Deepak Chopra again on why he thinks Darwin wrong

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 18, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Yeah, that guy. Him. This time here.

Motivation guru and author Dr Deepak Chopra on Friday challenged Darwin’s theory of evolution, saying it is “consciousness” and not “random mutations and natural selection” that explains where the human beings today are.

“Charles Darwin was wrong. Conscsiousness is key to evolution and we will soon prove that,” the celebrated motivational guru said at the India Today Conclave 2015 in New Delhi. More than a 100 years ago, Darwin had established that all species of life descended from common ancestors. More:

Actually, Darwin did not establish common ancestry so much as he made it an excellent living for otherwise possibly useless people.

His cause means, for example, that if human beings have justice systems and chimpanzees don’t, some dumb anthro ass prof must be dispatched to the jungles to prove that chimps do have justice systems.

For the naturalist, it’s not a frill. It’s essential. Chimps must really be us in some important sense. That is, whatever sense happens to be important at the moment to the cocktail set.

In his hour-long address in a session titled ‘Wired Wellness: Ageless Body, Timeless Mind’, the US-based doctor, author and enterprenuer said the “obsolete” world today suffers from a “reductionist model”, where the insistence is on genetics and the molecular basis of life.

“The human mind is an embodied and relational process that regulates the flow of energy and information in an ecosystem,” he said, adding, “All the cells in the body do not only participate in, but actually listen to the conversation anyone holds.”,

Now there, some of us would say, hey, wait a minute.

Some of us think that language has at least some feet in the natural world, even if some of its aspects are necessarily abstract and conceptual.

That is, our fingernails are probably not listening in on our phone calls or trying to tell us anything.

Maybe something within us is trying to tell us something, maybe urgently. But naw, it’s not our fingernails.

See: Can we talk? Language as the business end of consciousness

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

What goes around comes around. Seems this theme has already been visited from what I would call a reductionist perspective: http://www.imagination-engines.com/documents/devo6.pdf THE FRAGMENTATION OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE DEVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS Stephen L. Thaler, Imagination Engines, Inc. Abstract: Contrary to the popular notion that consciousness is the result of a noble evolutionary process, I speculate that this rather ill-defined concept and phenomenon may be the result of the fragmentation of an otherwise completely connected and totally ‘feeling’ universe. As various regions of this universe topologically pinch-off from the whole, connection-sparse boundaries form over which sporadic and impoverished information exchange takes place. Supplied with only scanty clues about the state of the external world, abundant internal chaos drives these small parallel processing islands into multiple ‘interpretations’ of the environment in a process we identify with perception. With further division of these regions by insulating partitions, the resulting subregions activate to lend multiple interpretations to the random activations of others in a manner reminiscent of internal imagery. The spontaneous invention of significance by this weakly coupled assembly of simple computational units to its own overall collective behavior is what we have grown to recognize as biological consciousness. We thereby come to view human cortical activity as a highly degraded approximation to the original and prototypical cosmic connectivity.riksson_{June 16, 2015
June
06
Jun
16
16
2015
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PST}

jstanley1:
Oh no, you’re wrong. Once again you IDiots demonstrate that you just don’t understand how science works.
And yet we invented modern science, starting with the likes of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Galileo, Da Vinci, Copernicus, Brahe, etc. (all creationists), not to mention all the Muslim and Asian scientists who contributed so much to math and engineering. We handed the whole thing to you on a platter and, guess what? we're about to do it again. Real soon now. But, just so you know, science does not belong to anybody, especially the ones who lay claim to it. All usurpers will be expelled eventually. You know who you are.Mapou_{March 21, 2015
March
03
Mar
21
21
2015
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PST}

