Thank you for posting this, it is a good clarification from the earlier post, a lot to digest but it's great!

Dear Deepak

After watching the LK show it is clear that, in the public perception, your ideas are lumped together with those of the Christians. And after reading some of the comments it further is clear that your "scientific" stance comes across as flakey to most people. I think it is important that you distance yourself from both sides.

It would be very helpful if you could work out your very own clear-cut methodology, vocabulary, or a system whereby you can get your ideas across in your own unique way. Science has its own methodology and your insistence on trying to sound scientific only makes you vulnerable to ridicule. Because if you want to do science you have to do it like the scientists. Step number one: You need to have a theory. The long lists of facts you keep coming up with don't really tie up into any kind of a theory and moreover are full of flaws.

For the most part, your ideas are based on yogic knowledge. The yogis had their own methodology, a very sophisticated systemization of knowledge, a means of communicating their knowledge, and a possibility to replicate their knowledge. This sounds very much like the way science functions but epistemologically it cannot be considered science in the western sense. I think it would be worthwhile for you to reformulate the rules of the game based on an alternate system of thought altogether. You have enough clout to formulate the rules of the game. If you play by the rules set by the west you will never come out on top. Otherwise, what you are trying to explain now has already been explained by the seers of old in their own way - which is very much valid and nothing new except in the western world which has no knowledge of such things.

Incredible work Deepak! I wish you the best with your ongoing search. Here's some of my thoughts on all of this. Maybe it is OUR minds and the minds of every other living thing that have directed the evolutionary process all along and WE (Us Humans) are one of the end products of it and simply don't realize it yet. Maybe that realization is ultimately what we are all evolving towards. I mean think about it, scientists say that we are all here by random chance and that all of life (including us) had to adapt to the environment in order to survive. Ok, how could a non intelligent unconcious random evolutionary process based on "adapting to the environment" know that it is adapting in the first place and is producing order? How could one random event build upon previous random events without some sort of intelligence behind it? IT WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW IT WAS BUILDING ANYTHING AT ALL. How did an unconcious process produce conciousness? How could a non intelligent unconcious random evolutionary process ever produce a life form such as me and you that HAS conciousness and is able to go beyond adapting AND can actually change it's environment? I personally think we have it all backwards and we simply are leaving out one of the most impotant components in this whole thing...OUR MINDS, US, the one who's doing the thinking itself, yes YOU, the one who is reading this blog entry. I think our non physical minds have always existed, which explains how there can be no "before" the Big Bang. I think we have been guiding this evolutionary process at a subconcious level all along and just haven't woken up to that realization yet. I think that's where this whole evolutionary process is ultimately leading us!

Science begins with materialistic assumptions, so it should be no surprise that it arrives at materialistic conclusions. But the naively materialist metaphysics of science make the existence of scientific truth extremely problematic. In short, science can explain everything except how it is possible for material scientists to explain everything.

The book One Cosmos Under God: The Unification of Matter, Life, Mind and Spirit spells out the entire debate, along with its solution:

http://www.paragonhouse.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=377

Dear Deepak,
Thank you for your extensive explanation and your conclusion. We still have so much to learn.
You have given me a wonderful vision of who I am and I like to give this to you in the following words:

Who am I? A human angel
What is a human angel?
A human angel is Universal Love
What is Universal Love?
Universal love is the Kiss of Life
What is the Kiss of Life?
The kiss of life is Breathing
What is Breathing?
Breathing is the energy behind the kiss.
What is the energy behind the kiss?
The energy behind the kiss is intelligence.
What is intelligence?
Intelligence is the power to create.
What is create?
To create is to portray a vision
What is my vision?
My vision is unconditional happiness
What is unconditional happiness?
Unconditional happiness is radiating energy
When I breathe in I create happiness inside
When I breathe out I create happiness outside.
When I breathe in I receive the Kiss of Life,
when I breathe out I give the Kiss to the earth.
I give the Kiss to all that lives. All that lives breathes in and out.
What is the cosmos? The breathing in...
What is the earth? The breathing out...
Who am I? I am the cosmos, the earth, the microcosmos.
I am what I can imagine.
I imagine that i am happy.
I am happy.

Thank you.
Namaste, Mieke

Divya wrote, "It would be very helpful if you could work out your very own clear-cut methodology, vocabulary, or a system whereby you can get your ideas across in your own unique way."

Honey, those were my thoughts EXACTLY. (Well said!)

Deepak - I think as long as you continue to use the phrase "intelligent design", people will lump you in with the Intelligent Design people which is just creationism dressed up in a lab coat. I find myself getting confused when I'm reading your posts about this. Take your strength which is your understanding of consciousness and create your own hypothesis.

Looking forward to reading more about this from you in the future.

BTW, great appearance on LKL!

Love, Sheba

test

I read your posting on the Huffington Post. I was trained as a scientist, but I have always been humble enough to know that although I put the seed into the ground, I am not the one to make the tree grow. Thank you for your posting. I think a lot of people get scared when anything begins to violate the whole separation of church from state, because after that it is a slippery slope. There is plenty of room for God outside the classroom.

Dear Deepak chopra,

Please understand Heisenberg principle.
The direction of human civilization in the holistic sense and the evolution which is a physical transformation interact with each other that none can be measured with accuracy to predict the future.for example ayurveda and more particularly Siddha medicine advocated "vastrakayam" centuries ago and now "Nano" dimension has become improtant.I did research in Molecular sieves in 1970 in India and that time nano importance was not known or not stressed.Thus regressions and progressions cannot be predicted or judged correctly.
V.Rajagopalan
47 Waterford 72/1 ECR
Chennai 600041

Hey Deepak,

Thank you for being you! I think what you are doing here is great on so many levels. To open a forum for such open discussion is a step in the right direction. Even at 23 years old i think its funny to read the post that people leave as a response. Everyone wants to be right. To me that is a very fair representation of whats taking place on a larger scale when it comes to religuous and political wars.

I hope that we can all share ideas without having to have the best idea or even the right idea.

I also hope that those hear who feel the need to make their attacks personal can realize that this does not help make your point any clearer, it actually does the opposite.

If we can't be peaceful on a blog then how do we expect to be peaceful in our daily lives??

I'm only 23 so i imagine i am still naive, but this is my opinion. Im still glad we are all here.

To be able to truly explore this subject, one has to be able to think "outside the box." As usual, the ones who can't are making a lot of noise. We are grateful that you are both willing and able to speak so eloquently on such a complex subject, Deepak. Would that all could see as you do!

I don't agree with your view on spiritual matters.
Each has to make a choice to accept or reject Jesus Christ, which decides where each person will spend eternity.

In your above post you said dinosaurs became birds and that dinosaurs were wiped put by a meteor. My question is which one is it?

I also differ with you as to these theories are accepted as fact. There are many who don't believe these things happened. Just because some who have gotten PHD's say this is what happened, doesn't make it true.

1. Intelligence doesn't "appear" at a late stage of evolution. It seems to be inherent in nature.

-YOU ARE BEGGING HERE. THIS IS NOT A VALID POINT.

2. Before there is intelligence in action, there is the potential for intelligence. This must precede the Big Bang and still exists at a subtle level of Nature.

-YES DEEPAK - THINGS THAT ARE POSSIBLE MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST - WOW - WHAT AN INSIGHT

3. The primary evidence for intelligence in the universe isn't design but consciousness. In some mysterious way Nature knows what it is doing.

-WHAT IS CONCIOUSNESS?
-HOW DO YOU KNOW NATURE KNOWS WHAT IT IS DOING?
-Human conciousness can best be understood as the creation of a reflective narrative. In other words, humans do not now what they are doing, they know what they have done - and the "what" is a fiction created within the context of observed events devoid of meaning. Conciousness is reflective and DOES NOT imply free will.

4. Chaos and orderliness coexist, one being necessary for the other.

-IS THIS TRUE?
-WHAT IS ORDERLINESS?

5. Evolution manipulates chaos the way an artist manipulates paint, to turn basic ingredients into complex forms.

-WHAT IS A COMPLEX FORM?
-THIS ANALOGY IS BOGUS.

6. Consciousness may exist in photons, which seem to be the carrier of all information in the universe.

-WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING?

7. The creative principle is eternal.

-THE ABOVE IS TRULY A MEANINGLESS PROPOSITION.

Hi Deepak,

I think your explanation using the concept of entropy flow is not correct. You are taking the essence out of negative entropy concept to support your claim. I don't agree with this.

Krish.

With gratitude to http://www.physics.smu.edu/~scalise/P3333sp03/baloney.html

The Baloney Detection Collection

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One could easily find a large number of books on the subject of baloney detection, pseudoscience, and pathological science and deception. A complete bibliography would fill several pages. Michael Shermer, Robert Park and Carl Sagan and others have written books and articles about these subjecta. All have produced lists of things to look for and questions to ask in order to detect bogus claims or even outright fraud.

