The Cruel War is raging, Johnny has to fight,
I want to be with him from morning to night.
I want to be with him, it grieves my heart so,
Won’t you let me go with you? No, my love, no.
Tomorrow is Sunday, Monday is the day
That your Captain will call you and you must obey.
Your captain will call you, it grieves my heart so,
Won’t you let me go with you? No, my love, no.
– Traditional, from “The Cruel War,” 1700s
We have reached a singular moment in history when a bioethicist writing for a prestigious journal actually can push literal human extinction as a rational idea, while at the same time the venerable Nobel laureate Sir Roger Penrose is pushing… Lord, having read this several times, I still have frankly no idea what it is that he is pushing now! To have been doing this work for as long as I have done it does give you some considerable perspective. I can recall the deeply rational eighties and nineties, and even the respectable aughts in mainstream science, when you eagerly read all the popular-science magazines as they hit your mailbox each month, and you would find article after article about the confident research that was being done then in all the key fields of scientific inquiry. It was the heyday of modern scientific research!
Origin of the universe and origin of life were of course the major fields, but there were many others, too. Human origins, speciation, and many more, and not a bit of craziness in the bunch. The researchers were young, and they were making confident predictions about how soon we would have established our big, definitive theories, backed by what would be solid scientific evidence. And very soon now, or by the turn of this coming century – or no, let’s say by 2010 at the latest – for sure we were going to know how life began. The Big Bang was going to be timed to the micro-instant. I used to love reading all their confident articles!
But then, gradually all the long years passed. Eventually, even 2015 came and went. Those bold young researchers became long in the tooth, and their confidently-set deadlines for their major scientific discoveries had long-since gone by without much notice, except perhaps by me. I wanted to know how life actually began! What we were getting, though, in our popular-science magazines was more and more ever-meeker-sounding articles about how many difficulties science was encountering in discovering the building blocks of life. And in solving basically every sort of unexpected scientific problem you can imagine.
Younger physicists and others in the hard sciences in particular were becoming ever more stymied, too, by declining educational standards. As a result of a combination of factors, mainstream science even today still has not yet managed to answer even one of those tantalizing Big Questions that just a few decades ago it had undertaken to address so confidently, and with such certainty about its sure ability to slay every dragon in the scientific woods. There has been a complete multiple-systems failure in materialist mainstream science at this point. And reading about it over the past couple of decades has felt very much like following the documentation of the gradual health-breakdown, and then the actual death of a longtime precious friend.
And meanwhile, The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture in Seattle is doing yeoman’s work right now in the field of open-minded scientific research. It is carrying on where the closed-minded materialist scientific community simply cannot go, and investigating intelligent design theories and various hybrid solutions to the real-world scientific questions that mainstream science is now gradually coming to admit that perhaps it never is going to be able to solve. Mainstream science cannot answer these questions, and not because the questions are insoluble, mind you. But because more than a century ago, the mainstream science gatekeepers, the university departments and the peer-reviewed journals, decided to limit all mainstream scientists to finding exclusively matter-based answers to every scientific question that ever in the future is going to be asked.
This decision to hobble the work of all scientists forever into the future seemed to make sense to the scientific community of a century ago. Back then, the risk of perhaps inadvertently finding God was apparently a real one to the scientific gatekeepers of that day. And a century ago, Christianity seemed to be still enough of a rival that the mainstream scientific gatekeepers didn’t want to give Christianity even the remotest possibility of any more support. But for The Discovery Institute, the risk of finding God is not a bug, but rather it is a feature. And to read their frequent newsletters now, all full of breezy genuine news, feels like such a happy escape into some unexpected field of common sense!
What seems to have completely flummoxed the mainstream scientific community, to the point where hands are thrown up in a kind of end-stage frustration, is our wonderful all-purpose friend, fundamental Consciousness. I have taken to capitalizing the word “Consciousness” at this point, because of course at its highest vibration, Consciousness is in fact God; and we have lately come to understand that Consciousness, which also is our own personal sense of awareness, is really all that there actually is. It is apparent at this point that nothing else exists.
My dear Thomas’s proposed definition for Consciousness is the best definition that I have yet found. Nothing else can touch it! Thomas says, “Consciousness is an infinitely creative energy-like potentiality without size or form, alive in the sense that your mind is alive, governed by emotion and therefore self-aware.” Thomas also says that “Consciousness is all that independently exists.” And he tells us that “Consciousness is an aspect of the Mind of God,” and it includes all human Minds. But the problem is that mainstream scientists cannot understand Consciousness at all! And mainstream scientists cannot study it, since it gives them no material handle to grasp. What the materialist scientific community imagined about Consciousness five years ago is the same thing that it was saying about Consciousness fifty years ago, and even a hundred years ago. It still is mostly wrong, of course, but it remains the height of scientific understanding to this day. Which is to say that when it comes to their study of Consciousness, materialist scientists have made no progress at all in the past century.
When the fundamental dogma that governs all your work is materialism, you have no way to study what is in no way material. So then you look at Consciousness, and you assume that actually there must be nothing there to see. Most scientists therefore assume as a matter of professional certainty that it is impossible for anyone to understand what Consciousness is, where it comes from, how it interacts with our human brains, or really anything whatsoever about Consciousness. And since Consciousness is foundational, this hampers the materialist scientific community’s understanding of a number of other things as well.
For example, here are three areas where materialist scientists are not going to make much headway until they are willing to deal with the active primacy of non-material Consciousness:
- Consciousness is Matter’s First Cause. The Big Bang is a kind of fudge placeholder, if you will. Scientists know that, and in their more relaxed moments they will admit it to you, because Something cannot have come from Nothing. Still, they need a starting point, and they could have put it just about anywhere in time and space as a first-cause point where matter was assumed to have sprung forth from Nothing. For materialists, there has to be a time/place where this happens, even though in fact within their belief-system it makes no sense. It is foundational for them to have to say “Just give us one free miracle and we will explain the rest.”
- Life is a Property Inherent in Consciousness Itself. So in fact, life is not a rarity at all, but rather the whole cosmos probably teems with life. The problem for scientists is not to explain how life first arose, but rather to understand how it evolved sufficient structural complexity soon enough to be able to maintain itself. Once scientists get past their materialist silliness, they then eventually will have to accept the fact that of course there must be a designer. Because otherwise, they will never be able to explain how all the complexities of a cell arose together randomly, which would have been flat impossible.
- Intelligent Design is Evident Everywhere. My favorite go-to explanations for the astonishing and manifold complexities of intelligent design are all the various and immensely adorable Evolution News videos. You can watch them for hours, going from one to the next and then to the next. You soon come to understand why it seems to be impossible for basically anything to exist without very many things existing all at once, since they all seem to so profoundly support one another.
It seems as if God has been hiding in plain sight all along, and in fact God found that to be easy to do, until at last we all focused our attention on Consciousness. It was only when mainstream science attempted to understand what materialist thinking cannot conceivably understand, while at the same time traditional religions attempted to pin down and create their own dogmas around what is spiritual, and therefore altogether ineffable, that both traditional materialist science and traditional dogma-based religions both lost the ability to make sense of reality, pretty much simultaneously. Consciousness then entirely escaped the ken of both scientists and most conventional religionists once they tried to find a way to understand Consciousness using their own archaic modes of understanding. Whereupon, both scientists and religionists realized that they were out there beyond their depth altogether.
But some highly visionary scientists at the Discovery Institute managed to make the stretch. It is laughable that the atheist position has for so long been considered by so many to be some sort of default position, and a position that we had to assume must be right, when we see now how easily a new age of visionary scientists who are willing to allow for a designer wherever a designer is naturally found, and they are not at all flummoxed by old superstitions, can make such extraordinary scientific strides! Science is, and science always should have been by definition nothing more nor less than the intellectually free and independent pursuit of the truth wherever the truth may lead. And with the Discovery Institute, that joyous pursuit can at last eternally be humankind’s default scientific position.
Of course there is a Designer behind the extraordinarily complex and fine-tuned design that is the reality in which we live! No one can be a part of this world to adulthood without coming to understand that certainty. You don’t gaze at a great stone castle, or a cathedral in all its magnificence, without knowing that someone must at some point have chiseled and formed its blocks and established the master design by which they all were set in place. Someone drew the designs for the windows, and cut the glass, and set the pieces of glass in place. Whenever you see a design to anything, you know that there must have been a Designer.
What the death of mainstream science’s materialism-obsessed nonsense can mean is a bright new day of healthy, fearless, and entirely facts-based scientific research for all of humankind.
I’ll tie back my hair, men’s clothing I’ll put on,
I’ll pass as your comrade, as we march along.
I’ll pass as your comrade, no one will ever know.
Won’t you let me go with you? No, my love, no.
Oh Johnny, oh Johnny, I fear you are unkind,
I love you far better than all of mankind.
I love you far better than words can e’re express!
Won’t you let me go with you? Yes, my love, yes.
– Traditional, from “The Cruel War,” 1700s