A Socially Correct Revision renamed



A few years ago I published Digital Universe — Analog Soul, a theory about the beginnings of things such as the universe, biological life, and human consciousness. I'm better at creating ideas than explaining them, so I wrote to the wrong audience and the book sold about forty copies. Had any of those copies found their way into the hands and minds of people willing to implement the ideas, the book would have been revolutionary.

Although these ideas intersect others from religion, philosophy, physics, and metaphysics, they are fundamentally different from their alternatives. When fully assembled they explain the kind of being that you really are, your origin, why you exist, and your place in the universe. Those explanations are simple, but they are different from those that you have already accepted or rejected.

The answers in “Digital Universe — ” are logical, and consistent with scientific facts such as biological evolution and a nearly 14-billion year old universe. These ideas compete with widely accepted scientific theories such as Darwinism and the Big Bang, as well as with all religions.

My new editor who is helping with a more socially correct version of this book wrote, ““These ideas compete with&ellip;” I think could be stronger. They don't just compete; they beat the shit out of those poor theories, but I'm going to stop editing now, because I think I'm bogging down, can't find the power words I want.

Contrary to modern speculative science which hypothesizes the existence of things which cannot be verified to exist, and unlike religions proclaiming belief in a spirit-God who cannot be detected, our little theory depends upon this simple hypothesis:

The stuff from which the universe was originally formed still exists today, awaiting honest scientific investigation.
Speculative ideas like the Big Bang, multiverse, or abiogenesis cannot be verified, so how can they contribute to a genuinely scientific theory about the beginnings? Why hypothesize mysterious events that cannot be reproduced, when we can explain the universe's beginnings with the data right under our noses?

This is not another “Intelligent Design” exercise in which the writer uses scientific evidence to discredit Darwinism, then declares, contrary to the same evidence, that the universe must have been designed by the omniscient, omnipotent God of Christianity.

This book proposes new ideas. Instead of a recitation of dreary evidence and tiresome logic leading to the conclusion that God exists or does not, it begins with the proposal that believers and atheists alike have gotten the idea of God so dreadfully mistaken that figuring out who is right or wrong is like trying to distinguish Tweedledum from Tweedledee in a house of mirrors.

Our dreary evidence and tiresome logic leads to a theory using simple physics principles to explain the origin of intelligent consciousness independently of brains and bodies.

Current beliefs about the beginnings.

There are essentially two widely accepted explanations for the beginnings of things.
  • Religious: A spirit being, an almighty God who had no beginning and will have no end, created the universe and human beings. From what did he create them? Nothing!

    This belief is generally regarded by scientists as unsatisfactory for many reasons. The idea that an uncaused entity with the power to create all the matter and energy in the universe in a few acts of almighty will even existed is absolutely non-scientific. The belief that this God is a “spirit” undetectable by any scientific methods insures that the God-or-not question cannot be resolved with physical evidence.

    The whim factor puts any God-concept beyond coherent discussion. The behavior of an almighty God who cannot be detected or queried cannot be predicted. Religions define their differences in terms of God's standards for human behavior, yet the standards differ as a function of religion. The Quran tells its readers to kill all infidels who refuse to accept the truths of Islam, while the Christian New Testament tells those hapless infidels to remain true to their beliefs, and “turn the other cheek—” which, these days, translates to “stop whining and kneel for your beheading.”

    Given the disparate beliefs of various religions about proper human behavior, the notion that any religion can offer an intelligent explanation for God's creation of the universe, our planet, or biological life is absurd.

    Another issue is God's power over physical law itself. Religionists claim that God can change the laws of physics, just like modern cosmologists. God is so far beyond the purview of honest physics that he created matter and energy from nothing, which according to the principles of thermodnamics cannot be done.

  • Scientific: The universe was created by the “Big Bang” an event which cannot be scientifically explained. The source of the Big Bang is hard to identify because it has morphed since its original inception, where it began as a cosmic micropea, a particle tinier than a proton yet containing all the mass and energy in our current universe. About 13.7 billion years ago the micropea spontaneously exploded. Science proposed neither a cause for the micropea's origin nor its explosion, but that is irrelevant now because the micropea concept has fallen into scientific disfavor.

    When the micropea's math did not work out well, it was replaced with a “physical singularity.” This mysterious concept is an attempt to apply the mathematics of infinity to a supposedly finite physical universe.

    Singularities are mathematical things. You can easily create one: try to divide any finite number by zero, or calculate the tangent of 90 degrees. The result is called “infinity,” represented by the symbol ∞. This is commonly referred to by mathematicians as a number, mistakenly, because ∞ does not follow the same mathematical rules as actual numbers. (For example, while 2 + 1,000,000 = 1,000,002,
    ∞ + 1,000,000 = ∞ and ∞ × ∞ = ∞)

    The mathematically disinclined mind will slide over the previous paragraph as if it did not exist, and will not register the concept expressed there. For such minds, the above paragraph will not exist. Sorrier than that, for such minds the rest of this book will not exist. Let's see if we can't retrieve those readers who are not comfortable with math and who blew off the previous paragraph.

    Consider what makes a number a number: its relationship to other mathematical rules. You know that 2+2=4. Because you also know the relationship between numbers, you will easily derive the answer to this mathematical problem:

    What is 133,597,348 + 2? It is, of course, 133,597,350.

    But what if I insisted that 133,597,348 was the largest possible number? If you were dumb enough to agree with my assertion, your answer to the above problem would have to be 133,597,348. Adding 2 to the largest possible number cannot make it bigger.

    If I wanted to con you, to get you to substitute nonsense for your natural sense of mathematical reality, I'd replace my version of the largest possible number (133,597,348 in this example) with a convenient symbol: ∞ and name it “Infinity.”

