Implications of Intelligent Evolution for Society
BRINGING G.O.D. TO SCIENCE, EDUCATION, MEDICINE, BUSINESS, LAW, POLITICS, AND RELIGION
When I was a child, we started each day in school saying the pledge of allegiance to the flag. I remember the line “One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.” Some of my more mature friends said, “one nation, with liberty and justice for all.”
As I look back at my early education, I realize that I began each day pledging something I did not understand. What did it mean to say, “One nation, under God”? Was I to take this literally? Now I wonder if we could expand this great thought to say, “One species, under God.” Or, “One world, under God.” Or even “One universe, under God.”
Raised to be an agnostic, I did not know whether or not there was a God but I did not mind saying the word in the pledge. Then when I was older, saying the words “under God” seemed unscientific to me, if not downright superstitious.
However, I later learned that the founding fathers of the United States were not only great leaders and visionaries but were deeply religious and spiritual as well. On the back left side of a dollar bill is a pyramid that is topped by a shining eye. Most people—including Americans—have no idea what the religious and spiritual significance of this symbol is. Some claim that the symbol comes from the Freemasons and the Rosicrucians, that Benjamin Franklin was both a master Mason as well as a Rosicrucian, and that Thomas Jefferson also was a Rosicrucian. This was certainly never mentioned when I went to school.
Another claim is that it is derived from a secret society called the Illuminati (a sect that some believe Galileo may have belonged to). Supposedly they called it their “shining delta.” The eye purportedly signifies the Illuminati’s ability to infiltrate and watch all things. The shining triangle represents enlightenment. The triangle is also the Greek letter delta, which is the mathematical symbol for change, transition, transformation.
Curiously, the words underneath the pyramid say Novus Ordo Seclorum, which can be translated to mean “New World Order” or “New Secular Order.”
In fact, “secular” could also describe this book. I have not discussed any specific religious beliefs or practices—Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Rosicrucian, Illuminati, or other. This is not a book about religion or religious orders—it is about scientific evidence for the existence of God and what this could mean to our future evolution. I mention the United States dollar bill and the phrase “In God We Trust” to remind the reader that the idea of God was central to the formation of this country—and it was connected to the concepts of “liberty and justice for all.”
But that subject has been discussed often enough by the media, by scholars, and by politicians in Washington, D.C. Let me rather consider some of the implications of an evidence-based-faith approach to God for some of the major institutions that define human culture. Given the scope of the G.O.D. idea, it should not be surprising to discover that the concept has implications for every human activity.
RESURRECTING INTELLIGENCE AND G.O.D. IN SCIENCE
If science has the potential to solve the mystery of mysteries as well as serve the mystery of mysteries—as stated in the Prologue—then it has a sacred responsibility to do so. If some of science’s current theories need to be amended or eliminated in light of new evidence, then this should happen. Science has the obligation to amend or eliminate a theory if it turns out to be incorrect. Unlike classical religions, which are faith-based and can sustain their beliefs regardless of evidence to the contrary, science is supposed to be evidence-based and must change its beliefs in the light of new evidence.
The fact that certain scientists defend their favorite theories and theorists is understandable, and in certain contexts is even lovable. Scientists are protectors of ideas, and they have their heroes. However, every scientist who has ever lived has been human, and humans make mistakes. Not one of us is perfect. For science to have integrity, it must acknowledge not only that our understanding as humans may be limited, but that the universe itself may be evolving, and therefore our understandings may have to evolve as well.
It is my view that scientists need to develop and extend their capacity for open-mindedness with humility. But the training of these traits is not emphasized in contemporary scientific education; I will work for changing this unfortunate reality.