as to Graham2's statement at 3, for once I actually agree with Graham2.
He strings sciency sounding words together, like colourful beads on a string, and with just as much sense. Hes not happy until he has quantum/consciousness/universe/discontinuity all in one sentence.
Deepak Chopra, IMHO, drifts much too far from the empirical evidence at hand and ends up loosing substance while merely sounding 'sciency'. Which, like humbled at post 7 commented,,,
…”strings sciency sounding words together…” Isn’t that what you dirt worshipers do all the time Graham2? With you lot it’s always sophistry and no facts or evidence.
,,,also reminds me of what Darwinists do when they try to add the word evolution as a narrative gloss to research findings.
"In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Moreover, like Darwinists, Chopra seeks to highjack empirical findings and force fit them into his philosophy. With the difference being that Darwinists try to force fit the evidence into their materialistic philosophy and Chopra tries to force fit the evidence into his New Age philosophy For instance Deepak Chopra claims that,,,
"it is "consciousness" and not "random mutations and natural selection" that explains where the human beings today are."
If that were all that Chopra was claiming, even atheistic philosopher Thomas Nagel would agree with that statement to a certain extent:
"If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history." Thomas Nagel - Mind and Cosmos - Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False
Even Michael Behe, since he does not outrightly contest common descent, would agree with that statement to a certain extent. But that is not Chopra means by his statement "it is "consciousness" and not "random mutations and natural selection" that explains where the human beings today are." Chopra's next claim gives a bit more insight into what he actually means by that statement,,,
"Charles Darwin was wrong. Consciousness is key to evolution and we will soon prove that,"
If Chopra were merely trying to say God must direct evolution since random mutation and natural selection are grossly inadequate, he would certainly get no argument from many ID proponents (or perhaps not even from Nagel). But that is not what Chopra is trying to say. To understand what Chopra is actually trying to say, it is good to understand what his base worldview is. Basically, Chopra is New Age pantheist who believes in reincarnation:
New Age New Age is a recent and developing belief system in North America encompassing thousands of autonomous (and sometime contradictory) beliefs, organizations, and events. Generally the New Age borrows its theology from pantheistic Eastern religions and its practices from 19th century Western occultism. The term "New Age" is used herein as an umbrella term to describe organizations which seem to exhibit one or more of the following beliefs: (1) All is one, all reality is part of the whole; (2) Everything is God and God is everything; (3) Man is God or a part of God; (4) Man never dies, but continues to live through reincarnation; (5) Man can create his own reality and/or values through transformed consciousness or altered states of consciousness. http://www.watchman.org/cat95.htm
Thus what Chopra really means by this statement,
"Charles Darwin was wrong. Consciousness is key to evolution and we will soon prove that,"
,,, what Chopra really means by that statement is that he is trying say his pagan philosophy of 'spiritual evolution', is a better explanation for the evidence than purely materialistic evolution is. In fact, I would fully expect Chopra to defend common descent, (which is a false belief by the way), to his dying breath. His only gripe with Darwinian evolution would be with the 'soulless' mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. The funny thing is, as far as empirical science goes, Chopra would, IMHO, actually edge Darwinists out in terms of seeming to be a more valid explanation as far as overall evidence is concerned. It is also interesting to point out that belief in evolution did not start with Darwin, but the roots of evolutionary thinking can be traced back to ancient India. In other words, the roots of Darwinian thinking can be traced back to the ancient pagan belief in reincarnation that Chopra currently holds. Ancient history teacher Paul James-Griffith traces that history out in this following lecture:
The Ancient Pagan Root Of Evolution - Paul James-Griffith - video https://vimeo.com/378992
Also of interest, from me personally looking at Near Death Experiences from around the world, I consider the belief system of reincarnation to be a very dangerous belief system to hold. In foreign cultures where reincarnation is the primary form of religious belief held by most people, Near Death Experiences are found to be, unlike predominately heavenly NDEs in Judeo-Christian cultures, almost uniformly horrific, even hellish, in their nature:
