Evolution Reigns, But Darwin Outmoded

By Robert Lanza and Deepak Chopra

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 Chronicle

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

deepakchopra.com

 

Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Deepak_Chopra

Comments

[gubbi]

Take any random event that has occurred. Then wonder about how incredible it was for all those random events to have occurred exactly as they did to bring about this result... surely it couldn't have been random !!

What kind of logic is that? This article assumes that supporting life and specifically humans was the purpose of this universe all along. The basis for this assumption?

[gaiuscaprica]

So long...and thanks for all the fish

[gaiuscaprica]

It is all about So California-Hindu mysticism and capitalism( I'm surprised he doesn't give a palm reading to the person that buys his 100,000 book)

[jsehgal]

"But it fails to capture the driving force and what's really going on."
I suppose Dr. Chopra knows something and is hiding it. In all this essay, I did not see anything that could be construed as an alternative, or a theory that the rest of scientific community could oberve let alone verify. I assume that he is talking about some spirit that drives it all to an objective of its own. Well, we mere mortals have a very limited goal - to understand what is observable and make sense of it. The theory of evolution itself has evolved over 150 years of its existence. It has a huge body of evidence to support it. This article from Dr. Chopra amounts to a sneer at this portion of science, the reason for which I do not understand.

[gaiuscaprica]

It is all about So California-Hindu mysticism and capitalism

[gaiuscaprica]

this is how I often feel when taking to people about the scientific method. or rather how they feel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlpyGhABXRA&feature=related

[hoduldt]

According to the article, it seems the plan for the universe was to get us to the point where we are just intelligent enough to see meaning where there is none. Luckily, since there is no plan, there is the possibility to move beyond this early, irrational phase. I wonder if the selective forces of 100,000 years ago, that make us who we are, can do it? It will be fun to find out; more fun than sticking to a plan.

[Benblanken]

Just as American Indians once danced around the fire to make it rain out west, global warming gurus will huddle in Copenhagen to make it cool. They will thus further confirm doubts about the evolution of “man,” especially since one such specimen a million years older than our previously honored eldest has been unearthed.

[darkpragmatist]

it's a little early to be claiming the new specimen is our ancestor. there have been many "ape man" lines that are not in our ancestry. neanderthal for one.

[wallyone]

Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life. It only addresses the origin of species.

Physical laws may or may not have been "chosen" (a really bad choice of words), as this infers that there was a chooser. Maybe there was, or maybe there was not.

Our universe may have been a lucky break for us against all odds. It is possible. But it may be more probable that there was some agency that directed it. I actually go along with the more probable scenario.

[darkpragmatist]

deepak, you're idea that evolution can be taught between recess and school is exactly why there is so much debate about evolution. sure, you can shout "life adapts to external pressures!" as the kids are running out the door but that's not teaching them evolution any more than yelling "e=mc2" is teaching the theory of relativity. both require years of study. without that study people end up making simple mistakes such as thinking we evolved from monkeys, confusing the origin of species with the origin of life, or that quantum functions apply to the macro-world. take your theory to a peer reviewed science site and see if it survives, this is not the place to be trying out new hypotheses and trying to use it as such is a really cheap, unscientific move that makes me wonder why you aren't submitting this idea to people who have the background to properly assess it.

[Inghram]

"take your theory to a peer reviewed science site and see if it survives, this is not the place to be trying out new hypotheses and trying to use it as such is a really cheap, unscientific move that makes me wonder why you aren't submitting this idea to people who have the background to properly assess it."

The cynic in me would hypothesize that the reason for this is that he cannot as readily promote his books and blog to the people on a peer reviewed science site.

[BarryS]

life arose because it could, not the other way around. No theory says that life is inevidible.

[mg moore]

Sorry Deepak,

Physics has already been there, done that. Back in 1961 the Anthropic Principle was proposed.

There have been very incarnation suggested since then.

It basically says that the universe developed the way it did so that it could support that life of observers to comment upon it.

[mg moore]

Sorry for mistyping.

I meant to type

There have been various incarnations suggested since then.

Here is a decent explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[George59]

When God constructed his Equation he decided that it must not permit the null solution. So it is impossible for there to be nothing. Therefore there is something and that something includes our universe, evolution and us. Wonderful.

[malzor]

So we are complicated, we look around and see complicated things therefore there is a creator? By that very same argument, who made the the creator of the creator, you can't just say he always existed because that contradicts the very statement you made. How about this, the Universe is, we're done.

[Aramingo]

We did not evelve by accident. Rather we are just one of the seemingly infinite number of outcomes in the DNA crapshoot. With appologies to the late Stephen Jay Gould, consider the picture "It's a Wonderful Life". Was it a series of accidents that made George Bailey who he was? Not accidents, but mundane, apparently meaningless events, that, when added up, made for a wonderful life.

[research]

the parameters are just right, because we evolved to be able to see it.

Different parameters, and perhaps different life would evolve to wonder why the parameters are just right for life.

[Dukedraven]

TomofVirginia, the theory doesn't explain where this "forced" energy is derived from. What causes a simple cell to be "forced" to adapt, to change and become more complex over generations? If you're honest, you know Darwinism doesn't fully explain it. It's Interesting that you would use the word "forced" because that describes the process accurately. There is a force behind everything. Most evolutionists don't want to think in terms of the spiritual dimensions of our universe. To them, everything is physical.

[Inghram]

No, actually it is not "forced" to adapt. It never has to adapt, but if it does, it passes on genes and the process repeats.

[Inghram]

As a clarification I should add to the above that is has the "chance to potentially pass on it's genes" ... because even if it adapts to changes in the environment it does not necessarily mean that it was able to reproduce.