There are various levels of implications of evidence-based faith in God for science. The simplest level is to reconsider the role of random sampling and randomness not only in the universe, but in whatever discipline the scientist is studying. If everything is interconnected to various degrees, and true independence is present only in very unique and limited situations (for example, photons crossing in the vacuum of space), then we need to spend time gathering newer statistics that account for the massive interconnecting networks of energy and information. Though nature will be seen as ever more complex, containing intricate implicit purposes and plans, the resulting new discoveries about the organizing nature of nature itself will reward future scientists beyond imagination. It will no longer be acceptable to blindly apply random sampling techniques to interconnected phenomena; statistical techniques derived from chaos and complexity theory will need to be developed.
Beyond this, scientists face a challenge on an even more complex level: to build bridges between disciplines—to create integrative disciplines that look for parallels across domains. This book, for example, integrates examples of evidence from physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and parapsychology. The evolution of integrative science will discover interconnections that can allow for the revelation of creative intelligent design in all levels of science. If scientists and religious leaders can together agree to adopt an evidence-based approach to belief and faith, the capacity for each to inform the other will be manifest. Einstein put it this way: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
For the record, I should state what is hopefully obvious by now. If you asked me the question “Are you trying to use science to prove the existence of God?” my response would be, “Absolutely not. What I am attempting to do is to use the scientific method in an open-minded manner to enable God—if he/she/it/they exist—to prove his existence himself.”
I am not a God thesis advocate; I am a Veritas advocate—Harvard’s motto, the Latin word for “Truth.” And I am attempting to use science to provide the “Light and Truth” called for by Yale. If G.O.D. exists, then I will honor the evidence, and be its faithful advocate. I am neither an evolutionist, creationist, or intelligent designist. If I am anything, I am a “truthist”—following the evidence wherever it goes.
As we’ve seen, the evidence to date overwhelmingly rejects chance alone as a plausible explanation of order and evolution in the universe, and strongly supports the conclusion that some sort of an intelligent G.O.D. process exists in the universe. Intellectual honesty and integrity require that science finally honor this evidence and recognize the probable reality of intelligent evolution.
Even systems science—which leads to G.O.D. through its focus on interconnection, interdependence, complexity, and emergence—can evolve when G.O.D. becomes part of the equation. Systems scientists like to say that the relationship between two components (be they two particles, two people, two planets, or two galaxies) is a two-way street.
However, maybe the relationship is actually a three-way street—with G.O.D. as the center lane. Moreover, maybe secular science (which assumes that nothing exists until proven otherwise—technically called the “null” hypothesis in statistics) needs to be balanced by “sacred” science (which assumes that G.O.D. exists unless proven otherwise). This leads to the creation of a balanced, integrative science that combines the advantages of both perspectives for learning and evolving.
RETURNING INTELLIGENCE AND G.O.D. TO EDUCATION
There is no bigger or more important idea than an intelligent Guiding-Organizing-Designing process. If this thesis is true, then it should be a foundation of future education. Children hunger to be taught that the existence of some sort of G.O.D. process is as fundamental as the existence of gravity. Since education will be improved when fearless children face the teacher, G.O.D. is best incorporated, when appropriate, into education. This will add a solid base to the rapidly expanding, ever changing, mysterious world of knowledge.
“When appropriate” means to suggest that science teachers need not have their students pray to God for laboratory experiments to come out right, or that schools should encourage language teachers to have their students pray to God that the right meanings and grammars pop into their heads when they make a translation. I am also not suggesting that science or history be reinterpreted from any particular religious point of view. What I am suggesting is that students learn about the existence of God with the same thoroughness that they learn about their society or history. If universal intelligent, trial-and-error designing is essential for understanding the origin and nature of life, love, and liberty, then these ideas should be taught to students.
The new G.O.D. education I am proposing is not the limited faith-based God interpretation promoted by any single religious group—Jewish, Christian, Islamic, whatever. As also proposed in Tomorrow’s God, it includes core aspects of each but does not include the whole of any. Though it is wise for the education community to be moderately religion-phobic, it need no longer be G.O.D.-phobic.