    Next I would introduce a bogus mathematical form and call it “The Mathematics of Infinity.” Here are its principles: (Non-mathematicians, please do not be in the least bit fearful of following the oncoming argument, which consists of 3rd grade math principles.) Although 25 + 2 = 27, ∞ + 2 = ∞ What does that tell you about the relationship between 25 and ∞ except that ∞ is not a number? Replace 25 with any real number, large or small, and the bogus properties of ∞ become obvious. ∞ means and represents one and only one thing: The incorrect answer to a mathematical problem. Yet ∞ somehow manages to rule physics, much like socialism rules politics. FUK +

    The issue is similar to that of what makes a family member a relative.

    Mathematicians have acquired something of a death grip on physics. This was inevitable, since the explanation of physics principles requires sophisticated mathematics. However, modern physics seems to have adopted the viewpoint that all possible mathematical constructions, no matter how abstract, can be applied to the behavior of the real universe.

    Thus they speak freely of an infinite universe, as if such a thing is physically possible. At the core of physics, we know better. Students who come up with infinity as the solution to a problem get an “F.” FUK

    The “singularity” had a nice advantage over the micropea in that scientists did not need to do any math because a physical sigularity, like the almighty spirit God of religious lore, cannot be mathematically described.

    Of course there are no such things as physical singularities, and when cosmologists finally realized this they morphed their notion of the Big Bang's origin once again, declaring that the universe, with all its matter and energy, with all the physical laws and 20-odd constants needed to make everything work harmoniously, sprang into existence from nothing!

    If that notion seems either insightful or intelligent, you did not attend childhood religion classes.

    Later, biological life arose from the primeval muck on at least one planet thanks to a miracle known as “abiogenesis,” an imaginary process without a theory behind its workings, and without any actual workings. Merely naming an imaginary process is enough to convince science camp-followers of its reality, in exactly the same way that the term “Immaculate Conception” assures Catholics that Christ's mother had no fun at his conception.

    Real science, the coherent blend of theory and experimental evidence that inspires us to make toaster ovens and send robotic probes to other planets, is ignored in descriptions of the beginnings.

    Abiogenesis notions assume that the first living cells emerged spontaneously from primeval muck. Scientists have the ability to recreate any conceivable forms of primeval muck in any kind of hypothetical environment, so as to watch abiogenesis take place right before their eyes and recorders in a biochemical laboratory. No matter how convivial the muck environments, years after the first of them produced a few amino acids, they have yet to beget a single living cell.

    Those who promote belief systems know that theory is far more important than data. Although the evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is entirely anecdotal, this does not bother people indoctrinated in a Christian religion. Likewise, those taught to believe in Darwinism do not know, and will not even care that when tested experimentally, it fails to produce the predicted results. Like Christians whose beliefs have never been exposed to logic, Darwinists do not know that when their beliefs are put to the test of mathematics, they become logically and mathematically absurd. (Show and tell comes later.)

    Although these comments may suggest otherwise, I love science— real science, anyway. A basic physics education and twenty years of work on various research and development projects have taught appreciation for the difficulty of the work, the scientists who engage it, and their impressive accomplishments.

    My affection for and appreciation of science have not made me blind to its shortcomings. Moreover, although I was fortunate to work for and with some brilliant and imaginative men, they represented a minority. As with other walks of life, scientists exhibit the tops and bottoms of an expertise range with its largest population safely in the ordinary middle ground.

    Science also has some intrinsic limitations. Its success was derived from excerpting small aspects of the universe upon which it could perform well-controlled experiments, then deducing things from the results of those experiments. However, science is rather poor at making deductions without experimental suppport. Over the years, it has become so bloated with success that it blows off evidence controverting its pet theories. Let's compare science's record regarding verifiable stuff with unveriable stuff, sufff re: tech vs. beghinnn beginnings. BEON THEORY: The way to engage science's power re: the bega=innings is to devise a theory in the context of which science can actually perform experiments. That's what Beon Theory does. Even more egregious, although science gained prominence via theories that predicted phenomena before they were discovered, and phenomena that would probably not have been discovered without the prediction,

    There is no better example of this than in the science of astronomy, where textbook data is often already obsolete when the books leave the printer. Predictions about the characteristics of planets are typically proven wrong by the first spacecraft to fly past or land on one.

    It was inevitable that the success of science would be followed by unwarranted expectations. People want to know about the beginnings, and given science's success, they naturally turned to it for answers.

    Truly wise scientists knew better than to offer any, but good science merely demands expertise and imagination, not wisdom. No shortage of individuals stepped forth with their opinions about the beginnings of things. When the squabbles between them were settled, what emerged is kind of an epiphenomenon of science -- a theory about the beginnings of things. Like most epiphenomena, it is meaningless and ephemeral, and does not belong.

Plans A and B are easily distilled in the context of Christianity and derivative theologies— either there was a real God who made stuff, or stuff that self-assembled without knowing what it was doing, then invented the idea of God.

Plan C proposed herein is different. First there was unstructured stuff. Unlike the structured forms that comprise our universe (atoms, molecules, plants, critters, nickels, beer, etc.) primeval stuff had no form and contained no forms. It might be described as globs of unstructured space.

After some background work, I will propose that interactions between two different globs of primeval stuff produced primitive forms of consciousness. With practice they became less primitive. Eventually they figured out how to shape some of the stuff into a universe.

Before you blow off such a notion, take an objective look at the popular alternatives.

Here's another perspective. Science assumes that structured stuff came first. Religions believe that a creator came first. Plan C requires cooperation.

Although these compact explanations will not make immediate sense or show exactly where these ideas are headed, they ought to make it clear that these ideas do not follow religious beliefs or speculative cosmology's theory of the month.