What follows is a synthesis of a number of these. All writers will say that no scheme provides completely foolproof detection of bogus claims; however, if you poke and prod the claim with the questions that follow, the odds are in your favor. The questions are in no particular order, so you'll have to mine out the applicable ones.

1. How is the claim/discovery announced?
A scientific discovery is checked and reviewed before being accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. If a claim or discovery is announced by holding a press conference, beware. Such a claim may be unverified - not checked by an independent investigator. The cold fusion debacle is often cited. Robert Park's description of this affair in "Voodoo Science" is recommended reading. Also beware of "discovery" announcements that ask you to subscribe (pay) to some newsletter.

2. Does this source often make such claims?
If this particular source frequently makes claims that bear no resemblance to the best current knowledge, beware. There was someone in Dallas who, as the year 2000 approached, made a series of predictions based on the book of Revelations. He described how the sky would open up, trumpets would sound, and the world would end. Obviously, nothing happened.

3. Is anecdotal evidence cited?
Anecdotes, or individual stories, are not scientifically useful. Such a story suggests only that the individual did so-and-so (assuming no fakery). No thing about larger populations can be inferred from it. Any description of an invention or product which uses large numbers of anecdotes or testimonials is suspect. You also must remember that testimonials can be bought; you can pay someone to do it for you. Also - the Federal Trade Commission will prosecute false claims, but testimonials are not regulated.

4. Does the source claim that "the establishment is trying to suppress this discovery?"
Such a claim does not provide any evidence that the "discovery" is realy valid. You need to poke these with other questions to find out more.

5. Does the claim fit in with what we know about the world?
Does it fit into the larger context of knowledge? Shermer describes the claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Accepting that claim requires that you also concede that everything learned about the Earth and solar system through astronomy, physics, geology, biology and other sciences is completely wrong.

6. Was the "discovery" made in isolation?
The reality of this world is that someone not trained in the science and its methods and working alone in a garage is not likely to make any kind of significant scientific discovery. Such a person making a great "discovery" is likely to be misinterpreting a known effect. They will likely persist with their belief in their discovery even after being shown that it is a well-known effect.

7. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
It is very important to find out if other investigators have tried to replicate the work. Toward this end, real scientists will publish complete information about the work, enough for another competent investigator to attempt replication. Others will repeat the work and publish the results.

8. Is this source offering a new explanation for observed phenomena, or simply attacking the existing explanation.
As with claims of suppression, this claim does not offer any evidence that the discovery is valid. Anyone attacking an existing explanation had better offer evidence. Absent evidence, all you know is that they do not like the existing explanation, for whatever reason.

9. Does the source claim that "this knowledge has been around for so long it must be good?"
A lot of interesting "discoveries" were made a long time ago. These include such gems as "the Earth is flat", "fire is a result of the phlogiston escaping from the burning material", and "the primary components of everything are Earth, air, fire and water." That they have been around a long time doesn't make them right. Again, what is the evidence?

10. Is the observed effect very small and accompanied by lack of success in increasing it?
Along this line, is the experiment a multi-trial statistical one or a direct measurement? Park's description of mind-over-matter experiments is recommended. Although balances capable of measuring micro-gram (very tiny) forces exist, mind-over-matter experiments use statistical trials, possibly because no claimant has ever been able to move a micro-balance with thoughts. The small effect observed in statistical trials is likely due to some small systemic bias in the experiment itself. The polywater affair is an example of a small effect that could not be increased.

11. Does the evidence for the "discovery" not get any better with time?
See number 10 above. If the observed affect is really a tiny bias in the experiment, nothing the investigator can do will increase the effect. Another thing to check is the results of better experiments. If, as the experimental methods improve, the observed effect gets smaller, it is likely that a perfect experiment will show no effect at all.

12. What does the bulk of evidence point to - the new claim or something else?
Is the source focusing on one small thing and ignoring a huge base of accumulated evidence that points to something else? Be sure to look at the claim in the context of current knowledge.

13. What kind of reasoning has been used?
Beware of "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" thinking; this implies confusion about causation. This latin adage translates as "after this, therefore because of this." If A happened then B happened, then obviously A caused B. This is a very bad assumption. A claim that A caused B must be accompanied by credible evidence showing how A caused B. To put it simply, correlation does not mean causation.

Also beware of such things as questionable techniques (like hypnotic regression), anecdotal evidence (see 3 above), conspiracy theories (like government cover-ups), poor quality evidence (low-resolution photos) and simple misperceptions.

14. Does the new claim offers a new explanation for something, does it account for as many phenomena as the old one did?
Einstein's relativity explained more phenomena than did Newtonian mechanics. At velocities much less than the velocity of light, relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics.

15. Is there any indication that the source's personal beliefs and biases are driving the conclusions?
Has contradictory evidence been ignored or pushed aside? It is necessary to consider all the evidence, not just the favorable bits. The process of science tends to sort this out.

16. Is it possible to test the claim?
Obviously, a statement that "God did it" cannot be tested in any way. Such a claim is an untestable construct. Explanations that do not make any testable predictions are of no use. They do not add to knowledge.

17. Is a chain of evidence (links) offered?
If chain of evidentiary links for a claim is presented, every link must be solid. A proposed chain of evidence fails completely if even one link fails. If someone claims that A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, and D causes E, they had better be prepared to demonstrate EVERY link. If, for example, all links are proven except that C causes D, which cannot be in any way demonstrated, then there is no proof that A results in E.

18. In extreme cases, such as claims about UFOs, can hoax be confidently ruled out?
Evidence for "flying saucers" is usually photographic. Modern image processing technology is so good that it is no longer possible to reliably detect a hoax photograph by examining it. A claim that a photograph has "passed all photographic analyses" may mean nothing more than that the hoax is very well done. If hoax cannot be ruled out, there remains a small probability that the evidence is fake.

19. Would a claimed invention violate the laws of thermodynamics?
Be aware of the laws of thermodynamics. The universe operates according to a set of physical laws that we understand reasonably well. Those laws govern what can and cannot be done. No amount of cleverness or piety will allow anyone to violate those laws.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says, simply, that "you can't win." Ene rgy is conserved; it is not magically created. Always remember the old phrase " Non gratuitum prandium", which means "no free lunch." No thermal energy can be extracted from a single source - a heat flow from hot to cold is required.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says "you can't even break even." Any energy conversion process has losses - the output energy will be less than the input. The difference is wasted and contributes to increasing the entropy of the universe. No one has ever found a way to get around this.

20. Is the claim/discovery really spectacular?
Scientists will tell you that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." They mean exactly that. If the claim is that life has been found on Mars or that someone has found a way to eliminate aging, really extraordinary evidence will be required to demonstrate it. A vague observation or a few anecdotes will not do the job.

21. Beware of special pleadings.
Be especially wary of any claim or excuse that the claimed effect cannot be measured for some reason. It may be that "the presence of a skeptic contaminates the effect", or "attempting to measure the effect destroys it", or "bad vibrations interfered", or something like that. An "effect" that cannot be measured likely does not exist.

22. If the effect is measured from a sample, how was the sample obtained?
Obtaining a proper random sample for a statistical measurement is more difficult than most people realize. There are many problems that can occur with sampling, problems that can seriously bias the results.

For example, suppose you want to take a poll about something and you want a random sample of the population of your city. How to do it? You might think of randomly choosing names from the phone directory - but that will exclude all people who either have no phone or have unlisted numbers. Try going downtown and randomly picking people who pass by. That will exclude all people who do not go downtown. Getting a real random sample is not easy.

23. Beware of "It can't be, so it isn't" thinking.
In the Cottingley Fairies incident, in 1917, two young girls took photographs which supposedly showed fairies cavorting with them in the woods. The two girls who photographed the fairies were considered incapable of perpetrating such a hoax, and thus followed the conclusion that they had not. The photos were therefore fawned over as genuine pictures of fairies. Truth was that the girls had indeed cut the "fairies" out of paper and photographed them in a prank which got out of hand when others saw the photos. This was not figured out until 1978.

A number of excellent books on the subject of pseudo-science exist. Here are so me good ones. Please remember that there are many more. The book on hoaxes is included because it is a good collection of historical (and hysterical) hoaxes.

Park, Robert L., "Voodoo Science", Oxford University Press 2000 ISBN 0-19-513515-6.
Sagan, Carl, "The Demon-Haunted World", Random House 1996. ISBN 0-394-53512-X
Shermer, Michael, "Why People Believe Weird Things", Freeman 1997 ISBN 0-7167-3387-0
Carey, Stephen S., "A Beginner's Guide to Scientific method", Wadsworth 1998 ISBN 0-534-52843-0
Randi, James, "Flim-Flam", Prometheus 1988 ISBN 0-87975-198-3
Schick, T. & Vaughn, L., "How to Think About Weird Things: Critic al Thinking for a New Age"
Boese, Alex, "The Museum of Hoaxes", Dutton 2002. ISBN 0-525-94678-0 /UL>

You're a complete idiot.