BRINGING G.O.D. TO MEDICINE AND HEALING
There was a time when priests and shamans were scientists as well as healers. They communed with God (or the Great Spirit), retained and transmitted their wisdom and traditions, made fundamental discoveries about nature and health, and served in the roles of doctors and counselors. They practiced rituals, meditated, and ingested special plants and herbs to enhance their communication with the larger spiritual reality so as to achieve the noble goal of serving their communities.
When we accept the evidence for the existence of a ubiquitous G.O.D. process in everything, including us, this provides an increased rationale for contemporary health care providers—be they hi-tech surgeons or low-tech energy healers—to pray for their patients as well as to become open to receiving guidance and assistance from above (sometimes referred to as intuition from within). Does the health care provider who believes in G.O.D. and prays for his or her patients have more successful treatment outcomes? The healing process becomes viewed as a three-way street between the patient, the healer, and G.O.D.
Perhaps we can look forward to a time when the G.O.D. process becomes an active and accepted component of the healing process. We would look to G.O.D. to assist us in discovering new uses for herbs and plants as well as help in creating combinations of compounds whose emergent properties are greater than the properties of the individual components (from simple synergisms to completely new properties). We would use conscious intention and prayer in the creation of new compounds to enhance their potential effectiveness. Though suggestions such as these may sound far-reaching (if not far-fetched), we must consider such possibilities with an open and discerning mind if we are to discover how far the G.O.D. process hypothesis may extend into our daily lives.
CONSIDERING ESSENTIAL FEEDBACK FROM G.O.D. IN BUSINESS DECISIONS
The business community is not particularly known for its lofty ethics and values. Business—particularly big business—is viewed by some as an institution that is motivated by greed, self-interest, and profit focus, with little concern for the future of our species or the planet. The United States government implicitly encourages its business women and men to push the limits of regulation so as to earn as much money as possible.
The argument can be made that the more money companies earn, the greater will be the number of people who have jobs, the greater our collective affluence, and the greater the influence and power our country will have in the world. Moreover, the thesis is that if problems arise for people and the planet, the public will raise its voice, and both business and government will respond reasonably. In principle this philosophy is fine, and our nation has grown financially strong from this approach. However, compelling evidence exists all around us that the philosophy may not be working very well, especially concerning the health of our planet, and by extension, the health of individuals.
Consider the following visionary possibility. What do you think might happen if business leaders were to reexamine their principles and consider receiving guidance and direction from the universe? If we are an evolving product of an infinite intelligence—and I emphasize “if”—the evidence indicates that we have been curiously given substantial freedom to believe what we want to believe regardless of whether or not our particular beliefs match reality. We even have the freedom to believe or not to believe in the existence of an infinite intelligence that potentially provided this gift of freedom in the first place. Freedom to believe, for better or worse, appears to be a purposeful part of intelligent evolution.
We have a choice not to believe in G.O.D. And we can run our businesses without thinking about G.O.D. in the context of what we do, which is of course the way most businesses function. However, we also have the choice to believe in G.O.D. and express it. We can, if we so choose, take G.O.D. into account in the design and execution of how we conduct our business lives. Should we “ask G.O.D. first” when we make business decisions? Should we place this information on the boardroom table, and see how it fits with what we want to do? Are CEOs ultimately under the invisible guidance of G.O.D.? What if corporate CEOs were to ask for more overt guidance from G.O.D.? Would our world become healthier, joyful, more peaceful and fulfilling?
INTELLIGENCE AND G.O.D. IN THE COURTROOM
We have designed our legal system, and our laws, based upon our collective experiences as a species. Save for the Ten Commandments that the Old Testament describes being given to Moses on Mount Sinai, humans have made their own social rules and designed their own legal systems. At least that is how we tend to think about these things. Of course, if we entertain the idea that everything that exists reflects some direction from an invisible G.O.D. who functions from behind the scenes, we can look to the structure and evolution of our laws and legal systems and potentially see evidence of invisible guidance in the evolving process.