Near Death Experience Thailand Asia - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8M5J3zWG5g Near-Death Experiences in Thailand: Discussion of case histories By Todd Murphy, 1999: Excerpt: We would suggest that the near-constant comparisons with the most frequently reported types of NDEs tends to blind researchers to the features of NDEs which are absent in these NDEs. Tunnels are rare, if not absent. The panoramic Life Review appears to be absent. Instead, our collection shows people reviewing just a few karmically-significant incidents. Perhaps they symbolize behavioral tendencies, the results of which are then experienced as determinative of their rebirths. These incidents are read out to them from a book. There is no Being of Light in these Thai NDEs, although The Buddha does appear in a symbolic form, in case #6. Yama is present during this truncated Life Review, as is the Being of Light during Western life reviews, but Yama is anything but a being of light. In popular Thai depictions, he is shown as a wrathful being, and is most often remembered in Thai culture for his power to condemn one to hell. Some of the functions of Angels and guides are also filled by Yamatoots. They guide, lead tours of hell, and are even seen to grant requests made by the experient. http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm A Comparative view of Tibetan and Western Near-Death Experiences by Lawrence Epstein University of Washington: Excerpt: Episode 5: The OBE systematically stresses the 'das-log's discomfiture, pain, disappointment, anger and disillusionment with others and with the moral worth of the world at large. The acquisition of a yid-lus and the ability to travel instantaneously are also found here. Episode 6: The 'das-log, usually accompanied by a supernatural guide, tours bar-do, where he witnesses painful scenes and meets others known to him. They give him messages to take back. Episode 7: The 'das-log witnesses trials in and tours hell. The crimes and punishments of others are explained to him. Tortured souls also ask him to take back messages to the living. http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/neardeath.html?nw_view=1281960224&amp India Cross-cultural study by Dr. Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia Medical School and Dr. Satwant Pasricha of the Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences in Bangalore, India Excerpt: "Suddenly I saw two big pots of boiling water, although there was no fire, no firewood, and no fireplace. Then, the man pushed me with his hand and said, "You'd better hurry up and go back." When he touched me, I suddenly became aware of how hot his hand was. Then I realised why the pots were boiling. The heat was coming from his hands! When I regained consciousness, I had a severe burning sensation in my left arm." Mangal still had a mark on his left arm that he claims was a result of the burning. About a quarter of Dr Pasricha's interviewees reported such marks. http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/apr/06pas.htm Near-Death Experiences of Hindus Pasricha and Stevenson's research Except: "Two persons caught me and took me with them. I felt tired after walking some distance; they started to drag me. My feet became useless. There was a man sitting up. He looked dreadful and was all black. He was not wearing any clothes. He said in a rage [to the attendants who had brought Vasudev] "I had asked you to bring Vasudev the gardener.,,, In reply to questions about details, Vasudev said that the "black man" had a club and used foul language. Vasudev identified him as Yamraj, the Hindu god of the dead. per - .near-death.com/hindu.
Thus, contrary to popular belief that NDEs are the same all over the world, the fact is that they vary drastically in percentages of heavenly experiences as compared to percentage of hellish NDEs. As I was growing up, I use to be enamored by the mystique of Eastern religions. My study of NDEs in Eastern cultures cured my of that enchantment very quickly! :) I am more than happy with the Christianity I grew up with, and my relationship with Christ, that assures my soul of an unimaginably great future in heaven. Of note: The main difference between reincarnation and Christianity, is that reincarnation is basically based on the belief that you have to be good enough in this life in order to receive a better reincarnation in the next life. Whereas, even the newest Christian can tell you that our salvation is not based on our own works, (in Christianity our own works are a thankful result of us receiving the gift of salvation), but our salvation is based on the work that Christ accomplished on the cross. In other words, our salvation is based upon the 'propitiation' of God:
G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) poetry slam – video https://vimeo.com/20960385 Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament is True – Frank Turek – video – November 2011 (41:00 minute mark – Despite what is commonly believed, of someone being 'good enough' to go to heaven, in reality both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall short of the moral perfection required to meet the perfection of God’s objective moral code) http://saddleback.com/mc/m/5e22f/
Verse and Music:
Ephesians 2:8-10 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Jeremy Camp - He Knows (Lyric Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsccUg4TDd8
bornagain77_{March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PST}