Occam's Razor, or, Keep It Simple. Which alternative is more likely: Intelligent Design advocates want to fill in the gaps in Darwinian evolutionary theory; or that they are "motivated by ulterior motives to preserve God and Jesus in the face of Darwin".

All theories can be dramatically altered, or totally replaced, as new evidence is found. Scientists must always be open to the idea that the some of their assumptions are wrong. So there are "gaps" to fill in evolutionary theory - shall we continue to use the scientific method to test alternatives, or should we have faith in the word of people who have decided that they know what God is up to?

I ask, are I.D. proponents open to the idea that their interpretation of God's Will is wrong?

Your seven points are clear to me. Thanks Deepak. Never give up.

Dr. Chopra--
Certainly these comments on your post are a breath of fresh air from the vitriol on the Huffington Post.
At least your synthesis and elucidation in your second post today avoided any of a response to those comments, and instead illuminated further the depth of questions available on evolution at this time. I wonder how many people remember that even in the Scopes "Monkey" trial over teaching evolution in the schools, the schoolteacher allowed himself to be put on trial voluntarily when the city leaders asked him to participate in the "show prosecution" in order to put Dayton, Tennessee on the map. There will be fanatical arguments over evolution in the western world as long as there is a Genesis which is mis-inferred as literal.
Thank you for offering some great ideas to ponder, despite what your so-called science-oriented detractors spout.
With Repsect and Gratitude,
David Goldenberg

Odd how discussions such as this can evoke such emotions. I found your posts to be very eloquent and thought provoking.
Have you ever thought about why some people react so negatively and so harshly and with such authority on the subject of god?
My theory is, life began on the day I was born, a little over 54 years ago and will end when I die. It's been a great ride and given the opportunity I'm going to give the chauffeur a great tip even if I get thrown out while the limo is still moving.
I'm in finance Deepak, I'm going to leave the photons and higher thinking to you.

Regards,
Mark

bullshit trying to coopt science to give itself the mantle of sophistication. that describes ID and this article.

I have been watching all of the wars going on in this blogosphere. I admit that I'm a fan of Deepak Chopra and I would like to share with all of you a tribute to him which appeared on an Apple computer internet advertisement sometime ago so you may have to dig into the archives. It reads:

A Tribute (as seen via the internet:http://www.apple.com/thinkdifferent/ad1.html)

To: Albert Einstein, Rabindranath Tagore, Mark Twain, Nicola Tesla, Amelia Earhart, Martin Luther King, Zecharia Sitchin, Walt Disney, Bob Dylan, Gandhi, Steven Spielberg, Gerry Spence, Jim Hensen and Deepak Chopra (to name just a few);

Here's to the "crazy" ones; the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers; the round pegs in the square holes; the ones who see things differently.

They're not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them.

About the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things; they push the human race forward.

And while some may see them as crazy, we see genius: because the people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world,

ARE THE ONES WHO DO.

HERE'S TO THE "RADICAL FEW"!

Dear Deepak,
Your points are very helpful to me in understanding this debate.
I love your passion for deeper understanding!!!
Thank you for the love you give to all of us.
Love to you and all,
Robin

I think this organization at gpitech.org has found the middle way here with a curriculum which does take into account the observer, through proven meditation/ self-analysis/ self-discovery techniques- leading towards true experiential realization of what Intelligence "is" or "is not" within each of us supported by the scientific critical method of that intelligence observing phenomena.

what is a mind? Its just matter.
what is matter? Nevermind.

Dear Divya,

Thanks for your intelligent and well-intentioned comments. They are a refreshing change from other criticisms that I generally receive. I agree with your general drift. Yes, the methodology of science is a world apart, as is the methodology of the Vedic seers. Let me offer a quick response.

1. In one of my early books, Quantum Healing, I confronted the phenomenon of spontaneous remission from cancer. This wasn't a topic that had any credibility among oncologists. I risked being lumped with quacks. But rather than feeling trapped between the two camps, I forged ahead, I think successfully, in trying to close the gap.

2. I already do what you suggest. In books like Uncondiitonal Life, Qauntum Healing, and How to Know God, I present my own theory. I am doing the same in a new book on the afterlife. In that book I will discuss evolution at length.

3. The blogosphere is too emotional and truncated in space for me to articulate complete theories.

4. It is your opinion that my ideas verge on the ridiculous so far as science is concerned. I can only say that personal contact with the director of the Max Planck Institute, discussions with Nobel Prize winners, close association with heads of physics departments at leading universities, and annual invitations to address Harvard Medical School help me to believe otherwise.

5. My recent comments about the flaws in Darwinian theory are well established. In no way are they idiosyncrasies of mine. It's true that I give only a brief sketch of each, but reputed experts in the field, as well as their reputed critics, originated all these criticisms of Darwinism, not I. More philosophical critiques of materialism as a whole, such as that mounted by Nietzsche and Kant, are beyond the scope of popular books. I appreciate that more sophisticated readers are familiar with epistemological issues. Please have a bit of confidence that I am aware of them also. I continously spend time reading widely in diverse fields, as I'm sure you do.

It would be rewarding to discuss any of these issues with you at length on this blog.

Love,
Deepak

Deepak,

I think you should write a book "Intelligent Design 101" based on what you have said here.

We can give that to high school students who need to be taught Alternate theories.

I really want you to do that... just to see the reaction from the Bible thumpers.

LOL

Why do we have these unending masturbatory discussions? Who is it that is really prompting this exercise, and why? Is it an attribute of consciousness to examine itself? As St John postulated "In The Beginning was The Word, and the WORD was with GOD, and the WORD was GOD...etc
The WORD was the term used by the Ancients to define SIGNIFICANCE. Significance is the basis of reflexive consciousness. Simply put, for all intents and purposes, before one is able to reflect there is nothing. Not even the observer. Conversely, at the instant of that reflection that s/he is able to make s/he has created himself or herself. This is how GOD had created man in his own image. Since then we have verified that through the simple act of declaration "As a man thinketh, so is he".
Therefore,I agree with Deepak that consciousness seems to be ground zero of all phenomena. Beyond this nothing can be proven to exist or be relevant.
Nothing outside the realm of consciousness can be known. To speculate on such entities is the impotent role of philosophy.
Let us deal with what is possible and disist in this fool's errand called philosophy.

I posted my response to your 12 "questions" last night. You did hold your own well enough on Larry King's show. I just think you do a disservice to the debate when you come upwith these "questions" that are full of mushy logic and fuzzy spiritual hoodoo disguised as science. This is why scientists are reluctant to debate these issues. How do respond to claims that ignore evidence and tout spiritual non-sequitors. Please, read up more on basic biology. Once you have a firm grasp of that, evolution will seem apparent and obvious. Thanks for trying though.

Dr. Chopra,

I admire how you're trying to bring what are fundamentally Hindu values into a Judeo-Christian mindframed audience, and though your struggle may seem uphill at times, at this point you're really the only voice in the West trying to do so, trying to broaden the minds of those who see only black and white, good and evil, and for that, I commend you and hope you continue. A lot of what you said on Larry King last night resonated with things I have read in the Upanishads and Vedas, thousands-of-years-old documents that appeared well before the Bible. India had a rich tradition of science that worked along the very veins you speak of. Today Western scientists feel they have a monopoly on "logic" and the langauge and methodology of science. But as you and those familiar with ancient Indian science know, there are much deeper concepts at play than just evolution or creationism. Keep up the good fight despite the naysayers!

To quote Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov: "Much on earth is concealed from us, but in place of it we have been granted a secret, mysterious sense of our living bond with the other world, with the higher heavenly world, and the roots of our thoughts and feelings are not here but in other worlds. That is why philosophers say it is impossible on earth to conceave the essence of things. God took seeds from other worlds and sowed them on this earth, and raised up his garden; and everything that could sprout sprouted, but it lives and grows only through its sense of being in touch with other mysterious worlds; if this sense is weakened or destroyed in you, that which has grown up in you dies. Then you become indifferent to life, and even come to hate it."

So much hate and vitriol around this issue comes from the culture's alienation from any real sense of the Divine and its interconnection with the physical world. We have lost part of ourselves as a culture, our connection to the mystical and the Divine, and as a consequence beneath the surface we are grieving and frustrated at this loss, so we snipe and berate each other, especially around these questions about the source and creation of Life, the answers to which would go a long way toward triggering the healing of that pain and grief.

First things first people..

We need to take this "Intelligent Design" away from the bible thumpers.

I am not worried about the science folks. They are rational intelligent bunch.

I want to see.. how much of the Intelligent Design would be taught in school as President Bush wants it...as an alternate theory if Deepaks concepts are articulated under the heading of "Intelligent Design".

They are opening the door for alternate theories.. this is time to move in and push the bible thumpers out.

I am really enjoying this.

Never give up Deepak. Keep up the great work!!

Scientists say that we are all here by random chance and that all of life (including us) had to adapt to the environment in order to survive.