The United States’ legal system, the one I am familiar with, is currently in something of a crisis. The strategy of opposing advocacy—prosecutor versus defender—too often places more emphasis on winning than on discovering truth and rendering justice. The stresses in the system are symbolized by the process of the O. J. Simpson trial and the Supreme Court’s handling of the Bush-Gore Florida voting crisis.
What would happen to the legal system if G.O.D. was brought into the courtroom? What would happen if ideas for improving how the legal system works, as well as specific decisions themselves, included some input from G.O.D.?
I’m not suggesting that we go to the local oracle and simply follow what she or he says. What I am offering as a possibility is that in the future, teams of “evidence-based oracles” will be able to obtain replicable information under controlled conditions that can be verified—and that the information these teams gather would be willingly taken into account as an integral part of a legal decision-making process.
If all this information, this guidance and wisdom, is available, waiting to be received under the right conditions, then it seems prudent for us to consider attempting to discover if this prediction is correct. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our evolution as a bio-psycho-spiritual species includes our awakening to this infinite wealth of virtually free information?
ONE EARTH, UNDER GOD, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL
If evidence-based faith is justified, and evidence-based oracles can be developed in the future, the potential exists to evolve our world to the point where politics is world politics rather than national politics—where world peace with prosperity can prevail.
Throughout recorded history, tribes have attempted to control other tribes, and nations have attempted to control other nations. The warring nature of people has resulted in more injustice and tragedy than probably any other aspect of our behavior. The fact is, children can be raised to love like Mother Teresa or hate like Saddam Hussein. Humans are gifted with the potential to revere nature or rape her. We have the capacity to be tender to others or torture them. Like the surgical knife that is neither good nor evil—it can be used to save a life or to take it—humans, too, are neither good nor evil. We can teach each next generation to promote love and compassion, or to foster hatred and terror. Humans have the potential to heal or hurt.
The question is, what potential behaviors do we wish to nurture? What kinds of humans do we wish to become? What is to be our destiny and our species’ legacy?
In a free society, politicians ultimately serve the people—the power is in the people. And in societies that are not free, time and time again the people have risen up against oppressors and insisted that their needs and dreams be met. However, with power comes responsibility and accountability. What is our responsibility, and for what are we each accountable?
Imagine that the answers we need to these vital questions already exist. Imagine that the information is available if we are willing to ask. And imagine that the key to opening this door to wisdom and greatness simply requires that we adopt evidence-based faith. Can politics evolve from disinformation and excessive ego to integrity and humble leadership? Can we think beyond our states and nations to become one people living on one world, with one G.O.D.? As the deeply spiritual film Dragonfly states so succinctly, “Belief is what gets us there.” In the process of writing this book, I have come to believe that the best is possible. If it is real, it will be revealed, if we are willing and ready to receive it.
THE RESURRECTION OF HONEST AND COMPASSIONATE RELIGION?
Though I will probably regret writing the following words, I must share them for the sake of integrity. If we look honestly at the history of humankind, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that religion has played both the most grand and the most horrific roles in our evolution. In the name of God and brotherly love, we have killed and maimed our human, animal, and plant families. On the one hand, we have built the most magnificent cathedrals, and we have written the most haunting words and music. But on the other we have tortured or killed millions of people, or in milder circumstances treated those who did not agree with us with disrespect and injustice.
My personal opinion is that religion has been humankind’s greatest social success and its most miserable failure. Religion has supported the very highest ideals and also practiced the very lowest. Religions have splintered into competing factions of all shapes, sizes, and colors. There is no unified Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Each contains hundreds of factions (depending upon how you count them). And the factions get along with one another about as well as the major religions get along with one another—which is not very well at all.
Religions, essentially faith-based and not evidence-based, if they wish to be concerned with truth, must ultimately include scientific evidence to help shape their beliefs and ideals. To repeat the words of Wernher von Braun that appear at the beginning of this chapter, “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”
Religion needs to become evidence-based if it is to survive as a viable system for helping humans reach their potential, individually and collectively. As the Dalai Lama writes in his book The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” He goes on to say that no one who wants to understand the world “can ignore the basic insights of theories as key as evolution, relativity and quantum mechanics.”