Neurological research suggests that there is a section of the human brain dedicated to beliefs about the beginnings of things, and about human purpose. This brain section needs to be filled with something but is not fussy about content. Like a rat trap catching the first hungry rodent, whether mouse, rat, or squirrel; it can neither catch nor contain anything else until emptied and reset. The human brain works like a rat trap that catches its victim with soft glue that makes any attempt to empty its contents extremely difficult, and is certian to leave some fur stuck in the glue. Removal of the contents gets more difficult after they've been long enough in the trap to stink so badly that their owner won't go near them.

My brain's rat trap was first filled with Catholicism. Getting rid of those teachings after I'd discovered better ideas was difficult. The resistance of a human brain to contrary ideas is fierce, even when those ideas come from within. Perhaps ideas coming from within are more difficult to accept, because there is no agreement for them.

Agreement seems to be the most powerful determinant of an individual's opinions. I recall a conservative college friend, the son of a Catholic businessman, who went to Berkely for grad school. Within a semester he became a progressive liberal.

Psychological experiments have demonstrated that only 3% of people are willing to trust their own opinions, even their observations, in the face of significant disagreement. Those 3% are the only people who should read past this point.

Skeptics might argue that any new theories proposed here cannot possibly be useful, yet the history of idea-development shows that useful new ideas typically come from unexpected sources. Genuinely new ideas about the beginnings of things rarely come from establishment sources. The Pope is committed to the Church's God-concept, and cosmology to its Big Bang. As Thomas Kuhn noted in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” contrary ideas typically arise from outsiders.

Kuhn's small book proposes five criteria involved in the choice of an effective theory:

  • It must be accurate, consistent with empirical observations and experimental evidence.

  • It must be internally consistent.

  • A good theory must have a broad scope, explaining things beyond those it was originally intended to explain.

  • Simplicity is essential. At the most fundamental levels, it must be a simpler theory than its competitors.

  • Expect the new theory to be fruitful, disclosing new phenomena or new relationships among existing phenomena.
The theory proposed here meets these criteria.

Science fears?

Despite references to the arcane and often feared subject of “physics,” you need no physics knowledge to appreciate these ideas. If you've thrown a few rocks and balls, and fallen down now and then in the normal course of life, you will have learned about relevant physics concepts such as mass, inertia, velocity, and gravity. Have you switched on a light and operated some kind of electrical widget, perhaps used a magnet to post a child's artwork on the refrigerator door, or listened to a radio? If so, you are at least passingly familiar with electromagnetism, the most mysterious and powerful force in the universe.

The little bit of theoretical physics that we use to gather your everyday observations into a coherent bag of ideas is explained carefully— and very, very simply, because we want two or three philosophy professors to be able to understand it as well.

Unlike other ideas that scratch the edge between science and metaphysics, the core theories in this book can be verified with the methods of physics. In that respect these theories are an improvement over the speculations of TV cosmologists, which, like religious beliefs, are designed to be non-verifiable.

The illogical concept of “creation from nothing” probably originated with Christianity. Is that notion somehow made logical when intoned by TV cosmologists?

Cosmologists conceal their theoretical inventions behind a smoke-screen of contrived notions like the “multiverse” and “physical singularities,” the evidence for which is in the same bag holding the Ark of the Covenant, proof of Christ's resurrection, videotapes of the Ascent of Muhammed, and the angel Moroni's golden tablets.

The ideas in “Digital Universe — Analog Soul ” came from the real world, not from mystical hypotheses. You do not need to believe in the spirit-God of any religion or the multiverses of speculative cosmology to make sense of them. They depend only upon the hypothesis that two things known to exist today have always existed, and initiated the beginnings.

Repeating this for the benefit of speed-readers who grasp about 7% of the available content— often the most trivial level of content at that— these ideas depend only upon this hypothesis:

Two things known to exist today have always existed, and initiated the beginnings.

Conventional theories about the origin of the universe depend upon unverifiable beliefs— an undetectable spirit-God or a cosmic micro-pea that blew up some 14 billion years ago, making it hard to study. Those theories cannot be verified, so they depend upon the words of authority figures for their acceptance.

The ideas in this book can be verified. Instead of a spirit-God who cannot be found with physical instruments, or a mysterious “singularity” lost forever when it went poof!! —the core ideas herein are based upon things known to exist right now. These two things are so common and pervasive that you are certainly aware of them.

The term “soul” in the original book's title correctly implies that some elements from traditional religious lore have found a home here— if you classify an outhouse as a home. Traditional religionists will not be happy with a “soul” concept derived from physics instead of scripture.

The “soul” described here is neither a God-created ephemeral spook nor a vague “principle of life,” but rather a well-defined entity that owes its origin to a cosmic event and is as much a part of the universe as matter and light.


The ideas in this rewrite of “Digital Universe — Analog Soul ” have the power to change your life by doing nothing more than describing the relationship between you and your mind in unconventional terms that will make perfect sense to you in light of your own mental experiences.

Religious beliefs treat you in exactly the same way as scientific theories. From either perspective you are a created being. Either some god created you, or you are a product of mindless evolution whose original ancestor was a glob of primeval gorp.

Neither of those perspectives offers you any responsibility for the quality of your own mind. According to religion you are whatever God made you. According to science you are defined by your DNA and environment.

Yet you know better. You have the power to become more knowledgeable, more skilled, smarter and wiser. You know this power because you've already put it to work. Your personal experience is enough to show you that you are a non-created being.

This theory proposes that your body and brain are partly engineered by a team of extraordinarily intelligent beings, and also partly evolved according to Darwinist principles. The theory also proposes that your creative component and source of consciousness is not your brain.