How could a non intelligent unconcious random evolutionary process based on "adapting to the environment" know that it is adapting in the first place and is producing order?

How could one random event build upon previous random events without some sort of intelligence behind it? IT WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW IT WAS BUILDING ANYTHING AT ALL.

How did an unconcious process produce conciousness?

How could a non intelligent unconcious random evolutionary process ever produce a life form such as me and you that HAS conciousness and is able to go beyond adapting AND can actually change it's environment?

Deepak,

Excellent article! You have exposed a soft underbelly to current scientific reasoning.

But I am an atheist, so how do I deal with your implications?

To me, the key is your point 4, "Chaos and orderliness coexist, one being necessary for the other."

The scientists have this convoluted notion of entropy to explain reality. Whereas, the religious view is one of the existence of a "force" that brings order and directs us.

Why do you say that one is necessary for the other? Perhaps orderliness is an illusion brought on by an unusual sequence of events (similar to getting 10 tails in flipping a coin 10 times). Perhaps entropy is an illusion brought on by the nature of our being. I don't know.

But you are right, discussing this ideas is vital.

Thanks

Sometimes it helps to look at the way other traditions see issues such as this. In Islam, creation is perpetual, and as GoD is defined as being infinite in every sense, nothing can exist outside or without GoD. Taking this as the frame, there is no debate left between evolution and intelligent design, as they no longer contradict.

Anyway - hope I've not churned things up. My intent is simply to provide a different, perhaps conciliatory perspective.

Deepak,

Although your name means something about giving light but you are a sophisticated stupid, full of garbage information that has been collected through out the human evolution and now you are trying to mix it haphazardly and throw it on the public to get their attention. A true conscious person can not explain the true nature of things with words; it is intrinsic fact of quantum mechanics… the moment you try, it will change its nature.

Of course science can not explain everything but their shit smells better than obsolete religious idiots. However before you ask any question about pre-big-bang situation, do not forget that time did not exist before big bang. If you can visualize this it will enlighten you a bit more and may dissolve few questions.

You said “In some mysterious way Nature knows what it is doing”
Camouflaged old vague religious statement

You said ‘Consciousness may exist in photons”
“Consciousness”… “may”… “photons”… look at the word combination, how ignorant. This proves what I said in my first paragraph.

BTW Divya in her comments did a great job… I couldn’t have said it better…

Inder

Hey Inder,

Did'ja have a bad day??

ray

Deepak,
I was happy to see you on Larry King and to read the points you are making. I do have a question however about the usefulness of putting these things out for people who have not had the experience of consciousness, of the Self.

I think we may be in a similar situation to that which existed at the time of the Buddha, when he urged his students to avoid getting involved in metaphysics (the parallel to our current "scientific" discussions)and instead to follow the dharma and practice. With experience and a higher state of consciousness one can then possibly understand.

I am considering following this advice myself. I have a degree in physics and many years of sadhana and am tempted to get into the fray. I am waiting for the answer.
Bevalyn Crawford

I believe that quantum physics should be introduced into the high schools. But religion should not. We should always endeavor to maintain tolerance and curiosity in our culture. Students are curious. It's too bad that,in school where they learn to read and write and think mathematically, that when they get out, they seem no longer careful from whom they learn. The mind is a curious thing, yet people who study psychology are no longer curious. They rest their intellectual knowledge on the foundations of others. The study of psychology is in its infancy in the West- so why do we beleive it's at its peak? Belief is a funny thing. The correct attitude is whether or not something is true. Let's set up an experiment. If the results are the same time after time after time then we can agree that something is true. Maybe our culture is not looking for truth. Maybe we are content with cleverness and conceit and arrogance and oneupmanship and chopping of the heads of others to make ourselves look taller. I can't think that any of these qualities are part of any spiritual path.

If I can try your patience will a little bit of reading I'd like to offer 3 major exhibits from the defense's bench as Intelligent Design seems to be on trial for heresy by a single-minded prosecutor.

There are dozens of isolated cases that ID is investigating, but these three have captivated me beyond a resonable doubt and I hope it will also start asking intriguing questions in you as well.

Intelligent Design must be based on fundalmental rationality and deductive ability on the part of the inquirer. To interject faith-based creationism and even philosphy would lend crendence to skeptical claims that Intelligent Design is old wine in new bottles and a clever trojan horse faith-based psuedo-science ruse cloaked in the modern synthax of science. In fact, Intelligent Design is not hard-wired to evolution theory as its prime base, it is a broad diversified portfolio in many sciences and disciplines, and that's what skeptics do not want or fail to understand.

Creationism is an old article that would reject astronomy, cosmology, biology, earth sciences, evolution, and any other valid form of discovery mechanism in the modern world. Fundalmentalist creationism should not hold sway in the court of Intelligent Design and not have an creationist emeritus alongside; they are two seperate issues. One is of faith the other of pure deductive rationality with a growing body of work by scientists for whom a 19th century evolutionary decrees is wholly inadequate to explain the totality of everything evolutionary in the 21st century; some 150 years after Charles Darwin's pioneering treatise. Decades and even years in today's rapid buildup of scientific knowledge are enough to render entire standards and scientific hypotheses much less concrete than when they were first introduced.

Creationism has more in common with one-track old baroque mindframes that once lovingly supported flat Earthism in lieu of geography, and if given the chance due to no scientific breakthroughts would possibly claim that alchemy is the better of chemistry, magic is the better of physics, phrenology is the better of nuerology, astrology is the better of astronomy,...ecetera. In short, a creationist agenda that would commandeer and feed the acrimony of scientific materialism is not securing high ground for a new convincing postulate that is making great strides in offering a logical conclusion that Nature is inheritently intelligent, that "intelligence" behind organic and inorganic mechanisms that transitioned inanimate incoherent un-intelligent sub-atomic and atomic particles from a venue of lifelessness to a living state, and life from the ultra-simple primordial into the realm of sentient, conscious, creative ultra-complexity.

For me, "intelligence" does reside natively in the Universe as its natural abode, most visibly detectable in the area of physics and most pronounced in the progressive discovery field of String Theory.

If it is to be believed that matter and energy and the universal laws of gravity, electro-magnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces are commonly composed of infinately small strings, then if I may propose the following:

1) As such small particles that cannot react in their environment being near mass-less, then there is no evolutionary trial and error, random modification or even an accident clause, there are no chances of adaptation or natural selection in this quantum mechanic environment because they are operating in a vaccum and they're nearly immaterial (mass-less). Traditional evolutionary theory cannot apply here, and as such, strings are immutable, forever not able to change or modify. If strings exist, then they were established for a reason in the Universe' beginnings, created in symphony to give matter and energy its resonance and developed properties. This being the case, strings had to be intelligently designed outside the sphere of progressive modular buildup and alteration. They were, they are, they were the original building blocks with purpose to be the ungirding archecture and scaffolding on which matter and energy resides. They were proundly well designed, and design connotates an intelligence. There cannot be any other explanation, that is not faith, that's fact.

2.) Let's also assume atomic and sub-atomic matter is neither animated nor intelligent nor coherent to an intelligent order or that is "knows something". If you don't believe that, then you believe in Intelligent Design implicitly, but let's assume that atomic matter is perpertually dead and unconscious. Presuming then that atoms are intuitively unconscious and possess no order-making capability, what is the guidance system, the helm control of these atoms and sub-atoms to constructively manuvoer themselves to align and join with another atoms? And this new body of atoms to co-join with a larger community of atoms to the point of making elements? What is the incentive, the intuitive drive or reason for atoms to arbitrarily come together into larger and larger pools if we've decided that atoms cannot reason and have any purpose? There had to be some elemental guidance "force" or system at work, materialist science would point to a naturalistic physical process. That is a half compromising answer, when we know that atoms form the modular building blocks of life and without this large-scale Universal melding of atoms nothing would be remotely possible. It is the forceful purposeful manuvering of atomic structures and atoms together that forms the second tier after basic strings on the path to successive design. This isn't faith, this is fact.

3) In human evolution, I accept skeptically most but not all of Darwinian evolution theory. I accept natural selection, modification, alternation subject to environmental conditions. What I cannot fully accept is the sheer pell-mell randomness and raw accidental ascendancy of mankind if we are to believe Darwin's crux agrument for a common origin that all Earthly life originated from a communal primordial sludge. If we believe that all of Earth's lifeforms from insects to mammals to bacteria to the three-toed sloth to salmon share a common ancestry and heritage with humans, then that begs the definitive question of when this transitional creature or "missing link" was subject to a faster evolutionary pathway.

