?
Definitely not. BIOCOSM is adamantly and consistently naturalistic in focus. The ideas that underlie the book—including the radical “Selfish Biocosm” hypothesis—were originally presented in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals (Complexity, Acta Astronautica, and the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society). Indeed, the prime objective of the book is to provide the framework for a scientifically plausible and testable formulation of the strong anthropic principle—the notion that life and intelligence have not emerged in a series of random accidents but are essentially hard-wired into the laws of nature and into a vast cycle of cosmic creation, evolution, death and rebirth.

What is humankind’s place in the universe? That fundamental question underlies both scientific inquiry and millennia of religious thought. The traditional answer of science is that life and human intelligence are of no cosmic consequence but merely the random outcome of the interplay of natural forces. Mainstream religions answer the same question in many different ways but most share the view that the mind of the Creator of the universe is ultimately inaccessible to mortal minds. BIOCOSM challenges both viewpoints and suggests that the emergence of life and mind is a cosmic imperative encoded in the basic laws of nature and, further, that highly evolved intelligence will eventually play the key role in reproducing the cosmos

Ideas and Implications

BIOCOSM places the story of our origin and destiny in a cosmic context.

BIOCOSM provides the framework for a new style of final theory. BIOCOSM suggests that in attempting to explain the linkage between life, intelligence, and the bio-friendly qualities of the cosmos, most mainstream scientists have, in essence, been peering through the wrong end of the telescope. The book asserts that life and intelligence are, in fact, the primary cosmological phenomena and that everything else—the constants of inanimate nature, the dimensionality of the universe, the origin of carbon and other elements in the hearts of giant supernovas, the pathway traced by biological evolution—is secondary and derivative. In the words of British Astronomer Royal Martin Rees, BIOCOSM embraces the proposition that “what we call the fundamental constants—the numbers that matter to physicists—may be secondary consequences of the final theory, rather than direct manifestations of its deepest and most fundamental level.” Rees’s insight yields a glimpse of a new kind of final theory that views the oddly bio-friendly qualities of our anthropic universe—a universe adapted to the peculiar needs of carbon-based living creatures just as thoroughly as those creatures are adapted to the physical exigencies of the universe—not as an irksome curiosity but rather as a vital set of clues pointing toward a radically new vision of the basic nature of the cosmos. BIOCOSM attempts to follow those clues to their logical conclusion

BIOCOSM provides the foundation for a new set of ethical imperatives and insights.

Science should not divorce itself from the ethical, legal, and social implications of new theories. BIOCOSM identifies three key ethical imperatives and insights that derive from the new cosmological theory articulated in the book:

• First, that humankind is ethically obliged to safeguard the welfare of future generations.

• Second, that a spirit of species-neutral altruism should inform our interactions with other living creatures and with the environment we share.

• Third, that we and other living creatures throughout the cosmos are part of a vast, still undiscovered transterrestrial community of lives and intelligences spread across billions of galaxies and countless parsecs who are collectively engaged in a portentous mission of truly cosmic importance. Under the BIOCOSM vision, we share a common fate with that community—to help shape the future of the universe and transform it from a collection of lifeless atoms into a vast, transcendent mind.

• The inescapable implication of the Selfish Biocosm hypothesis is that the immense saga of biological evolution on Earth is one tiny chapter in an ageless tale of the struggle of the creative force of life against the disintegrative acid of entropy, of emergent order against encroaching chaos, and ultimately of the heroic power of mind against the brute intransigence of lifeless matter. Through the quality and character of our contribution to the progress of life and intelligence in this epic struggle, we shape not only our own lives and those of our immediate progeny but the lives and minds of every generation of living creatures down to the end of time. We thereby help to shape the ultimate fate of the cosmos itself.

I gleaned all this from James Gardner's *Biocosm*.org website. Just cut-&-pasted. He'll no doubt love the free meme-advertisement!!

Tsk, tsk on you, though, EventHorizon (Steven)--you could've just googled or dogpiled "Biocosm" and gone to site an grok'd it...

Ciao for now...

Posted by: MCP2012 at June 21, 2006 05:28 PM

Hello all!

I have just come across this forum and delighted at your posts venting possibilities about the Universe´s creation etc.

I was favourably impressed by the complexity of the texts offered - no "´cause it´s in the Bible" parrot-like stuff... :)

Please correct me if I am wrong - I got the impression that there is a sorta "divide" between 3 main views: Those that support a "God", a "Creator", those that propose the Universe is "self-created" or "alive" and those that propose a purposeless, "randomly-created" thing...

Well, I have always had some questions, and would appreciate your (everybody´s) views about the following:

1) Our minds are too simple to grasp some aspects of reality, i.e., we believe everything "must" have a beginning...what about the concept of "forever"? Why couldn´t the Universe simply have been in existence without a "beginning" or an "end"? Perhaps temporal concepts such as "before" or "after" simply do not apply when discussing the Universe? How do we - How can we - discuss a timeless dimension characteristics, one in which everything should exist simultaneously?

2) Likewise, our languages lack the power to express some concepts, and can only express others in a very limited way. What is meant by "God"? What is meant by "Life"? What is meant by "design"? and so forth.

3) Is there really any difference between those 3 points of view I inferred or are they different facets of the same thing, i.e., if "God" is irrational (or His rationality is beyond our comprehension) the Universe would certainly appear purposeless, or if there is no God, just a "living" Universe, couldn´t you call that "God" just the same? Or, conversely, couldn´t you call God as "Chaos"?

4) Who says evolution stops at us? Circuitry-based cognizant systems are being developed by us at speeds thousands of times higher than that at which our biological brains evolved - many futurologists say computers will become smarter than ourselves in a few decades - couldn´t we just be "dumb tools" in a grand design towards higher intelligence forms?

5) How can we really "prove" anything?

Posted by: Entity at June 25, 2006 07:00 PM

poor judeo christian scientist. he is so poor that he cant even afford other books than judeo-chretien stories of creation. maybe someone should offer him a book other than the judeo christain god as a hero, so he could get another vision of the universe.

"I was very happy with the idea that God didn’t exist, and had no interest in me."
LOL. how can something that "doesnt exist" even have "interest or no interest"...cute scientist.

the very notion of trying to "prove" god, is to me simply childish. to me, "god" is a 3 letter word, a concept, a word pointing to things we have no clue about, so we picked a random name to describe the stuff we cant grasp. its a magic word, that combines the most amazing flowers, your farts, cows farts, wars and famine, beauty and bliss. all those words, ALL.

there is no proof for it, there is just being it. the west was an egotistical child when it says "god is dead", nothing is dead, cause god is also that: nothing. how can nothing be killed?

Posted by: fuzz at June 28, 2006 01:33 AM

vacation rentals wisconsin vacation rentals wisconsin vacation rentals wisconsin
singapore hotels singapore hotels singapore hotels
florida island hotels florida island hotels florida island hotels
hotels new orleans hotels new orleans hotels new orleans
sleep inn sleep inn sleep inn
four season hotel four season hotel four season hotel
london hotel london hotel london hotel
bed breakfast inns in california bed breakfast inns in california bed breakfast inns in california
midtown midtown midtown
tampa florida hotel tampa florida hotel tampa florida hotel

Posted by: hotels at July 16, 2006 09:56 AM

phentermine diet pills phentermine diet pills phentermine diet pills
online alprazolam online alprazolam online alprazolam
norvasc norvasc norvasc
carisoprodol carisoprodol carisoprodol
pharmacy online pharmacy online pharmacy online
paxil paxil paxil
mexican pharmacies mexican pharmacies mexican pharmacies
buy diet pills buy diet pills buy diet pills
buy carisoprodol buy carisoprodol buy carisoprodol
diet foods diet foods diet foods

Posted by: xo4ymerc at July 16, 2006 04:34 PM

products for weight loss products for weight loss products for weight loss
blood glucose monitors blood glucose monitors blood glucose monitors
drug store online drug store online drug store online
ambien drug ambien drug ambien drug
alprazolam online alprazolam online alprazolam online
tenuate online tenuate online tenuate online
herbal viagra herbal viagra herbal viagra
diet nutrition diet nutrition diet nutrition
drug rehabilitation center drug rehabilitation center drug rehabilitation center
free viagra samples free viagra samples free viagra samples

Posted by: xo4ymerc at July 16, 2006 08:37 PM

Posted by: xo4ymerc at July 16, 2006 08:38 PM

heating heating and air conditioning heating cooling heating and energy heating system heating design diy heating heating oil consulting heating diy heating plumbing heating system heating and cooling system home heating system radiant heating system solar heating system geothermal heating systemref=http://hot-water-heating-system.nakosi.com>hot water heating system floor heating system radiant floor heating system central heating system

Posted by: Ushenko at July 18, 2006 01:55 AM