The essential component of you has not been created— at least not in the way most people think of creation. At the deepest level of self you do not owe your excellent mind to either God or DNA. You are totally responsible for who you are and who you become.

Like its predecessor, this version of Digital Universe is written in a casual and irreverent, perhaps irrelevant style that makes it an easy read for an agenda-free reader seeking answers to questions about the beginnings of things, and about purpose. Those who are certain that they know the answers to such questions should not read this book at all. Readers who expect political correctness should expect to be annoyed. Those who demand it should read a comic book instead.

The first half of this book connects an unconventional theology with conventional physics. Later it applies the results to physics itself, proposing explanations for dark energy and quantum effects different from those currently available. Few people care about these things and won't need to read them, but this theory also includes alternative ideas about the nature of your own mind and a purpose for your existence. Perhaps you'll find them interesting.

This theory includes a workable version of non-Darwinian evolution that deals with the improbabilities involved in Darwinian-style species-change. It explains challenges such as the C-value Enigma, a curious evolutionary problem that makes even less sense to creationists than to Darwinists.

The rest of this website contains some chapters from the book, once accessible from the switches on the top left of this page. These switches have mostly been disconnected to accommodate the website's current purpose, to make the ideas accessible to those capable of understanding them.

This is a fairly sloppy website. It was set up a decade ago to present the entire book on the internet for free. Its current purpose is to provide a base for conversations on any relevant internet forums that provide an uncluttered platform for the discussion of new ideas.

To that end, the book will be made freely available to readers who can correctly answer the questions posed at the end of each chapter, if any, via whatever forums offer a functional platform for discussion.

The About Us page might tell you how to order the book directly, but we recommend this course of action only for extremly serious and conscientious readers.

The Theory switch introduces an often outdated description of each book chapter. The switch should be labeled T.O.C. (Table of Contents) but our website designer died and her source code went the way of her pet lizard.

Here is some of the book.


A Socially Correct Revision
— — —

“What the hell is going on out there!!!?”
—Vince Lombardi

Chapter 0

Will the Real Intelligent Designer
Please Fess Up?

The theory proposes that a limited state of consciousness caused the beginnings of the universe. This excludes any traditional God from the creation process.

Theology is primarily about the properties of an entity or entities thought to have created the universe and man. Theological opinion has pretty much settled upon a monotheistic God-concept that includes omniscience, omnipotentence, love, and boundless altruism. The limited theology proposed here excludes every one of those traditional features.

Although religion and theology are often treated as the same thing, they are not. Religion is mostly about guessing the intent of whatever creator a theology defines. Religions often believe that their God created mankind for a specific reason, with definite expectations for each person's behavior. Religions then define and attempt to enforce these expectations. Different opinions about God's expectations produce various religious sects— Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans— and of course Muslims, all derived from a common theology.

Theologies arise innocently from someone trying to present insights into the human condition. Well-accepted insights become morphed into organized belief systems run by a heirarchy of priests seeking money and power. Christ's teachings about fair and thoughtful human behavior morphed into a politically and economically powerful church that tortured and murdered those who disagreed with its teachings. Issac Newton's theories have spawned modern speculative science, taught in government-funded universities by well-paid professors who cannot be fired, and who in their brief exercise of political power have already prevented alternative ideas from being offered to high school students.

If religions are Tweedledum, speculative science is Tweedledee.

I will propose a simple alternative theology that includes intelligent but non-omniscient entities who came into being as a result of natural forces over which they had no control. Their initial state included neither intelligence nor knowledge. Although this theory proposes the reality of conscious, creative forces, it will find no friends among typical religious believers.

Mankind's religious beliefs come from ancient philosophers, intelligent people who knew less science than a well-educated 13-year old child of today, and who defined a creator of the universe in the context of their abysmal ignorance and were taken seriously ever since. I propose to scrap those beliefs. If you are willing to suspend your beliefs for the course of this read, whatever they are, we will be free to explore a new creator-concept in the context of current knowledge about biology, astronomy, and physics.

An atheist reading this might think that the previous paragraph does not apply to him. He might claim not to have taken either the modern or ancient God-concepts seriously. It is more likely that he took those concepts seriously enough treat them as the only possible creator-concepts, before rejecting them in favor of functionally identical beliefs about the beginnings.

Some creationist or “intelligent design” books make a fair case for the notion that biological evolution was at least guided by an outside intelligence. However, they fail to frame the broader picture, the origin of the universe itself. Did some God create it from nothing, as many religionists believe, or did it spontaneously appear from nothing as cosmology currently proposes? Is there an explanation within either perspective for human intelligence, such as it is?

Big Bang theory has morphed considerably since its inception. It originally proposed that a tiny micro-pea smaller than a proton, yet containing all the matter and energy in our universe, after existing forever without cause, spontaneously exploded (also without cause) into our universe. When this model failed they redefined the micro-pea as a “physical singularity.”

Singularities are purely mathematical concepts. There are no such things in the physical world. After cosmologists figured that out they morphed their theory yet again, claiming, guess what?

The universe sprang into existence from nothing!

Try to imagine the awesome brilliance it took for some physics genius to devise this innovative idea. Surely a Nobel prize is in the offing. Carpers and petty critics might whine and complain that the idea of creation from nothing is part of some obsolete religious belief system. To be sure, there are a few religious people who believe that the universe was created by a God, from nothing. There are no more than 3.6 billion of them, many who live in Third World countries where their beliefs could not have influenced the deep insights of modern scientists.

The idea of “creation from nothing” could not have come from religious traditions because honest science has nothing to do with religion. Science followers make a point of excluding any concepts that even smack of religious beliefs from school textbooks, so as not to taint the open minds of children. Yet, some confused believers might see a vague similarity between notions of creation from nothing shared by science and religions.