In other words, the proto-ancestor of humans was for millions of years on par and on equal terms in capability and thinking with the rest of the animal kingdom. It can be assumned then that the creatures that would evolve into humans was indistinguishable from the rest of the animal kingdom. At some point however, this creature that was to become human had come into a quantum leap--something that science does not deny. This quantum leap meant one of two things, being moved or transitioned onto an accelerated evolutionary track or lane that far outperformed the rest of the animal kingdom or that this transitional creature was guided or "seasoned" to march past the evolutionary milestones faster being now the possessor of a superior acumen and capability than the rest of the animal marathon field could muster. At some point there was a transition achieved, a synapse bridged or other phenamenon, science calls this the "missing link" or the "quantum leap of Man" which you scarely find an evolutionist who will dispute; and an extra quality inbued to this transitional creature allowed for its remarkable growth.

It is open to debate whether this transitional creature was "engineered", "aided" or interdicted by natural or supernatural alien forces; it would be simplistic in the extreme to write off human evolution to the muse of naturalistic equality in the animal kingdom; clearly not one species being among millions of competitors ever reached cognitive, creative and higher order consciousness exhibited by our own species. Clearly there was no "equality" when we factor in the exponential growth of humanity. That is not faith, that's fact.

There were millions of distinct species and sup-species to inhabit Earth from the genesis of life on Earth, and from all these, the odds that only one sentient, creative, self-conscious, civilization-building being that can fathom and understand art, love, beauty, truth, empirical methodology, mortality, and organization emerged while the rest did not, or even remotely come in second place is the largest compromising presumption neo-Darwinists could make. The odds that only one choice species dawned the capability to supremely drawf the landscape of Earth without peer or a close competitor using only the laws of unguided chance, random luck, trial and error, adaptability, surviveablity, and modification is an incomplete picture.

With our closet kin, our chimpanze cousins we share a 97% gene commonality, and truth has it that this extra 3% that was an epoc-making difference-maker of collossal proportions. I hope Intelligent Design harvests more fruitful knowledge of RNA and DNA to solve this baffling sphinx of why "we made it" and our closet relatives did not. It is clear, we are 97% close in proximity in genes yet seperated by a Universe. That's not faith, that's fact.

--------------------

In the end, evolutionist theory science is so dependent on neo-Darwinism as the prime exporter of scientific materialism that is has built itself up as the only must-have explanation. It is ardently defended and castled in by mainstream academia to the point of religious fervor without admitting any daylight into its questioned and glaring incompleteness. It is this very incompleteness amid other "missing links" that all gaining sciences and theories work on to bring about better improved closure to any scientific field; all science is juried and critiqued to the point of absoluteness and surety before it can become a scientific "law" something Dawinism has failed to accomplish in over 150 years. The noblest cause of science should not make a stout defense of anything, not even by a knot of Darwinist bishop-soldiers until there is "absolutely certainty" beyond a reasonable doubt and irrefuteable evidence to cement and not just assumedly paper over the yawning gaps of neo-Darwinism.

Skeptics who might have decried that String Theory would never hold up a decade ago have yet to see fruit being borne in 2007 with the introduction of super-atomic smashers to reveal glimpses into the amazing worlds of gravitons, super-symmetry, ect. That is the resistance that theory must tred across to gain acceptance and credibility, the same resistance Darwinism had to cut through to find its place in science a hundred years ago. Probably String Theory will be a bona fide established law of the scientific community with in 50 years without today's training wheels. This is exactly the same kind of resistance that Intelligent Design is meeting with skeptics that are trying to cast it in a bad light as some renaissance of a faith-based initiative. Where skeptics wish to exploit and attack Intelligent Design's nascent beginning findings is in the evolutionary arena only as a way to undermine its overall gathering knowledge in and outside human evolution.

More advances material sciences are welcomed, and ID's suggestive evidence will be hard to overlook in a few decades' time because science doesn't rest on incomplete controversial laurels but ultimately to unlock barely detectable truth. ID's gaining canopy of solid "circumstantial" evidence that the Universe is not just chaotic without rhyme and reason is good for competitive science itself. But if we look more fundalmentally with a green eye shade auditor's approach to the precept that life from utter wanton lifelessness couldn't have manifested itself so intelligently just on its own, we might uncover truths we have always longed to find all that based on 21st century technology, theory and science. As Man is the best representative of known certified intelligence, and there is intelligence in animated vessel that is Man, there is intelligence elsewhere outside of our own chauvinistic self-conceited view of the Universe. We'll see how far ID has developed and matured in 10 years, I'm positive ID will have gained a lot more rational scientific converts by then.

See you in the brave new future of String Theory and Intelligent Design, an adult and more deductive future!

Esoteric Christianity should never be taught in the schools unless it it part of a comparative religion course. It is based on magic. To believe that water and bread is changed into the body and blood of Jesus the Annointed(and then to eat it!) is magical. To believe that a priest can absolve one of their mistakes on the path in the confessional is magic. To believe that Jesus will come out of the sky and make things all better is magical thinking. He didn't during WW2. He didn't during WW1. He didn't during Vietnam, Korea, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the French & Indian Wars. The faith, however, of the practioner is everything. Our intent, our kavanaugh, our thoughts, are everything. We know from science that creation is vibratory. Do not our thoughts vibrate? And isn't He listening? Does not a sparrow fall to the earth without God's Knowing?

Hi Deepak, gee what happened to the good ol' days of just seeing the usual names on these blogs? I think that appearance on LK really boosted the comments. Your post yesterday was definately an increase. Isn't that what Mallika blogged about recently--creating a BUZZ? I think it's happened!

First of all, I think you were AWESOME on the show last night! I would love to see a special LK show with just you and that pastor guy sitting next to you (I forgot his name...) really getting into this subject and TOTALLY going at it!

I just want to make my point here. This is a topic that I have been fascinated with my entire life. Reading all these comments, I see that many people have many viewpoints and valid things to say. One thing I always remember when I am discussing this with people is to KEEP AN OPEN MIND! There are too many people that don't want to do that. (Including some on these comments). They don't want to listen. They want to tell you you're wrong and tell you what to believe and how to believe it. THIS REALLY BOTHERS ME! Why do these people insist on being right? I DON'T KNOW!!!

So anyways Deepak, keep up what you are doing. (I know you will!) You continually inspire me and open my mind to new thoughts. Thanks for your words.

P.S. Can't wait for your book on the afterlife, as this is another one of my favorite subjects!

Dear Deepak,

Thank you for your detailed response which left me feeling a bit guilty as I'm not particularly interested in this topic. My comments were inspired after seeing you on the show and I do have a genuine desire to see you succeed just to show 'em. So I felt compelled to point out that both the Christian camp and the science camp is not where it's at.

The only other thing I want to add and I'm not even sure it's relevant is this: Sanskrit literature is full of creation hymns, each one slightly different from the other. My favorite one happens to be the Naasadiya Sukta which leaves the issue mysteriously open. Anyway, the point they seem to establish is that time is cyclic, and apart from this particular fact it does not seem to be of too much significance what was there before. (We can never know). So beyond a certain point it becomes a waste of time and energy thinking about these things. We know what we have at this present moment and that should be enough.

To all those who throw up their hands at this nasty debate, I just want to thank Depak Chopra for putting in his two cents and for being strong enuf to do so. Some have written here "what's the point?" It brings to mind two Buddhist sayings: Hast thou attuned thyself to hunaity's great pain, o candidate for Light? and,..Wouldst thou be saved and hear the whole world cry? Thank you Depak Chopra for not letting us think we know all we need to know. Civilizations rise and fall. America is young but already people beg in the streets.

ID is just more right wing political bull shit. Thanks to the Republican majority we have to tolerate this crap: The war in Iraq, raping the environment, anti abortion emotionalism, no conceled weapons posters on public building, runaway medical costs, loss of retirement benefits, reduction of social services, low paying jobs, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Who can afford to be a Republican?

Sooo...what is wrong with those people on the Huffington Post forever bashing Deepak? They must need a great big hug!

I am a christian. As far as intelligent design goes I don't know enough about it to know if it is a sheep in wolves clothing. President Bush endorsing it doesn't mean anything to me because I don't agree with everything he's done.

I said all that to say this. The main message of the Bible is that all people have sinned against God and are seperated from God. Jesus Christ came to remove that sin for all who will put their faith in Him. By doing this a person is restored to God.

There is only one God who created the universe. God tells us this through the Bible, but the main message is the redemption found in Christ alone.

I'm afraid the intelligent design debate is a distraction, from the Gospel of the Good News of Jesus Christ. A person can debate intelligent design to death and come to the conclusion that there is a God who made creation. That fact doesn't save you, faith in Christ alone saves, and that is what christians need to remember is the most important pursuit we are to share with others.

Mr. Chopra,

It is refreshing to see someone pursue knowledge and truth even after reading a holy text,and by being true to themselves. Bravo!

I have read your books, but I believe the three basic questions still remain:

1.) Who am I?
2.) Where do we come from?
3.) Where are we going?

You are obviously a brilliant man that could very well be ahead of his time. Which means in order to become relevant today, to the point that fundementalists will have to stop, listen and give serious thought to your views, you must (like other posts have mentioned) devise a theory of your own.