Anti-q, what do antibiotics, sewage and water treatment, seat belts, airbags, and crumple zones have in common? They are all the result of intelligent design. Respect ID.ppolish_{March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PST}

Mapou @ 5:
You people need to go fly a kite or smoke some weed or something. Loosen up. No need to be so anal retentive in public.
Oh no, you're wrong. Once again you IDiots demonstrate that you just don't understand how science works. Evolutionarily-speaking, there's a need, there is definitely a need. Rofl...jstanley01_{March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PST}

News' brand of journalism reminds me of a Monty Python sketch. News: What have scientists ever done for us? Rational person: Well, they did give us antibiotics. News: Well, yes. But other than that, what have scientists ever done for us? Rational person: Sewage and water treatment has been good. News: Sure, but other than antibiotics and sewage and water treatment, what have scientists ever done for us? Rational person: Seat belts, air bags and crumple zones. And so on.not_querius_{March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PST}

Wow! I must in future learn to respond more like sparc, and Graham2; How the hell did the Shroud of Turin get in there?rvb8_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PST}

rvb8 as to 'being relevant', Just how do you derive any true value for any person from a philosophy that maintains transcendent values are illusory?:
How much is my body worth? Excerpt: The U.S. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils invested many a hard-earned tax dollar in calculating the chemical and mineral composition of the human body,,,,Together, all of the above (chemicals and minerals) amounts to less than one dollar! http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/worth.asp
I would like to think, despite the atrocities of Nazism and Communism, that most people intuitively know that they are worth far more value than a dollar?!? Yet, as pointed out, on materialism you have the ‘resale value’ of less than one dollar! Of course, in the marketplace some arrangements of matter carry much more value than other arrangements of matter because of the craftsmanship inherent within how the matter is arranged. But materialists adamantly deny that there is any true craftsmanship within humans.
Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth - November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: ...One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html
According to atheists, we are merely the happenstance product of a lucky series of material accidents! Thus, why should any person’s particular arrangement of material carry any more value than any other particular arrangement of matter since any person’s arrangement of matter is just a happenstance accident and was not 'fearfully and wonderfully made'? Nobody, not even atheists, act as if materialism is really true!
The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013 Excerpt: Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
Whereas in Theism, particularly in Christianity, there is no trouble whatsoever figuring out how much humans are really worth, since infinite Almighty God has shown us how much we mean to him. Indeed He was willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice so as to redeem us:
Shroud Of Turin - Photographic Negative - 3D Hologram - The Lamb - video https://vimeo.com/122495080 1 Corinthians 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Matthew 16:26 And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul? MercyMe – Beautiful - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh7-RSPuAA
There is simply no way to derive any true meaning and value for life without God, as Dr. Craig makes clear in the following video:
The absurdity of life without God (1 of 3) by William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJqkpI1W75c
bornagain77_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PST}

OT is BA77 speak for, 'I just can't wait to indulge my fantasy of appearing more relevant in the irrelevancy of my chosen medium for discussion', in short. One point BA, and I hate to burst your tangible thrill here. When a scientist says 'optimised' they don't mean 'optimised' by the Devine Mover, but rather the environment and NS.rvb8_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PST}

I knew it was going to be OT. And Im part of 'we'.Graham2_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PST}

sparc, you are not everybody and thus cannot speak for 'we'. Or are you claiming omniscience? Moreover, the article, dated March 2015, provides deeper insight into the details of the experiment and the experimenters frame of mind, and is thus informative to those of us who already knew that Darwinists were shown to be wrong in their theological claim that God would not design the eye with a 'backwards retina'.bornagain77_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PST}

OT
We already knew this before you clicked "Post Comment".sparc_{March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PST}

OT: Look, your eyes are wired backwards: here’s why - 13 March 2015 Excerpt: The human eye is optimised to have good colour vision at day and high sensitivity at night. But until recently it seemed as if the cells in the retina were wired the wrong way round, with light travelling through a mass of neurons before it reaches the light-detecting rod and cone cells. New research presented at a meeting of the American Physical Society has uncovered a remarkable vision-enhancing function for this puzzling structure.,,, we passed light through their retinas and, at the same time, scanned them with a microscope in three dimensions. This we did for 27 colours in the visible spectrum. The result was easy to notice: in each layer of the retina we saw that the light was not scattered evenly, but concentrated in a few spots. These spots were continued from layer to layer, thus creating elongated columns of light leading from the entrance of the retina down to the cones at the detection layer. Light was concentrated in these columns up to ten times, compared to the average intensity. Even more interesting was the fact that the colours that were best guided by the glial cells matched nicely with the colours of the cones. The cones are not as sensitive as the rods, so this additional light allowed them to function better—even under lower light levels. Meanwhile, the bluer light, that was not well-captured in the glial cells, was scattered onto the rods in its vicinity. These results mean that the retina of the eye has been optimised so that the sizes and densities of glial cells match the colours to which the eye is sensitive (which is in itself an optimisation process suited to our needs). This optimisation is such that colour vision during the day is enhanced, while night-time vision suffers very little. The effect also works best when the pupils are contracted at high illumination, further adding to the clarity of our colour vision. - Erez Ribak, Israel Institute of Technology, https://theconversation.com/look-your-eyes-are-wired-backwards-heres-why-38319bornagain77_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PST}