There must be a difference between Dr. Caca's scientific version of “something from nothing” and the apparently identical but certainly false religious teachings. Is there?

Religions teach that an almighty God existed and created the stuff of the universe from nothing. Dr. Caca declared on the “Science” channel (19 April 2015) that the laws of physics say that matter can be created from nothing.

Dr. Caca read a different set of physics books than those I studied. Perhaps he read Alice in Wonderland or old copies of MAD Magazine concealed behind the jackets of real textbooks.

His books seem to have neglected the First Law of Thermodnamics, a physics principle which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Matter is a form of energy. The creation of matter from nothing therefore implies the creation of energy from nothing, a total violation of the most fundamental Law of Physics.

Moreover, any second-year physics student knows that the laws and principles of physics are derived from properties of matter and energy. Even Dr. Caca should know that different properties of matter and energy would lead to different and probably dysfunctional laws of physics.

By way of example, electricity and magnetism are essential to the workings of things. There are laws of physics that describe these workings. They require the existence of electrically charged particles like electrons and protons. How can those particles be created thanks to laws of physics that could not exist before the particles came into existence?
How can the laws of physics precede the creation of the matter and energy required to manifest the laws of physics?

Could it be that Dr. Caca is merely a clever bait-and-switch con artist with a platform on a TV channel? He replaced the religious belief that God created the universe from nothing with the belief that the laws of physics created the universe from nothing. Dr. Caca must think that no one is smart enough to figure out that he's merely swapped “the laws of physics” with God. Given his bagfull of Ph.D's, he must know better. Could it be that Dr. Caca is just another liar, a snake-oil salesman making a buck?

Real science, applied to the issue.

Michael Behe is a microbiologist and Roman Catholic who makes an excellent science-based case for creation at the micro-biological level. He writes as an honest scientist, explaining the data and their implications that the earth's biological life was created. Behe does not define a creator. Anyone who has read his books and wondered about the nature of Behe's “Intelligent Designer” will find that mechanism well defined in this book.

The theory proposed here explains a number of things that have puzzled a few scientists and other curious types, but which most people do not know are still hanging around awaiting an explanation— such as handedness, hypnosis, the split brain experiments, paranormal phenomena, the origin of the first living cell, the C-value Enigma, dark energy, quantum physics, and human consciousness.

Our theory differentiates between the many things that have cause or purpose, and the three things that have neither cause nor purpose. Its author believes that this is a sound theory derived in a logical manner from mankind's finest scientific knowledge, but is alone in this high opinion.

The entire theory is founded upon a single, very simple correction to an ancient fundamental hypothesis that lies at the heart of current scientific and religious belief systems. The hypothesis at fault is so deeply embedded in human thought that all religious and scientific theories are derived from it— yet this hypothesis has not been seriously questioned within the last several thousand years.

This ancient hypothesis is illogical, contrary to all scientific evidence, contrary to ordinary human experience, and non-intuitive. It cannot possibly be empirically or experimentally verified! While any newly invented theory with such characteristics would be immediately dismissed as absurd, this silly old idea has been “grandfathered” into acceptance.

The grandfathering runs deeply. The ancient opinion at the core of human confusion is so deeply rooted in our culture that it is no longer explicitly taught. Shared without question by religionists and atheists alike, few are aware of this entrenched belief's subtle but powerful influence upon current ideas.

By contrast, although the theory offered here is logically coherent and consistent with all available evidence, it will be generally dismissed because its hypotheses differ from all of mankind's current belief systems— systems derived from that ancient, absurd, but grandfathered opinion.

The Basics

Fundamental beliefs have far reaching consequences. One might casually think, for example— So what if the earth moves around the sun, instead of the sun moving around the earth? What's the big deal?

When this question was argued a few centuries ago it was important enough to set the world's most powerful and stupid church and the soldiers it controlled against Galileo Galilei, an old, unarmed man, its devoted and most brilliant member— initiating the dichotomy between religion and science that has confused human progress for the last three and one half centuries.

Fundamental ideas are important because any theory built upon even one incorrect hypothesis is doomed to eventual but certain failure.

The ancient hypothesis upon which the creation theories of scientifically discredited monotheistic religions are built is identical to that upon which the Big Bang theory of modern science rests! Think of that and consider the consequences.

This simplistic idea has been guiding western thought in the wrong direction since the time of Pharaoh Akhenaten, at least 3000 years ago—

Everything in the universe came originally from a single thing or single entity.

This “all from one” concept apparently began in ancient Egypt, when a single god briefly replaced the Egyptians' traditional multiple gods. The idea caught on permanently with the Jews (who, if the Exodus story is true, may have exported it along with themselves) and is now embraced by billions of Christians and Muslims as well.

It was probably inevitable that the core concept of monotheism, the idea that a single entity can create a complex universe, has been unwittingly adopted by modern atheists in the form of Big Bang theory. Is it not ironic that this theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest?

Correcting this old hypothesis yields unexpected results, such as the merger of science with the spiritual, accomplished via a simple redefinition of the soul in terms of classical physics.

This theory is scientific, but there are differences over what that means. Does “scientific” mean agreeing with the opinions, beliefs, and speculative theories of conventional scientists? What would be the fun in that? It means only that our theory is consistent with all evidence, principles of physics, and the rules of scientific engagement.

Therefore, unlike current beliefs about the beginnings such as God or a Big Bang, the theory you are about to study can be verified or falsified using the standards of hard science.

Religion and science—
two heads up the same orifice.

Western religions attribute the existence of the universe to a purposeful omnipotent entity. Sciences explaining the origin of the universe exclude any concept of a creator from their theories.

Religions also attribute the existence of life forms and man to deliberate (and inexplicable) acts of creation. Sciences seeking to understand our planet's life forms assume that life arose spontaneously (and mysteriously) from ordinary matter and subsequently evolved into complex forms as the result of purely mechanistic, random processes operating according to Darwinian principles and absurd mathematical improbabilities. No “creator” was involved in these processes.

Religions commonly teach that humans have a God-created soul, an entity that survives the body's death and carries each personality into an afterlife, preferably in the company of God himself, who is often believed to have invented humans because he desires our company and worship.

Those who follow science's lead into atheism do not believe that any form of consciousness will survive the demise of a human body. For them, there is no God, no soul, neither heaven nor hell, no such thing as reincarnation, and certainly no afterlife.


One consequence of the conflict between religious beliefs and scientific theories is that we human beings do not agree upon what human beings are.

In the late 1960's we sent men to the moon and safely retrieved them. It is likely that most of the scientists and engineers who designed the rockets held different beliefs about the nature of the astronauts than did the astronauts themselves or the mostly Christian taxpayers who paid for the project.

The conflict between religion and science creates many unanswered questions, one of which is personal: Is man a God-created being with an immortal soul, or is man just a biological machine, an enhanced version of the chimpanzee? Or cutting to the chase, is the experience of being conscious just a one time shot for each of us?

Would the billions of religionists care a hoot about God except for their programmed belief that God will sustain whatever passes in them for consciousness after their body's demise?

Suppose that just one component of monotheistic belief systems was changed, that God came to earth in a visible and incontrovertable style, uprooting the White House and dumping it atop the Kremlin from a great height, then healing all the sick and inflicting the healthy with nasty hemorrhoids and golf-ball sized boils. Suppose that God then informed a populace whose attention he had briefly obtained that we are merely machines created for his amusement— that there is no such thing as a soul and no possibility of life after death.

When this finally sinks in, churches would go bankrupt and the Pope would sneak out of the Vatican in the dead of night with a jewel-encrusted chalice in his baggage. Only Muslims would prosper, claiming that the god who had appeared was not Allah.

None of the Above

I once attended a packed auditorium debate between creationists and evolutionists in which the Ph.D participants on each side exposed the errors in the opposing side's position. During the brief question and answer session that followed I asked, “Since each team has proved the other to be wrong, have you not succeeded only in proving that creationism and Darwinism are both incorrect?”

The moderator ignored this question and did not invite the debaters to address it. Perhaps he found it irrelevant and nonconstructive, but that was not the intent. After all, no debaters had bothered to show that creationism and Darwinism were the only possible valid theories. They merely assumed it, and trusted that their audience shared this assumption.

The creationists and Darwinists were correct about their audience except for one member, and since then, neither the audience nor its divergent member has changed opinions. Creationists still believe that their omnipotent God created man, Darwinists believe that life arose and evolved from mechanistic causes, and I am certain that their shared confusion will be resolved by an alternative theory— if not by the one presented here, then by something even better.

Intelligent Design

An intellectual movement called “Intelligent Design” has been flourishing, fertilized by the droppings of creationism and led by scientists who have rejected Darwinism and related theories. My personal favorite is the aforementioned Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution.

Behe is a microbiologist whose ideas may appeal to those for whom logic and hard science trump conventional beliefs. His books are mandatory reading for every intellectually honest person who believes that neo-Darwinism offers a legitimate explanation for biological life.

Behe effectively proves what careful thinkers have long known— that as a scientifically coherent explanation for evolution, Darwinism sucks. A sorry farce known as the “Dover Trial” presided over by an ignorant judge incapable of comprehending the issues, prevented the Dover, Pennsylvania school board from requiring that biology teachers mention “intelligent design” as an alternative to Darwinism.

What is wrong with teaching alternative beliefs to children? Truth will stand on its own legs. Bullshit has always required the stamp of authority. Catholic Inquisitors were as fearful of truth, centuries ago, as modern Darwinists are today. What truths might modern Darwinists fear? Basic mathematics is a starter.

Michael Behe testified in behalf of the Dover school board. If the trial depiction aired on PBS in 2007 was a fair representation of what happened, Behe was made to look foolish by skilled but snarky attorneys. The creationist attorneys on Behe's side could not mount a competent defense. The defense was available, but they couldn't see it.

For example, there was a point in the Dover trial where the ACLU attorneys attacked Behe's credibility. They found a supply of old biology textbooks and presented them one at a time, asking Behe if he had read them. He replied honestly that he had not. They used his admission as evidence that he was ignorant of some aspects of evolutionary biology.

Competent defense attorneys might have have asked their opponents to open each of those tomes to sections that were relevant to Behe's testimony, and direct their complaints accordingly.

Skilled attorneys might have countered by gathering a stack of old case books from the nearest law library, presenting each one to the judge in similar style. That particular judge would not have read one of them. However, the case was defended by probably-Christian attorneys from the Discovery Institute, a religious organization. Perhaps the attorneys it engaged were good at quashing parking tickets incurred by Christians.

Scientists who have read Behe's books but remain staunch Darwinists have betrayed science, showing themselves to be ordinary followers of a pseudo-scientific belief system. Those who believe in evolution but have not read or cannot understand Behe's books are modern equivalents of the Catholic Inquisition's cardinals who did not need to look through Galileo's telescope because they knew in advance what they would not see. As we will show, modern Darwinists must hang their beliefs on faith, just like religionists.

Let's make a clear distinction between evolution and Darwinism, because many who should know better often treat the terms as synonymous. The evidence for biological evolution is incontrovertible, as is the evidence for the multi-billion years taken by the process. The evidence for evolution must be treated as fact.

This evidence contradicts the opinions of religionists who believe in an almighty God. Such a being could have created the entire universe and all things on planet earth in six days or a picosecond if he was truly almighty, and if he could indeed create anything, no matter how complex, via an act of omnipotent will.

The evidence of biological evolution makes it clear that life forms were not created in this simplistic manner. The six-day creation concept is kind of consistent with belief in a God who creates complex things from nothing by “willing” them to come into existence, whatever that means. The facts of evolution expose the question: If God could have done it in six days, why did he take nearly 14 billion years assembling the universe and 4 billion years creating life on planet earth?

The evidence against traditional religious beliefs in an omniscient and omnipotent God abounds, but do errors in religious beliefs validate Darwinism by default? I do not think so. Errors in one theory do not validate opposing theories unless all possible theories have been set forth.

I see Darwinism as a belief system founded upon a mistaken interpretation of the scientific evidence, a mathematically unsupportable system no better and in many respects even sillier than the religious beliefs it supplants. Explanations will follow.

It would be polite to say that Darwinism is an inadequate explanation for evolution. The hard truth is that Darwinism is an illogical, non-scientific, and fundamentally silly explanation— no more than a minuscule improvement over the religious beliefs it replaces.

There must be an alternative to both religious and Darwinist beliefs that is consistent with all valid information.

A Flaw in the Ointment

Michael Behe shows that Darwinism is not a valid theory. Unlike religious creationists, he does not quibble with the evidence for evolution or deny its billions of years of history. Instead Behe uses the evidence from microbiology to show that Darwinian mechanisms cannot explain how evolution took place.

He also demonstrates the irreducible complexity of microbiological structures and proposes that this can only be explained by Intelligent Design. But he stops there, offering no further elucidation. He does not discuss the nature or purpose of the designer.

Because he avoids any speculation about the nature of his hypothetical intelligent designer, he can ignore questions about why his Catholic God spent way too much time and seems to have made many mistakes in the process of designing life. Wise avoidance on his part. It does not invalidate his reasoning.

His omissions of a personal theory are to his credit. Other creation advocates either propose their own inadequate theories of evolution, or declare the intelligent designer to be none other than the traditional God of Christianity— as if there was no alternative.

Behe's ideas cannot contribute to the resolution of the science and religion conflict while his intelligent designer remains undefined and unexplained. He may be unaware of this. Adding to the confusion over I.D. concepts, in The Edge of Evolution he quotes Nick Bostrom, an alleged philosopher who says,

“The agent” doing the designing need not be a theistic God… We can take “purposeful designer” in a very broad sense to refer to any being, principle, or mechanism external to our universe responsible for selecting its properties, or responsible for making it in some sense probable that our universe should be fine tuned for intelligent life.

This statement shows why the study of philosophy has degenerated into the intellectual equivalent of “Beer Drinking 101— How to Identify a Tavern,” for folks struggling to earn a mail order degree— perhaps from the same university at which Dr. Bostrom obtained his.

No, Nick— we cannot take “purposeful designer” to refer to any principle or mechanism because “principles” and “mechanisms” are neither purposeful, nor designers. What has your garage door opener designed recently?

The term “purposeful designer” implies an entity capable of creative thought, thereby excluding Philosopher Bostrom. Behe insists that intelligent design is the only rational explanation for biological complexity. Why he quotes a confused philosopher who reintroduces the Darwinian notions of vague principles and nebulous mechanisms that Behe himself took such pains to refute is a mystery. Behe seems to be as confused as his opponents.

Bostrom's assertion that the designer must be external to our universe is incompetent. What insights does he have about the structure of the universe and the nature of its designer that enable him to declare where the designer cannot be located? Absent any profound book on the subject, we may safely assume that Bostrom has no deeper insights than your local plumber, and simply borrowed his unfounded assertion from the Catholic Church.

If you choose to believe that a creator/designer of the Universe exists in a place your mind is not allowed to explore, your knowledge about that entity will be forever limited to whatever the ministers, mullahs, TV evangelists, and ersatz philosophers tell you.

Since it is impossible to find a thing in a place where we cannot look, why not seek the source of creation in a place where we might actually be able to find it? Our minds, senses, and instruments operate only within this matter and energy universe— therefore doesn't it make sense to seek a creator within the universe on the chance that it might have been lurking there all along?

The Intelligent Designer

Behe's declaration that he is “a pretty conventional Roman Catholic” will satisfy readers who already believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian God. Their creator remains unchanged. But what of the many thoughtful individuals disenchanted with religion? Behe's arguments may be good enough to convince objective atheists that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific conclusion, but don't expect them to show up for Sunday services anytime soon.

Behe is well aware of the designer identification problem. In The Edge of Evolution he writes, “Like it or not, a raft of important distinctions intervene between a conclusion of design and identification of a designer.” But he does not even offer an inventory of the raft's cargo. Despite his awareness of the problem, solving it was not part of his job description.

The Forms of an Alternative

What if the universe came from neither the act of an almighty God nor the spontaneous explosion of a cosmic micropea?

Could there be a creator born within and nurtured by the very substance from which he derived his creation? What if the creator is actually a group of creators?

Perhaps the physical universe is not the result of a solo performance. What if our universe is the result of a partnership dance on the floor of spacetime, a dynamic performance engaged by minds and energy in which each one affects the form and style of others?


This book introduces a unique theory about the origin of the universe and the nature of man, defining a creator-concept in the context of classical physics. It explains the single property needed for creation— not a property that you will anticipate.

While including intelligence in the creation-picture solves some problems, it introduces others, particularly the question of motivation. I'll address this question from the perspective of a potential universe-creator's needs, rather than from human hopes and wishes, with unexpected conclusions. There actually is a credible reason why entities capable of creating our magnificent universe offered us the opportunity to acquire personal self-awareness. I dislike the reason, but that's my problem.

Your reward for examining these ideas is an alternative explanation for the origin and nature of your own conscious mind as something that is neither created nor evolved— something that exists in its own right and has the power to set its own course.


The term, “Intelligent Designer,” is typically used as a generic euphemism for God. It is a poor choice of euphemism at that, and too awkward to use repeatedly. In the early chapters of this book I will freely use the words “God” and “Creator” interchangeably with “Intelligent Designer.” Later I propose an entirely different creator concept and a new word to go with it. I will also use plural male pronouns to refer to this or these entities. This is a matter of convention, not an implication that any universe-creators have a human-like body with a long grey beard, big brain up top and little brain down below.

My use of commonly understood terms is only a literary convenience and does not imply agreement with their accepted definitions. Religious people won't like my description of God even after I redefine and rename that entity, and atheists won't like the suggestion that such an entity even exists. Alas— it seems impossible to please everyone.

I've already implied that whatever your understanding about the cause and purpose behind the universe and your personal existence, the ideas presented here differ drastically from those you have chosen to believe. They also differ from the ideas and theories you have rejected.

If you are an atheist, you have rejected the creator-concept proposed by organized religions. This is a plus-mark for good judgment. However, you have not rejected the creator-concept defined in this book. You cannot have, because you do not yet know of it.

This theory is engineered, not inspired. It depends upon fundamental laws of physics, not upon revelation. It offers alternative solutions to some interesting problems, such as the accelerating expansion of the universe because of “dark energy” and the mechanisms of consciousness. In the context of this simple theory, human consciousness and the fossil record of biological evolution all make logical sense.

If you are somehow not among the multitudes whose curiousity these claims are certain to pique, consider another incentive:

These ideas are about you— what kind of being you are and how you came to exist. They offer a purpose for your life and a smallish possibility for its post-demise continuance. If understood, this theory will make a profound difference in your life and the lives of people with whom you interact.


The theory was devised in 1960, more than a half century ago to reconcile Catholicism and physics, but neither the Pope nor the small subset of the physics community within which I worked gave a shit about alternative ideas, so they've basking in obscurity ever since. I continued writing worthless manuscripts and reading science journals, looking for ideas and information. One of each recently appeared: the idea came after reading an arcane book about the teachings of a man who may not have existed, Hermes Trismegistus; and the information was physicists' discovery of dark energy. Together, they provided enough incentive to re-engage this project.

Also, timing is important. With the centuries-old conflict between science and religion coming to a revived but still sour ferment, the time for an alternative may have arrived. Else it may never arrive, and instead of exploring an alternative, people will argue about whose ideas are worse for another two millennia.

The theory now has a name— Beon Theory. Its meaning will show up down the road.

Writing Style

This material references research and theory from a wide range of subjects but does not contain conventional-style footnotes. The information referenced is honestly presented, which means that while it may include a few inaccuracies, they are accidental and of a minor nature that will not affect any ideas presented here.

Wikipedia and other internet sites are more useful to readers than footnotes referencing arcane journal articles and scholarly books listed in a bibliography at the back of a book, which nobody reads.

I've marked the linked references. An interested reader can find them listed chapterwise on the webpage\links.htm. College students are not allowed to reference Wikipedia material, because this excellent resource would put many irrelevant professers out of work. Therefore, any college students reading this must agree to ignore the Wikipedia links included herein. However, it is okay for graduates or drop-outs from any source of education to study and pursue these references.

Of course there are errors in Wikipedia— unlike textbooks, which teach only absolute truth and are revised every few years to maintain that fiction. The difference is that in order to cut a grade in a college course one must memorize and parrot the textbook errors perpetrated by the professer's cronies, whereas most Wikipedia authors are passing along their best knowledge instead of grades and do not care if you parrot a word of what they wrote. Many Wiki science writers actually are real professors.

Serious Wikipedia articles come with links to related material. A reader following these links can verify the quality of Wikipedia information and pursue related threads without a university library card and a stack-access permit.

Who Should NOT Read this Book?

Clever promotional material has sucked me into buying the wrong books before, and I did not like that. Why con a prospective reader just to make another fifty cents? Better no reader than an angry reader with nothing better to do than whine about one more book he doesn't understand and therefore cannot like.

This book is not for everyone. Although no particular academic achievements are required, the power to think for yourself will be useful. Dogmatists of either religious or atheistic stripe should not read this. Bible thumpers will hate these ideas. Those who actually believe the current cosmological dogma, that the Big Bang came from a singularity that magically appeared out of nothing, are thumping a newer Bible that they cannot even read. They will detest our ideas. Progressive liberals, socialists, communists, and others with a crab-bucket mentality toward human achievement will find our conclusions totally contrary to their beliefs.

As of this writing, most of the book is available via this website, so only the five or six readers who find that material engaging will want to buy the physical book. I don't give a shit whatever they do.

The Future of the Theory

Because this theory is provable by the standards of modern physics it may someday be subjected to scientific verification. When proven, this theory will formally affect physics, cosmology, the neurological sciences, psychology and biology. In future centuries after the deathgrip of Islam is relaxed, it will affect politics.

Eventually this theory's value will trickle down to the psychological and medical sciences where it can do individuals some directly applied good. It has been successfully but informally verified at this level. Although the technology exists to verify core elements of the theory now, current belief systems will prevent this from happening for many years.

In the meantime, any reader who adopts the ideas will find that they are useful to every aspect of human life.

In years to come, the first human culture to understand this theory and fully accept its implications, however small its geographic base and populace, will rise to ascendancy and remain there. Is anyone in Singapore reading?

INDEX.HTM Wed 08/10/16 21:20

Copyright © 2016 The Church of Physical Theology, Ltd., all rights reserved.