Customer Reviews

Creative Evolution: A Physicist's Resolution Between Darwinism and Intelligent Design

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Goswami's book is worth five stars, and his view of evolution is almost the same as my own; and I have studied evolution for years now (see my reviews). I present the following quotes.

Goswami (page 8) writes the following. "Every biologist must be painfully aware that biology is an incomplete science. It needs new organizing principles, ones that are nonphysical and nonmaterial, to explain three perennial mysteries: the difference between life and nonlife, the development of an embryo into an adult biological form, and, as emphasized here and by Eldredge and Gould, the discontinuous epochs of evolution. Unfortunately, it is not politically correct for biologist to admit these shortcomings in public."

Goswami (page 13) writes: "Any organizing principle that is nonmaterial is automatically excluded from science by definition. However, mainstream scientists themselves, biologists included, have a fundamental but unproven metaphysical assumption behind their work called scientific materialism."

Goswami notes that Darwin's theory of evolution is very incomplete, and he (page 15) writes: "According to theoretical predictions of Darwinism and its later versions, there should have been thousand upon thousands of reported cases of intermediates filling up most of the fossil gaps. That hasn't happened, and therefore the question of the fossil gaps cannot be refuted simply because a few cases of transitional fossils have been found."

Gaswami (page 23) writes: "The Nobel laureate Paul Dirac once said that the solution of great problems requires the giving up of great prejudices. Darwin had to give up the prejudice for Christianity and its doctrine of biblical creationism so that he could explain the data he and his contemporaries collected. In the twentieth century, physicists had to give up the great prejudices of causal determinism and continuity in favor of quantum indeterminancy and discontinuity. Today, the twenty-first century demands an equally revolutionary change in the mind-set of biologists. They must give up the prejudices of genetic determinism and the Darwinian continuity of all biological evolution."

Gaswami (page 32) gets to the heart of the issue, evolution by choosing: "We choose not from ordinary ego-consciousness, but from a nonordinary state of unitive consciousness - call it quantum consciousness. You can easily recognize, though, if you are familiar with esoteric spiritual traditions, that this unitive character of consciousness is widely recognized as God-consciousness. Quantum physics is introducing God-consciousness as the agent of downward causation."

Gaswami (page 33) writes: "In God-consciousness, we have total freedom to choose among the possibilities that quantum dynamics offers for the states of quantum objects. Conditioning limits this freedom of choice in favor of past responses to stimuli (learning). Eventually, we become conditioned to identify with a particular pattern of habits for responding to stimuli; this identification is the ego."

Gowami (page 49) defends vitalism, and asked some hard questions: "The truth is that molecular biology of a cell explains neither an experiencing self nor feelings. Could it be that the necessary organizing principles are missing? Could consciousness explain the experience of the self? Could the vital body explain the experience of feeling? The unfortunate truth is that when biologists are shoved against the wall, almost all resort to evolutionary adaptation as the solution. Consciousness? Of course it is the product of evolutionary adaptation, the biologists insist, forgetting conveniently the problem of the experiencing self."

Goswami (59) defends Rupert Sheldrake and the idea of morphogenetic fields, he writes: "The interaction of the morphogenetic field with physical matter is a resonance of sorts. It is nonlocal, requiring no exchange of signals through space. Such nonlocal interactions are instantaneous."

Goswami (page 62) writes: "When consciousness collapses its possibilities, two parallel correlated experiences occur. One we call an experience of the physical world; this one we sense (or perceive). The other we call an experience of the world of morphogenetic fields; this one we feel. The two worlds do not interact directly, and dualistic issues don't arise. Instead the two worlds go on in parallel, and consciousness nonlocally maintains their parallelism."

Goswami (page 77) writes: "With an understanding of the evolution toward complexity, the biological arrow of time is no longer a mystery. As organisms get more sophisticated as a result of evolution, they represent within themselves more and more sophistication. Over the course of this change, the organism become more sophisticated in processing feeling. And all this creation of complexity, this increasing order and sophistication, requires the involvement of creativity from consciousness."

Goswami (page 102) writes: "I submit that to produce both complexity and specificity we require both upward causation and downward causation. Upward causation is needed to give us randomness in the form of possibility waves that obey quantum probability calculus. Downward causation, via quantum collapse and conscious choice, is needed to give us specificity."

Goswami (page 147) ridicules Darwinism: "In the Middle Ages, when Ptolemy's Earth-centric theory of the world began to show disagreement with the growing observational data in astronomy, adherents of the Ptolemy paradigm busily invented a seemingly endless series of cycles and epicycles (circles within circles) to account for the movement of heavenly objects around the Earth, tweaks that allowed them to continue to justify the old paradigm. The same thing happened and continues to happen in biology. The Darwinists' response to any possible observational discrepancy is to propose a suitable modification of Darwinian ideas - shades of cycles and epicycles. Darwinism is so general that it can be reinterpreted to incorporate any data that contradicts it. It is not falsifiable."

Goswami (pages 203-203) corrects Darwin's theory: "In quantum thinking, genetic determinism gives only part of the answer - the possible variations. However, natural selection in Darwinian form cannot collapse these possibilities into an actual change; that requires consciousness. But if we reinterpret `natural selection' as choice by nature in the form of Gaia-consciousness according to the creative requirements of the situation, this selection can collapse the possibilities into actually."

Goswami (page 316) gives his vision of our evolutionary future: "Let those who can, see the point of the new science. Let those who can, take quantum leaps from negative to positive emotions with evolutionary intentions. Let those who can, live increasingly with positive emotions, making new brain circuits and changing the associated morphogenetic fields. Let those who can, spread positive emotions through relationships. We will be few at first, but our numbers will grow, especially as we create new institutions that facilitate this journey for others."

This is a good book in that it attempts to expand the basic hypothesis detailed in Goswami's "The Self-Aware Universe" (his best work yet in my opinion) to include the materialistic field of biology. This book covers a lot, from orthodox Darwinism to 'heretical' ideas of maverick biologist Rupert Sheldrake on Morphogenesis, to Neurology and the philosophical problems associated with viewing consciousness as an epiphenomenon of the brain.

The notion that the observer is entangled with the observed is not new, but rather was seriously considered by intellectual greats like Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Eugene Wigner, John von Neumann and John Bell. The 'Observer Effect' is a disturbing paradox of quantum mechanics, that most physicists happily ignore and instead yell in frustration, "shut up and calculate".

But bold physicists are trying to resolve that paradox, the most popular of the ideas being the "multiverse" theory, popular because it retains the philosophical primacy of materialistic realism. To me the hypothesis is not only extravagant in its requirements of infinite universes and hidden dimensions, but it also leaves the hard problem of Consciousness still unanswered. We are thus forced to keep faith in what Karl Popper termed "Promissory Materialism" - that it will all be reduced to objects someday. Have faith in atheism, they tell us!

For me, the philosophy of Monistic Idealism is far more compelling! There are no "objects" out there, its all one Consciousness manifesting in various forms and creating the duality of reality (the subject/object split). Goswami's genius lies in the way he shows how Monistic Idealism easily resolves ALL of the current paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics (including the observer effect), if only we are willing to let go of our stubbornness in clinging to the idea of materialism. Its as simple as that.

For those new to Goswami's work, I recommend reading "The Self-Aware Universe" first before reading any of Goswami's other works. That way the reader will know clearly where Goswami is coming from.

Quantum physicist and former professor Amit Goswami again demonstrates his ability to convey complex concepts in an understandable fashion. I believe that the gap between science and religion needs to be closed and I applaud another effort by Goswami to heal the rift.

In this book Goswami continues to develop his version of monistic idealism, dipping into the realm of biological evolution. He attempts to harmonize some of the conflicting evidence in evolutionary theory, and in the process, to also bring theistic Creationists and "intelligent design" advocates on board.

He accomplishes this by proposing that "God" (that is, the universal consciousness of which we are all supposedly a part--Goswami is from a Hindu background) is in the process of gradually improving the creation by introducing new (and sudden) innovations (a la Gould, etc.) at key points in history.

It isn't exactly clear why this rather messy approach to creation is necessary. If indeed the material universe is a direct and immediate manifestation by consciousness (God,) then either it (He?) is itself immature and undeveloped, or is unable to determine what "works" simply by direct intelligent thought, and thus is forced to experiment its way through the multiverse of infinite possibilities by trial and error.

Nevertheless, I think Goswami is onto something important with the primacy-of-consciousness idea. This book opens up new areas of thinking for most of us in the West, and it needs to be considered by anyone interested in the creation-evolution debates.

Overall, the several books by Dr. Goswami that I have read to date have been quite influential in the evolution (vernacular definition) of my own thinking. CREATIVE EVOLUTION: A PHYSICIST'S RESOLUTION BETWEEN DARWINISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN, though primarily philosophical in nature rather than scientific, is nevertheless particularly outstanding and thought provoking especially when compared with the alternative approaches coming out of the Intelligent Design community. Quantum physics is obviously of relevance whereas the statistical negativism of ID seems, at least to this reviewer, wanting. Unfortunately, quantum physics is a difficult subject to communicate beyond the usual vague generalities. The scope of application of quantum physics remains unclear in my own mind and one can only hope that it not assume theoretical biology as a model in becoming a warehouse of standard clichés. Terms and concepts such as Shrodinger's cat, the double slit experiment regards the wave-particle duality, the delayed choice experiment, discontinuous collapse of quantum possibility into actuality, quantum objects as waves of possibility, tangled hierarchical quantum measurement, and statements as every consequence of quantum mathematics has been experimentally verified with uncanny accuracy --- terms and concepts as these are now standard fair for this and other authors. However, it is not at all clear how much faith ought to be placed in even the usual seemingly bizarre conclusions of quantum physics such as instantaneous communication at a distance, nonlocality, the idea that real objects exist only if observed, the indeterminate probabilistic nature of the microscopic world (a conclusion even Einstein had difficulty accepting), etc., much less the extrapolated acceptances of Goswami such as élan vital, morphogenetic fields, and cosmic consciousness.

The limits of quantum mechanics and what precisely has been proven are unclear and even "quantum theory" itself doesn't seem to be specifically explicated by this author or in the several other books I have in hand. (The works of David Bohm seem most clear headed in terms of pedagogy.) Rather, quantum theory seems to be a broad umbrella term regards the nature of the microscopic world and thus the wave-particle duality. Such apparent lack of definition is itself cause for skepticism. Thus, one can well understand the sales pitch, for example, that without quantum physics we wouldn't have laser dependent devices such as DVDs. This would seem to be a logical outcome of the clearly digital quantum nature of light (i.e., photons). But are the so-called "weirdness" factors such as nonlocality and others alleged to be associated with quantum theory also relevant to the successes of these applications? What actually has been well demonstrated and what has not? Skepticism is further aroused in that among the experts themselves several different interpretations of quantum theory have arisen with the so-called Copenhagen interpretation being currently the most widely accepted.

Goswami is a master of the material and, despite a few errors, this book is a good source of information relevant Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent Design discussions. Unless one has been trained as a philosopher, a great deal of study is needed to absorb the information. A glossary would have been helpful. The inclusion by Goswami of at least some preliminary mathematics, the language of science, would also have been helpful and necessary if quantum physics is ever to be demystified.

As one of his primary theses, Goswami explicates and builds on the idea of monistic idealism. This philosophy seems to be increasingly common among quantum physicists and seems more suitable to their understanding of natural reality than traditional dualistic realism. In addition to its appeal to quantum physicists, it seems monistic idealism would also appeal to fundamentalist religions as well as to non-religious Intelligent Design advocates or others that have long had problems with the perceived "materialism" of natural science. For instance, traditionally thought regards the classical mind-body problem has posited that mind has arisen from matter in some yet-to-be discovered manner. With monistic idealism and Goswami's "cosmic consciousness" underlying all reality, the fundamental question is turned on its head. Unfortunately, while this may be more religiously satisfying to some (cf. Col. I:15-22; CEV), how matter has arisen from consciousness is currently no more scientifically explicable than vice versa and may even be less so. That is, the entangled "quantum collapse" of mainstream physics and other ideas of Goswami's monistic idealism compares, in my view anyway, to the somewhat more acceptable realism of complexity theorist Stuart Kauffman's "decoherence of quantum possibilities." See Kauffman's REINVENTING THE SACRED: A NEW VIEW OF SCIENCE, REASON, AND RELIGION (2008). In his AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE: THE SEARCH FOR LAWS OF COMPLEXITY (1995) Kauffman posited that these quantum possibilities are associated with the "emergence [from] collectively autocatalytic sets." As for the relevance of Goswami's views to and acceptance as science, Goswami writes (p.13), and I agree:

"[S]cientific organizations are implicitly defining nature as consisting of the material universe. Any organizing principle that is nonmaterial is automatically excluded from science by definition."

Thus far, the more materialistic views of those as Kauffman have thus seemed to have been winning in the halls of science. Perhaps Goswami might seek some help from the philosophers and at least discover and enunciate a better distinction between philosophical "materialism" and scientific "materialism" --- something that, to my knowledge as one not particularly educated in philosophy, is generally not seen in the literature or dictionaries.

Further, to escape a charge of supernaturalism it would seem one must at least demonstrate how it is, in the minimal case of animal minds, that the mind of such an animal affects the material world of its brain and thus body. That is, minds obviously influence the organic beings (i.e., animals) of which such minds are a part. The question then is regards what useful science can be done in this regards. Can a causality be found between the reality of the minds of organic beings and the physiochemical realities of their brains and thus bodies? Using humans and other species as models, there must be a causality between mind (current mental thoughts), and (1) the real world actions of the body and (2) memory. These ideas, it seems to me, could lead to interesting investigations for psychologists and physiochemists who have long been seeking to discover just what such a link between the mind and body might be. Is mind a quantum field that attracts or reorders neurological matter as I have been wondering? Or, is it better described by Stuart Kauffman who writes (2008; p.200):

"[How] the `meat' of neurons can be IDENTICAL to experience is, if you will allow me, mindboggling. But then, every alternative to the mind-brain identity theory has deep problems as well."

Goswami's thinking, while more transcendent, would seem to be along quite similar lines and is certainly contemplateable. Are there quantum-physical realities that are relevant? Surely, there must be. But again, the additional questions Goswami raises regards consciousness affecting genotypes and phenotypes seems enormously speculative. Further, positing that morphogenetic fields, and thus consciousness, are "nonphysical" (which I assume to be equivalent to "nonmaterial" in the sense that alternatively energy, force, gravity, light, etc. are philosophically considered to be "material" and thus "physical") seems to remove consciousness and even animal minds (of humans, etc.) from scientific investigation and rather make them more a construct of theoretical mathematics. Or, do non-material (non-energetic?) quantum wave functions collapse to create what we perceive as matter --- in this case, brain matter? While such research may not be out of the question, it seems to me more productive avenues might be to consider all the other very real inputs that must somehow end up as represented in or as brain matter, the "'meat' of neurons" or otherwise (perhaps as non-energetic field or reorganization of existing patterns?). Such bodily internal and external inputs include the neurological and hormonal systems. Light, as one example, has a quantum reality and perhaps the image information light brings to the brain via the eyes is somehow, through ENERGETIC quantum-physical means, represented in appropriate areas of the brain as the "'meat' of neurons." Perhaps energy becomes matter as according Einstein's inverse equivalency: m = E / c (squared).

Instead, the evidence Goswami offers regards morphogenetic fields thus far is week (p.212): (1) supposed indirectly measurable vital energy (i.e., élan vital) by means of Kirlian photography; (2) the acceptance of Chinese and Indian ayurveda medicine and Western homeopathy, and (3) a renewed interest in biology of Lamarckism. If one is in sympathy with Goswami's view, then one might be compelled to interject that the lack of research in some of these areas is undoubtedly very much a `chicken and an egg' type of situation with the special interest groups aligned elsewhere. In my own view, if some non-energetic morphogenetic field can be discovered rather than just postulated, this would clearly be an important advance and an expansion of what we consider to be the "natural" world. For now, even if researchers can discover causalities between the minds, including memories, of organic beings such as humans and their physical bodies, any relevance of such research to possible causality between the posited universal mind or cosmic consciousness and physical reality would seem unattainable.

Goswami asks an appropriate question regards his postulated morphogenetic fields (p.57): "But where do the fields reside?" Unfortunately, he evades giving a direct answer other than to write (p.57-9):

"The vital body is the reservoir of these forms. [....]

"The morphogenetic fields, the source of the programs that biological forms obey, are extraphysical, nonmaterial; they reside outside the material world. [....]

"The interaction of the morphogenetic fields with physical matter is a resonance of sorts. It is nonlocal, requiring no exchange of signals through space. Such nonlocal interactions are instantaneous."

Goswami thus seems to go somewhat beyond Rupert Sheldrake's ideas expressed in Sheldrake's NEW SCIENCE OF LIFE (1981) regards morphogenetic fields. See also Sheldrake's MORPHIC RESONANCE: THE NATURE OF FORMATIVE CAUSATION (1981...2009) which is an update of previous ideas. While the introduction of even abstract mathematics into biology might well give traditional naturalists fits, Goswami goes even further in seeming to imply that the postulated fields are part of his "God consciousness" or "cosmic consciousness." This terminology brings Goswami quite close to the analogous expressions of an intelligent agent implied by modern Intelligent Design theorists or even of pre-Darwinian and modern day Creationists. Obviously, such a position is problematical from a naturalistic point of view.

Of course, from the point of view of Naturalistic Parallelism that yours truly subscribes to, the necessity of the postulated cosmically associated morphogenetic fields is greatly reduced. Especially given that the fossil record regards biomarkers indicates otherwise, it is quite baffling to understand why a cosmic thinker as Goswami would accept the Evolutionists' view regards an original singularity of origins of life and what I have been labeling the zoologists' delusion, their unrelenting lack of skepticism regards Darwin's hypothesis of common ancestry based on the reality of samenesses (i.e., "homologies" as defined by Darwin). Goswami writes (p.15):

"In spite of the fossil gaps, evolutionism does have a solid empirical fact on its side: Some species have so much in common that the idea of a common origin, a tree of life, so to speak, seems unavoidably obvious. Darwin's original idea about such similarities (called HOMOLOGIES) has now been corroborated with very data Carroll (2005). Such a tree has gaps in it, to be sure (fig.1), reflecting the fossil gaps. But the idea that species evolve from ancestors is too consistent with the data to give up in favor of the alternative, as presented by creationism and intelligent design theory, that God created all species all at once, independently of one another."

(Goswami's reference is to Sean B. Carroll's ENDLESS FORMS MOST BEAUTIFUL (2005). Note that Goswami erroneously lumped IDers in with Creationists regards not accepting the reality of ancestors and even the Evolutionists's notion of common ancestors which I assume is Goswami's meaning. Prominent IDer and chemist Michael Behe, for example, accepts a single tree of life while the ID philosopher William Dembski, as far as I am aware, has been neutral on the subject.)

I disagree that such samenesses corroborate the hypothesis of common ancestry any more than the samenesses of any complex organic or inorganic molecules confirm common ancestry. Obviously a single tree of life is NOT parsimonious and I am baffled why Goswami, given his awareness of chemical and quantum realities, doesn't see the non-Creationist alternative. From the more parsimonious cosmic view of global biogenesis and parallel developments emanating there from, the fields associated with the atoms and biomolecules are always fully contained within the conglomerations of molecules (DNA, RNA, etc), lineages, and the ecologies associated with these lineages as they have all developed over the eons.

The bottom line is that while positing monistic idealism with a cosmic consciousness as the underlying assumption of all reality is appealing in some ways, whether or not such an approach will lead to interesting science is yet to be revealed. Many of the arguments thus far put forth will be unconvincing to traditional materialists. Is there a need for a cosmically conscious morphogenetic field influencing local epigenetic fields? I myself am skeptical but open to the possibility. Meanwhile, it seems to me that research pertaining to known natural quantum fields, especially electromagnetic radiation, holds out the greater potential for investigations of biogenesis over millions of years as downward causation in conjunction with the upward causation factors emanating with Earthbound elements and the environment. THE NATURAL SELECTION OF THE CHEMICAL ELEMENTS (1996) by R.J.P. Williams and J.J.R. Frausto da Silva is thus of interest. Beyond biogenesis and in terms of later organic physical developments over the eons, I am dubious of the need for even non-intelligent global and cosmic fields beyond the photosynthetic energy needed to sustain life. (There seems to be some evidence that some of the earliest known biomolecules were light sensitive. Further, the ubiquity of bilateral symmetry also seems to attest to light, sound, and possibly other waves --- perhaps even in regards to DNA-RNA formation itself.) Whether mind emanates from matter or, as Goswami postulates, consciousness is the underlying reality of the universe from which minds and matter emanate, to this point neither has been demonstrated. But in either case, an area where quantum physics would seem to be of particular relevance would be in attempting to discern the nature of animal consciousness and the interaction of mind with matter. What is that local downward causation? In this regards, the science seems no more at hand than has been the materialist endeavor to find the source of mind as emanating from matter, i.e., the upward causation. The later case holds out the same questions for quantum physics and biochemistry: What is the nature of mind and memory and their association with the brain? How does the mind interact with the brain and thus cause the body to act? Is there an even deeper interaction, beginning within the head and in regards to what might be termed the soul? In summary, CREATIVE EVOLUTION: A PHYSICIST'S RESOLUTION BETWEEN DARWINISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN is an exceptionally thought provoking book and especially recommended to those interested in origins of life and species, especially in the context of the ongoing discussions between science and religion.

NOTE: Eureka! Goswami's (and Sheldrake's) somewhat mystically elaborated morphogenetic fields are apparently the same fields that are becoming increasingly well defined in biological dictionaries and elsewhere as the long known fields involving atoms and molecules --- i.e., the strong nuclear force and the weak / electroweak nuclear force. (The Stark and Zeeman effects certainly are interesting.) Sean B. Carroll, Jennifer K. Grenier, and Scott D. Weatherbee in their FROM DNA TO DIVERSITY: MOLECULAR GENETICS AND THE EVOLUTION OF ANIMAL DESIGN (2001) have:

"Morphogenetic field: A discrete region of an embryo that will give rise to a structure and within which pattern formation is largely independent of other developing structures."

The Penguin DICTIONARY OF BIOLOGY (1992) by Thain and Hickman clarifies even further the biochemical nature of such fields in stating "It's now clear that some morphogens are transcription factors or transcription factor in mRNA (see maternal effect)." Goswami also explicates further more than I have given him credit for above. His chapter titled "Morphogenetic Fields, Evolution, and the Development of Form" (p.211ff.) deserves considerably more reflection. Morphogenesis and quantum fields call for more contemplation in relation to current views regards epigenesis and environmental factors.

FURTHER READING: Benoit B. Mandelbrot's THE FRACTAL GEOMETRY OF NATURE (1983). Considerations of snowflakes and other possible complex self-similarities; Brownian motion; apparent design in nature; etc.

The author posits "mind" rather than matter as the creative force in
the universe but does not explain how this mind can exist apart from
matter or how it operates on matter to produce anything. What we have
here is merely religious opinion and speculation, and not science. And
it's not very good speculation either. But it's good junk food for the
fence straddlers who want both worlds or who are too ignorant to
figure out how to decide one way or another. Probably no amount of
scientific evidence would be good enough for this author or for those
who support him. Save your money and buy a book on real science.