If you think that's bad you should hear me and others on the Faux News style of journalism.Seversky_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PST}

..."strings sciency sounding words together..." Isn't that what you dirt worshippers do all the time Graham2? With you lot it's always sophistry and no facts or evidence.humbled_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PST}

News:
His cause means, for example, that if human beings have justice systems and chimpanzees don’t, some dumb anthro ass prof must be dispatched to the jungles to prove that chimps do have justice systems.
LOL. Some dumb anthro ass prof? I like it when you speak dirty like that. :-DMapou_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PST}

So, a few people on UD like Chopra. Therefore ID supports Chopra? You people need to go fly a kite or smoke some weed or something. Loosen up. No need to be so anal retentive in public.Mapou_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PST}

Ah, I needed my per-hour dose of sneering Appeal to Motive Fallacy from O'Leary.
His cause means, for example, that if human beings have justice systems and chimpanzees don’t, some dumb anthro ass prof must be dispatched to the jungles to prove that chimps do have justice systems. For the naturalist, it’s not a frill. It’s essential. Chimps must really be us in some important sense.
Mm, a piquant little Appeal to Motive Fallacy, bold but not assertive, with fruity undertones of currant and elderberry, and a soft finish. Allow it to air 30 minutes before imbibing.
That is, whatever sense happens to be important at the moment to the cocktail set.
Now stop right there. STOP RIGHT THERE. O'Leary is now describing all the scientists in the world as "the cocktail set." As if hard-working scientists have time or money for cocktail parties! Pure propaganda. Real scientists work 10 hours a day at least 5, and sometimes 7, days a week. They have no time nor money for "cocktail parties." This is just propaganda of the Goebbels stripe: it's well known rule of propaganda that if you want to agitate people, you incite their jealousy and resentment, by telling them some other type of person has a cushy life and lives high on the hog off the money that ought to belong to you. Worked for Goebbels. By comparison to scientists, Stephen Meyer, president of the Duplicity Institute, does NO science and makes $200,000 a year, perhaps TRIPLE the salary of a typical scientist, and again, he does no real experiments. Dembski makes over $100,000 and does NOTHING. It is the ID proponents like Paris-dwelling Berlinski etc. who are the "cocktail set." Deepak Chopra, ID's hero of the hour, wears diamond-studdent eyeglasses while he is being interviewed on TV, and has gotten rich entirely by attacking Dawkins and by telling people they won't grow old or get sick because they have Magic Powers, doing NO science in the meanwhile. Even in O'Leary's target here, she is sneering at "some dumb anthro ass prof... dispatched to the jungles" as if working in remote regions of Africa studying wild animals is cushy and easy! Africa's full of diseases and parasites and dangers; any scientist who spends months watching wild animals in the bush DESERVES a damn cocktail party-- but probably isn't going to get it! By contrast to the real, hard-working scientists slandered every other hour by O'Leary, today's hero of Intelligent Design, Deepak Chopra, wears diamond-studded eyeglasses while talking on TV, does no science, and has no built his career on angrily attacking Dawkins. Chopra also denied that viruses cause AIDS, which is common among ID supporters, e.g. Jonathan Wells and Phillip Johnson. Yeah that's a real scientific authority you got there. You can keep him.Diogenes_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PST}

All the cells in the body ... listen to the conversation The fact that you endorse Deepak Chopra says lots about this place. Watching DC in a debate is just painful. He strings sciency sounding words together, like colourful beads on a string, and with just as much sense. Hes not happy until he has quantum/consciousness/universe/discontinuity all in one sentence.Graham2_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PST}

Deepak slams Dawkins ouch: http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/archive/segment/5462616202a760076a0000f5ppolish_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PST}

3..2..1..Woo. If Deepak Theory proves Darwin Theory wrong, many heads will explode. Consciousness splattered all over the place yuck.ppolish_{March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply