Evolving Beyond Darwin

The Noetitek System™ has now been used to review Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Although we conclude that all life is related and has a common origin, a view in accord with the basic spirit (not the process) of Darwin’s theory, our findings incline more toward Dr. Rupert Sheldrake’s “Hypothesis of Formative Causation” (Morphic Resonance).

We do not, however, share Dr. Sheldrake’s idea that the laws of Nature are actually “habits” of Nature but, rather, that there are only a small number of “principles” of Nature that include almost endless gradations, or “sub-principles” that operate out of, and through, the invisible dimensions of universe (or Omniverse) to produce manifestations in the three dimensions of space that we experience as human beings. 

Einstein was right: “God does not play dice.” S/he plays jazz.

[Please see also: “New View on Evolution” (June, 2009), and “Transhuman Nature” (January, 2013).]


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

12 Responses to “Evolving Beyond Darwin”

  1. Stan Q. Says:

    So, what do you make of the recent finding of the alleged “missing link” in Germany?

  2. PluribusOne™ Says:

    “Ida” is an exciting find. In our view, assuming this is not another Piltdown Man hoax, Ida appears to be either a solitary mutant or an example of an intermediate bipedal design that provides further evidence of an intentional scheme and theme involved in the ongoing creation of life-forms initiated in the higher (consciousness) dimensions of universe. With or without Ida, we have no doubt that evolution (change) is ongoing and perpetual; nor do we doubt that there is a purposeful connection among all life-forms. We take issue, however, with the idea that the “evolutionary” process is random and biochemical, and the related notion that consciousness is merely a byproduct.

  3. Stan Q. Says:

    In your post “New View on Evolution” you mentioned “contemporaneous versions” and “tentative designs.” Just recently I was reading a magazine article that discussed the 2003 discovery of a Hobbit-sized “human” they are calling Homo floresiensis and the ensuing debate over whether this is a new species or the product of a genetic disorder. To date there has been no conclusive resolution. What are your thoughts on this?

  4. PluribusOne™ Says:

    This great debate is about whether these heretofore unknown hominins should be classified as a species, or as an isolated community of humans who developed as a result of a genetic disorder: microcephaly.

    Whether one perceives them within the context of a prescribed “natural order for mutation,” although not fitting into previous assumptions about Evolution, or perceives them in terms of a pathological disorder (still a product of Nature’s work, but labeled “disease”), the “Hobbits” were another variation on a life-form theme.

    Our further assertion is that the bipedal theme is a function of exploration by Consciousness, exploration that has been misconceived by scientists and theologians. Religious taboos and a science crippled by Cartesian conceptualizing have prevented the insight that “Higher” Consciousness has chosen specific times and places for its experiments with embodiment. More exciting is the realization that the experimentation process is ongoing, as is the process of our discovery of additional past variations as well as variations that exist at present.

    See also the more recent post: “New View on Evolution.”

  5. PluribusOne™ Says:

    What do you think of the now latest missing link announcement? The news article I read discusses a new find (“Ardi,” whose first bones were found in 1994) which some anthropologists believe may be beyond the missing common ancestor of chimpanzees and men. They should call this one “the missing intersection,” because they think that both humans and chimps evolved from this new hypothesized genus from 4.4 million years ago that they’re calling Ardipithecus.

    What they have actually discovered is yet another variation on a bipedal theme that Consciousness has found interesting to play with here on planet Earth. The interesting questions surround the better big question: What variation is likely to be on the drawing board now? For example: Will it be carbon-based as in the past millions of years?

  6. Stark Raven Says:

    I just read an article by Michael Cremo that presents a strong case for the fact that Ida is not a human ancestor. According to Cremo, there is evidence that humans like us lived prior to Ida, and there have been other findings that don’t fit into Darwin’s theory. Consistent with your thinking, it appears that the term “missing link” has become meaningless in the minds of some scientists. See the Nov-Dec issue of Atlantis Rising magazine…

  7. Valiant Says:

    The latest Atlantis Rising issue (March/April) has an article about Neo-Darwinism. It says that although chance mutation and natural selection are out the window but the overall idea of evolution among life-forms remains “persuasive.” This is the first article I have seen that makes a concise convincing argument against Darwinist thinking. My perspective has definitely evolved.

  8. PluribusOne Says:

    We agree with the article and add the following: As desire “evolves” in Omniversal Consciousness, life-forms evolve—some say “devolve”—i.e., they change. Yet we see popular patterns that recur without confinement to particular species. Our NoetiTaoist™ perspective on the coming into being of life-forms is the first that makes sense of it within the context of a Theory of Everything.

  9. Valiant Says:

    As mentioned in a Yahoo news report today, Dr. Richard Leakey recently asked, “If we’re spreading out across the world from centers like Europe and America that evolution is nonsense and science is nonsense, how do you combat new pathogens, how do you combat new strains of disease that are evolving in the environment?” He also said, “If you don’t like the word evolution, I don’t care what you call it, but life has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how does this happen? It’s not covered by Genesis. There’s no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I’ve read from the lips of any God.” What’s your reaction to this?

  10. PluribusOne™ Says:

    Self-avowed atheist (agnosticism is more fitting for a true scientist), Leakey also says he harbors no animosity towards religion. But, in our analysis, Leakey is more political activist than scientist, and his references to the Bible and God—e.g., “lips of any God”—plainly betray antagonism. And I know no one who says “science is nonsense.” Hyperbole.

    For such a highly educated man, we find it surprising that Dr. Leakey’s use of language and logic isn’t better: “If we’re spreading out across the world… from centers… that evolution is nonsense… how do you combat… ?” If? We’re spreading out… that? Across the world? Centers? Take a minute to carefully examine that non-informative inflammatory pronouncement cloaked as a question.

    His (at best) poorly constructed sentence is an arrogant yet awkward expression of—and clarion call for—irrational emotion: fear and aggression, not intellectual expansion toward discovery of truth. And embedded in that statement, like a telltale Freudian slip, a subconscious admission, is the subliminal message-like phrase: “evolution is nonsense.”

    This is a man who once burned tons of ivory to make an uncreative political statement against the slaughter of elephants. One can only wonder: What will he burn next?

  11. Valiant Says:

    So you side with the Creationists?

  12. PluribusOne™ Says:

    Our perspective is unique and our own. We are not aligned with condemnatory Creationists any more than mudslinging Darwinists. Neither side understands the nature of “God” or the processes through with anything comes into existence. Please read the posts we have listed under the category: Philosophy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s