I am not proposing that the world must have one religion any more than I am proposing that the world must have one culture. I have come to the conclusion that the G.O.D. process actively stimulates and celebrates diversity. But we can become one family, and live in harmony on one planet, without having to eat the same food, listen to the same music, wear the same clothing, or even speak the same language. Our capacity to be different—to be individuals—is part of our special gift and is consistent with an experimenting G.O.D. process that has contributed to the creation of nature that contains both ladybugs and scorpions, angelfish and tiger sharks, cardinals and vultures, tabby cats and cougars. In nature, diversity is the rule, not the exception. The same rule applies to humans.
However, behind virtually all religions are certain fundamental spiritual ideas and values that ultimately connect us to our common source—a G.O.D. Can religions come together, accept the mistakes of their past, correct the mistakes of the present, and evolve accordingly into the future without dragging their past differences along like Marley’s chain?
All religions have their shadow side; the question is, can they acknowledge it and grow from it? (I do not mean to stereotype when I raise the following questions; not all religiously conservative persons hold these views.) Can fundamentalist Jews admit that some of their priests misbehaved badly during the time of Jesus and some of their present rabbis are engaged in economic behaviors that are inconsistent with universal love and compassion? Can orthodox Christians admit that some of their priests behaved inhumanely during the time of the Inquisition, and that too many of their priests have recently engaged in sexual behaviors that are inconsistent with universal love and compassion? Is it possible for conservative Islamists to admit that hatred and revenge drove many of their religious leaders to support the horror of 9/11, and that, even now, some of their leaders engage in terrorist behaviors that are inconsistent with universal love and compassion? As mentioned earlier in this book, what is required is courage and humility combined in balance—the eagerness to learn, to celebrate contributions and virtues, while at the same time admitting to mistakes. The fact is, none of us is perfect, nor are our institutions.
As for the future—can people create an evidence-based-oracles association that includes oracles from all the major religions? Can we conduct sacred science research in the future that honors different traditions united by a common agreement to let the data speak?
It is not enough simply to believe in a God that fosters love and compassion for all; we know that blind belief is insufficient.
What seems necessary is to bring science to God and God to science, and establish the living reality of a ubiquitous G.O.D. process. We must learn to accept the limitations of our past histories and raise them to a new level. All people must see what we can become, and decide that this is how we prefer to live and believe.
Billions of people are currently searching for purpose and meaning in their lives and the life of the universe, even as the evidence clearly indicates that the choice is ours to make. Science no longer is taking God away; science is discovering God in every place it looks and bolstering our beliefs. Science need no longer be seen as an enemy of God; science is becoming his/her/its/their ultimate servant. Contemporary science is becoming the universal tool by which we can know God and reveal the great potential—the spiritual genius—that exists within and around us.
Science is enabling people not only to see the power of our individual minds; it is enabling us to discover the Universal Mind that provides the spark that ignites us all.
A CALL TO EVOLVE EVIDENCE-BASED FAITH
Just as it is possible to conceive, in principle, of an infinite series of infinite numbers, we can conceive, in principle, of an infinite intelligence allowing infinite potential.
What we do with this stupendous power of mind—this penultimate gift—is up to us. Will we become servants of universal goodness, beauty, opportunity, and justice? Will we evolve into a bio-psycho-spiritual species of which we can be proud? Will we develop our ultimate gift, the capacity for infinite love (discussed in the Epilogue)? The evidence is all around us—the choice is ultimately ours. And from the perspective of evidence-based faith, this potential—this grand choice—is within our grasp.
How do we change our minds about mind and G.O.D.? Can science help us with this seemingly impossible task?
GERALD L. SCHROEDER, PH.D.
Changing one’s paradigm is not easy. Millennia passed before humankind discovered that energy is the basis of matter. It may take a few more years before we prove that wisdom and knowledge are the basis of—and can actually create—energy, which in turn creates matter.