Mr. Chopra, I would love to see what your own theory looks and sounds like. You have a great respect for the ancient Vedic texts and I applaud your attempt to bridge the gap b/w East & West through quantum physics. Please, take it all a step further.

You believe we live in a field of infinite possibilities, so is it possible that you yourself provide us with an answer to the 3 basic questions I have listed and your own? Then proceed to prove your answers as Einstein did, in a science lab?

I am waiting for the day you do sir, go win that nobel prize while you are at it, cheers!

Hey Cappy,

This is Laurence, "A guy in a dinner". Your post in the initial blog intrigued me. It led me to read every response up till now. One thing I would like to say is lighten up dude. It is apparent that this Deepak guy is so well read in the sciences and your suggestion that he read up on some basic biology reads like a weak apology.

Deepak,

I don`t really know you and the critisisms from either side of this so far, non-debate and the emotion you have generated leave me questioning.

The more I read, which has been every single blog up till now, the more I begin to value my own private life.

At the moment I avoid anyone that wants to tell me anything about there "great ideas" of what life is all about. I am aware that the answers are tucked within me.

Up until recently I have been the kind of person who if someone told me it was red and gave me they`re reasons I would go around telling everyone it was red.

The next day when someone told me it was blue and gave me they`re reasons I would go around telling evryone it was blue.

I never trusted myself enough to ask myself what color I thought it was. Since January of this year I have been undergoing a radical core shift in my life and am now looking for my own "color".

It is not that I am skeptical and I am not suggesting tuning out to evryone and anything they have to say or offer. I am simply finding for the first time in my life that I actually know what the color is. Or rather what the color is "for me". I just needed to trust myself. With this I may actually be able to contribute something of value here. Here being our marvelous universe.

I am very happy that your blog has stimulated me into commenting here and that you offer this opportunity and also that you take the courage to go where many of us would like to go yet are to afraid to go.

I wish I had something to directly contribute to the debate on ID verses evolution. Maybe if anything I could suggest that someone attempt to comment on these two systems of thought from the place of "ID complimenting evolution". I don`t know.

Thanx again.
Laurence

Deepak,

The intelligent design that you are talking about is way beyond the current backer of this theory in USA. Public perception of Intelligent design as another form of getting creationism into schools is absolutely correct - that is what it is all about.

Your discussion of intelligent design as an explanation of the limitations of evolution theory is absolutely on the mark. But the Christian fundamentalists in this country would not understand your arguments even in a thousand years - so it is useless entering into a dialog with them.

Surprising thing about this debate is that when you compare this issue with how it is dealth with in a highly religious/spiritual society like India. In India, each sect of each religions has their own beliefs about origins of life. But I have never heard people debate about what to teach in the science class -- in the science class they only teach science and the consensus in the scientific community currently backs the evolution theory which of course does not explain everything but sure is the best explanation so far.

Sorry, In my previous essay I meant exoteric Christianity,not esoteric.

Deepak: you have the amazing gift of being able to write total nonsense (consious photons?) and making it sound "intelligent". I guess this is why you have so many followers, most of them blind as witnessed on this blog. Have you noticed that almost no real scientists have posted anything? And the few, like cappy, wasted their time because you did not make any effort to address his valid points. You simply spouted more psycho-babble. I must admit, you have a good racket going.

Willie

Deepak,

I'm always impressed at your ability to engage in discussions that are "hot" and to stand up and take the heat. It takes courage. Just reading the comments on the blog and the attacks on you, you handle it with such...love. I'm proud of who you are as a human being and a spiritual being. You actually seem to live what you speak and are a great inspiration to me.

Love,

Jennifer

Intelligence in the universe shouldn't be confused with intelligent design. Creation is a continuous and an eternal process with an infinite number of possiblities.

Allright so now that spleens, hearts, mouths and brains etc have been vented on this oh so world changing issue of evolution and intelligent design can we now return to the subject of war and peace.?Or are we going to allow ourselves to be skilfully manipulated into putting this subject matter on the back burner?
How easily peacemakers are dragged in to warring with each other. How easily we get sidetracked into angering each other. How very much like puppets we are .
Eldora
How many of the human race died today in Baghdad?Afghanistan ? Elsewhere? by the bullet of weapons which certainly are evolving as we speak and write into more and more efficient killing machines!Of course we must not at all forget the weapons of mass destruction!

Allright so now that spleens, hearts, mouths and brains etc have been vented on this oh so world changing issue of evolution and intelligent design can we now return to the subject of war and peace.?Or are we going to allow ourselves to be skilfully manipulated into putting this subject matter on the back burner?
How easily peacemakers are dragged in to warring with each other. How easily we get sidetracked into angering each other. How very much like puppets we are .

How many of the human race died today in Baghdad?Afghanistan ? Elsewhere? by the bullet of weapons which certainly are evolving as we speak and write into more and more efficient killing machines!Of course we must not at all forget the weapons of mass destruction!

Eldora

"To be or not to be that is the question?

Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune?"

He is ....

Deepak,

I just spent a week with you at seduction of spirit and just enjoyed every minute watching and listening you jump into this very issue. Often when you speak it is if you are saying my thoughts. Thank you for being the front man-- you will bring science, medicine and GOD (intelligent design- SOurce whatever you want to call it) to those who are ready for the information and can use it to transform this very existance as it is percieved today. For those who cannot listen right now-- that is okay for those who are angry that is okay. We need you we need your opposition, we need your balance in the universe and thank you for being you. There will be enough of those that transform all of our existance into a reality that many of you cannot imagine.

Deepak--- As you mention spontaneous remission. I had a tumor and it disappeared. It was through meditation and a shift within myself. This is possible and as soon as the medical field more widely accepts this is possible. People will not be running to surgery and oncology to get rid of a tumor or a disease they will connect with INTELLIGENT DESIGN with in themselves.

I will see you at seduction of silence and look forward to every minute.

keep up the good work.

Critque-I think to reach some of the masses in explaining your views be a little more direct. KISS:-)

Love and peace!!!!!!!!!!!!

STS

Well, such emotions, such anger, such reactions. Wow. I couldn't read them all. So brainy. So...Christian. So much in the ring, duking it out. Such negativity. Such contempt. Such rigidity. I grew up in a Christian church and have this fundamental (uh-oh, dangerous word, NOT fundamentalist, please, Jesus not that!) affection and acceptance of what I take Jesus to be. But I am no Christian, like these people, and never will be, thank you. So many are so rigid and hateful and self-rightous, such poor advertising for the most bullying religion in history. Ugh! And you snooty stuck up bitchy brainy contemptuous intellectuals, with your big degrees and haughty attitudes. Phewwwww! Stinkers! Hateful arrogant stinkers. Like I said yesterday on this interesting blog, it's about stretching one's view, instead of digging in and being a dick about it, to rather stretch, consider, wonder, increase the curiosity, the wonder, the enjoyment of discovery, the possibility of a wiser, more mature, more whole, more complete, more cosmic level of truth. Ideas grow, these are all theories, language used to probe the unknown that we all yearn to know a little bit more. To his credit, Deepak does this. He's an honorable and cool guy for these ideas, so lighten up, people and reach into the unknown, with your shriveled up little raisin hearts as well as your hawk-eyed intellects. Peace. Peace. Peace. Namaste. Praise the Lord. Om nama shivaya. Sweet Light, pass into our hearts and minds that we may all live and love as one, the one, the one and only one. Love and light, for Christ's sake.

I won't have enough time to write all my thoughts until I retire so I apologize if some are a bit disjointed:

I find the term "mythology" used to describe ancient religions ironic. There is the great potential for today's religions to be thrown in that boat one day when new ones come along. Can you imagine Christianity (or any other major current religion)someday being taught in a mythology class a few thousand years from now?

I am not naive enough to believe we currently have the answers to the origins of the universe and beyond, life, everything that is. I think there are many things we do not know and may never know about this subject but that the human condition of the realization of our impending death requires us to pursue the answer.

My opinion of people that believe they have all the answers whether through religion or science is that they are not open minded and I appreciate the opportunity to have a forum for the subject, thank you Mr. Chopra.

I do not believe in a creator in the religious sense that requires devotion, adoration or faith. Again, I do not know if there is "a creator" at all. I am open to the idea that something started it all however not in the sense that that "something" requires devotion, adoration or faith (the only places those requirements are mentioned are religious texts and I have not been able to locate any scientific proof they were not created by man). I do not know what that something would be if it is at all but to know would be fenomenal and certainly answer the oldest questions in history.

If we only knew for certain.... everyone would have to accept it like you accept that your nose is your nose or water is water. Perhaps a concrete truth would put an end to religious wars and intolerance. Or, if it were found that there is no creator, at least in the religious sense, would it cause mass hysteria and suicide for all those that would come to the stark realization that when they die it is final and there is no soul or godly reward for having believed or whatever unproven beliefs one has about what happens after death?

I think these are really thought provoking ideas to consider and be debated in a non-threatening healthy way, as petrifying as some of the potential consequenses might be for some.

There are comparative religions classes taught at institutions of higher learning. Maybe it needs to start earlier in another form. Mythology is taught in the public school system. Maybe we need a class called "Human belief Systems" that encompasses the major belief systems throughout history and today in the world through an informative non-biased curricula. It might help us to be more tolerant. Maybe instead of taking religion out of the classroom we simply need to not promote a particular one there and expose young people to a variety of them so they have a better understanding of what people outside of their immediate family, community, culture believe in. Non-belief should be discussed as well.

In my opinion, science has nothing to do with belief systems. I think it should continue on its own and not be mixed in any way with religion. I am satisfied with the way science was taught to me in the public school system. It was based on scientific fact with the understanding that there are missing pieces of information, facts yet to be discovered and popular theories which were clearly stated as theories not facts.

I have a hard time understanding why we can't accept the fact that we do not have all the answers and simply continue to search for them. I realize that the vast majority of humanity believe they do have the answer, through faith in one of the vast array of belief systems. And of course, everyone feels they know "the real deal" and have the one and only "correct" belief system. I think right there should be a little hint that we are off kilter on what we think we know to be true.

The alternative is to face brutal unknowns of how it all came to be before it was and what the outcome will be when we are no longer. I just think it is too much for most to deal with, and so they don't.

DP wrote:--

"InDtelligence in the universe shouldn't be confused with intelligent design. Creation is a continuous and an eternal process with an infinite number of possibles."

To backpeddle to some earlier comments, I can understand the fear and anxiety of many skeptics with respect to Intelligent Design, which implies by name alone a supernatural or alien activist force or pattern-weaver that is judicious with direct on-going "engineering" that naturalist science sees as a derogatory attack on progressive successive modification, natural selection, adaptation, and raw luck.

Direct "engineering" thought is the far right wing of ID; the more liberal camp sees Nature as "inherently intelligent" and knows what is doing within a broad baseline but not within infinite possibility. Infinite possibility would connotate that anti-matter and non-matter is perhaps also influenced by degrees for creative purpose, which cannot be the case for our frame of reference where matter constitutes life in "our" Universe.

In a new class of emerging science, there is an order, an elegance, a well-defined mathematical symmetry that String Theory possesses that's closing strongly on being validated in a short number of years. The three cardinal absolutes that mankind has discovered so far are: 1.) math / geometry..ec 2.) beauty or the recognition of it as a sub-conscious even purported view into an invigorating prototypical pattern 3.) and the self-consciousness.

String Theory has pure math prowess on its side as its main anchor and its about to lend strong credence to a harmonious symphony of strings resonating and vibrating at different pulses producing matter's and energy's unique and distinct properties.

The trillion dollar deeper question DP is:--

How exactly does or by what means does a string's vibrations impart its reactive and observeable qualities to matter and physical forces to make them what they are? To ask this question is to also ask something familiar and fundalmental in nature, and that of how the sensation of pain reaches the self from the material body. The body does not feel pain, the "entity" or "being" encased the body feels the resulting pain, which traverses the material body and is interpreted by the brain as electro-impulses. But the self never receives those discrete electrical packets, they get converted by the brain and then translated by a chemical synthax, after the translation it is ferried across some hidden pathway or sypanse that crosses the material electrical-current driven body only to be re-constituted by the "self" to feel or know that particular pain's sensation. It's this intermeditary ferrying stuff or vehicle seperating the material and "self" or life itself (some earlier comment to an an island of negative entrophy), that's presumed to be the intelligence-carrier in Nature.

I'll agree that creation and creativity is set in motion but not with infinite possibilities however, but partially that would be a world-class stretch into the philosophical.

I love these posts by the way.

I appreciate you Deepak, you offer us other ways to observe. I won't 'believe' in any dogmatic religious presentation including the religion of science. I remain sceptical prefering to listen and blend 'theories' into continuing theories and making sense in my own way. I refuse to bend to facist fundamental religious terrorist ideas of 'hell'. Where's the burn forever come from...don't all stars eventually fall victim to scientific entropy and extinguish? Oh ya god doesn't believe in Science but you're on the computer and watching the tv. We did drop the bomb. These aren't religious beliefs, they are real. Should the world go out in armegeddon style fury...obviously it won't be 'intelligent design' but 'idiotic design'. The creator's gonna go through all this to smoke it? NOT. Who cares about evolution or ID? What matters is 'thou shalt not kill'. Perhaps it's because the intelligent designer has set you up and maybe you just can't hear the CHRIST when he tells you to 'love thine enemy' and 'as you treat the least of these so you treat me'.
Einstien said 'An individual must retain his way of thinking so as to not get lost in the MAZE of POSSIBILITIES. However NO ONE can be sure of having taken the right path least of all me." Lastly do the burning damned in hell provide the energy for the heavens? So Muslim heaven runs off the burning Christians and the Christian heaven runs off the burning Muslims...that's some evolution and intelligent design. Hopefully we can all realize that suffering comes in many forms and compassionate love will be the only way we will evolve out of violence.

"In an earlier post I pointed out 12 other gaps that still need repairing. I hope you consult them before reading on."

Deepak,

As I commented on last night, your 12 points are completely invalid because they are based on a fundamental ignorance of evolutionary theory and all that lies behind it. It does not take an expert to know this, as it is painfully obvious even to someone such as myself who has no formal education in biology/chemistry/physics other than that acquired with any university-level education and a passing interest in biology.

I do not mean this is a mean-spiritied way, for as I said before I respect much of your work, but the origins of life/the universe it not an area in which you excel. You can continue to put forth simplistic arguments that are easily refuted by anyone with knowledge of the subject matter, and those arguments will be believed by many people who read them. However, even assuming that your conclusions are right, your arguments for them are completely wrong (which does not speak well as to the likelihood of your conclusions being correct). It is unfortunate that you would be willing to act as an instrument of such blatant disinformation, as that is contrary to everything that (as far as I can tell) you hold dear. I implore you, please at least understand the subject matter you are attacking before you make your objections. I would be more than willing to listen to objections you may have to evolution, if only they were based on a solid foundation.

The notion that there is some intelligence at work in the "design" of this universe is horrific to contemplate, for the "design" seems laughably flawed. Why, for example, design a universe in which life must feed on other life? Why not design a universe in which life is powered by some other mechanism than eating? But to design a universe in which cheetahs, for example, MUST kill baby antelope in order to survive -- well, it seems a bit sadistic to me. I much prefer the notion that there is no intelligence at work here -- rather, it is just the way things are. Or better yet, it is a drama, an act, a play -- there is no meaning to it, there is no purpose (ahhh...).

Im not a scientist or have a phd nor do i claim to be even remotly inteligent, i can't even spell very well...but i do know a few things and they go as follows. 1) evolution has more holes then a pasta strainer. 2)religion and religious extremist are ruining mankind, bible thumpers are dangerous to everyone and must stay out of the schools unless maybe litature class. 3)Qauntum physics will change "everything" in the not to far future.
and last but not least 4)Deepak is a gift to this world and we should be listening.

thanks.

C'mon good people. The intelligent designer created it all, then it created evolution to explain it. True, it left out some stuff, waiting until so called intelligent beings evolve enough to understand the explanations.

Get over it, get used to it.

good wishes, Deepak Chopra. i read several of your books.

interesting comments on your blog.

ancient yogic search for truth has been an eye-opener for me. that self-awareness/conciousness rates lowly as a subject for inquiry to so many 'western culture minds' is quaint.

if there were a goddess/god, why would evolution, as one form of creation, be forbidden to such. and, who would deny manifest * cosmic conciousness / universal mind *...the right to both privacy, and the right to reveal itself.

an atheist can be like a person sitting in a dark cave, who says, "because i am sitting in this black cave, i now proclaim loudly, and with utmost certainty that light cannot exist"

some will even revile and ridicule those who have seen the light, but in the cosmic pageant, that matters little.

some choose to sit by the light of their own candle and radiate love. awareness then can expand into knowledge. all becomes one.

* give me the love to love you forever, and forever love me; for i am yours, and you are mine *

Hi Deepak,

Looks like a lot of belief systems are being threatened. Both scientific and religious.

R

Jack-- You said' "I'll agree that creation and creativity is set in motion but not with infinite possibilities however, but partially that would be a world-class stretch into the philosophical."

Your blog was very intriguing but why not infinite possiblities.. Start observing your actions through the day and become aware of your choices and how these choices lead to infinite possiblities-- Report back it is a fun game when you start to observe how all the pcs. fit together like a puzzle.

Robert-- YOu are soo angry" I love it. Keep the fuel on the fire. As for the data... you do not seem to bring any concrete information to the table of debate--- if this was a live debate I am afraid you would not be victorious. I suggest you do a little research on Dr. Chopra and his eduction and the company he keeps you might be surprised that he is surrounded by some of the most brilliant people in the world, both in the academic reality and the religious- spritual reality.

And for all of you right wingers if you looked at Deepak's soul profile you would find Jesus as one of Deepak's hero's---

Listen before thy speak and allow thyself to see..

Rocky

GOD said in HIS word he created it and it is as he says. I thank GOD because he enabled me to simply believe what HE has said and not to struggle my whole life doing research on the what some people thought was true and then finding that such a thing never exists.

Mankind never wants to humble himself to believe and obey the WORD of GOD. This is root cause of our disobedience. It has not changed.
I want to say this to all those who do not want to support GOD has created this UNIVERSE.

MY GOD ( ONE TRUE TRIUNE GOD : GOD THE FATHER, GOD THE SON - Jesus Christ & GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT) EXTENDS A LOVING ARM WAITING FOR YOU TO RETURN TO HIM. IT IS HIS CHARACTER TO LOVE YOU INSPITE OF YOU ADAMANT IN NOT BELIVING HIS WORD & DENYING HIM. BECAUSE HE IS THE LOVING GOD WHO CREATED YOU.

I expect that HE enable you to understand & humble yourself before GOD in submission, & obedience to HIS WORD & be blessed.

- EDWIN ( MAN CREATED & FASHIONED BY GOD )

Edwin,

Do you realize that Deepak believes in God as many others do???

Yor God, MY GOD, Source, Creator, --- I hate to break it to you but they are all the same God and it is wonderful you find peace there as you should but do not think other's do not find the same peace in "their God"

Peace MAN!

To Sir Deepak: Only a "True Teacher," and a "Teacher of Truth," would have taken on the task you did when you brought "Attention to your 'Intention'-blog," in the manner that you did on Larry King.

It is easy to see why Larry King himself sooo...values your presence and energy when the topic(s) require the courage to step out, even beyond the tip of Chinvat's "cutting-edge," or as in the days of old (20 years ago!), Shirley MacClaines, "to get to the fruit of the tree, one must go out on a limb!"

Funny, how you went beyond the tip of the material limb and just sat out their floating and levitating away--while carrying on that discourse with that endless grin!

It still brings laughter to my heart, and mind, to recall the many times the cameras caught you grinning like the "Cat that Ate the Canary!"

It is a very good thing, I think, to see all the "suppressed hate and anger, the need-to-be
'Right,'" (Christian or otherwise!)--be able to come up and be "Ex"-pressed outwardly; it is a great vent, or portal, the Chopras and Shekhar have founded for this real-ease to occur!

When I "see" the humorous part of my mind take the "view from above," I see Wayne Dyer standing at the edge of the abyss you are "being floated over"--in spite of the wobbling effect of the rancor and malice that is sometimes ex-pressed, especially when you hit one of those "im-pressive" buttons-of-truth, like you did with so many--and I watch Dr. Dyer laughing and smiling while standing "hidden behind the veils of the stage"--and parroting his own teaching about "the little old lady driving along in her 1965 blue Chevy Impala, at 30 miles-per-hour, holding up the building I-5 rush-hour traffic," being a teacher to the rest of us, that God specifically placed in our way--especially with her being completely unaware of all the fingers being flipped at her because she is only 4'10" tall and has to sit on a phone book to see over the dashboard--while she is smiling as she drives along, oblivious to anything but the smell of the Pacific Ocean.

I am left with the feeling, "I want to learn to teach like that--like you do now, as well, and even better than, the Maharshi!"

Thanks for wielding Excalibur so handily, and in the face of "giant dinosaurs, the ones with bird-wings, and a 'dragon's breath' blowing very hot winds at you."

I found it soooo....interesting that Larry King presented you as a "Spiritual Advisor," even though you've studied and taught at the most prestigious and respected of medical and scientific institutions, yet you were "hammered" from both the "scientific and religious" polarities!

Continue to make them smile as you continue the training and refinement with James-in-the-Hills-Man!--Dave

To me a world where I am allowed to have my place, without someone coming in to my life over and over again just to spoil my excitement and up-hold their way of life is a cherished thing to me.
Deepak we are all your guests in this wonderful and maybe to some hateful world you have opened up for all of us, it is your hard work on yourself, that we are a privelaged to have entered here.
All I can say is that my radio will be tuned into you forever, no matter how outside the box I seem... and to those who don't like the music on this station, please tune in somewhere else for the moment, because you are just as free as we.

I think it is a lot simpler to say that intelligence or consciousness is a property that emerges from complex of information processing. Just because it is not reducible (many macroscopic properties of matter and energy such as the property of phase, i.e. being liquid, solid, or gaseous, are not reducible) does not mean we need to resort to such ridiculous statements as "photons are conscious".

Deepak wrote:
"In one of my early books, Quantum Healing, I confronted the phenomenon of spontaneous remission from cancer. This wasn't a topic that had any credibility among oncologists. I risked being lumped with quacks. But rather than feeling trapped between the two camps, I forged ahead, I think successfully, in trying to close the gap."

This is it! This is what is important to understand in this discussion. Many readers seem to instantly take sides and respond accordingly. Deepak is not taking sides, he is closing the gap. He is not against the old theories, he is "forging ahead", presenting a perspective that includes and transcends what most of us perceive today.

It is not about science/secularity versus religion. This is not a fight :) Any "side" that continues its search honestly and without prejudices will end up in a place where all views meet. It is about the expansion of our understanding of our own nature. If we don't cling to our divided, limited perspective, we have a chance to expand together. It's like spreading our wings and stepping out of our respective nest, for the first time :)

I am glad you guys are challenging Deepak and y'all need to. Most of you guys challenging him seem sincere in your challenge.

Please continue to do so.

Hopefully Deepak would address these genuine challenges.

Its difficult to have such a debate with the Bible thumpers. There..you are just left with shaking your head at their stupidty.

Hopefully..that won't happen with Deepak.

;)

PS: I still hope some teacher in Kansas would give out Deepaks ID theory to their students. Not that that Deepak's theories have stood the test of peer review/challege. But it has to be hijacked from the "Creationists".

A very important consideration has to constantly be reflected upon. If there is a CHANCE (a chance) that there is a heaven and there is a hell - and that hell is eternal punishment - is it reasonable to seriously consider the claims of Christ? If there is no heaven or hell - then we are OK no matter what. BUT - IF THERE IS A HELL - would not it be WISE to contemplate the claims of Christ? Remember - Christ rose from the dead - as no other person has. That my friends - IS SIGNIFICANT.
Remember a statistic that has never changed - ONE OUT OF ONE DIES - Jesus provides a traveled road for Eternal Life - Why not seriously consider Christ and His claims?

Hi Deepak,

Once again I really enjoying hearing/reading your thoughts.

I'd like to respond to the following quote from your post above.

"We probably have to grant that evolution isn't accidental. Of course there is huge debate over this, but setting all prejudice aside, the simple fact is that the universe could have remained an inchoate mass of heated gases moving relentlessly toward their fate of becoming cool gases. The universe took another route, one which involves negative entropy."

I must say that this kind of argument always troubles me. This is essentially saying "Well, the probability that life form emerges from the Universe on its own is extremely low, so it must have been caused by some other external force."

With respect, this is a weak argument.

An event can happen regardless of how extremely low its probability might be, as long as it is higher than zero. It might be a fluke. But flukes happen around us all the time.

Maybe the emergence of life form is the biggest fluke in the history of our Universe. That doesn't mean it couldn't have happened on its own.

Maybe the Universe was playing a weekly lottery with an infinitesimal chance to win the prize of 'life'. Why can't we accept that it won?

And remember, the Universe had 2 important allies.

1. There is no time limit. It doesn't have to play just one week and stop. The Universe could play again and again, and never had to stop until it wins. And when you get to play for billions of years, suddenly the odds look better.

2. There are also billion of draws happening at any one time. Not only was this lottery held on the planet earth, but at every planet that orbits every star in every galaxy - billions and billions of them.

So here's the question. If the Universe gets to play this lottery in many places forever until it wins, wouldn't it win eventually? You can make the chance of winning as low as you like. As long as the odds are higher than zero, the Universe would have to win at least once eventally.

If you look at it this way, life form almost has to happen sooner or later. You may argue that it happened way earlier than it should have statistically. Even so, that's ok. Because flukes do happen. And afterall, it's as likely that the lottery is won on week 3 as it is on week 5 trillion.

Victor

If a hypothesis cannot be tested or verified, it has no scientific value. Did God create the Big Bang, and define all of the physical laws that set this universe into motion? Then, perhaps, the energy and matter in the universe, under these laws, are what allowed life to form. And these life forms tend to survive or die, to mutate, to vary - in ways (or under parameters) that God set?

Let's say, "yes, that's exactly how it happened". Personally, that's how I view things. But what does this add to any scientific discussion? Can it be tested, proven, or disproven? Maybe believing in ID would make you happier, or more accepted by the devout - but does it add anything to testing the theory of evolution?

Well, I guess you could say, "why not try?" Or, "why not find someway to get God back into the classroom?"

And you could also say, "why such hostility towards God?"

And, "why are you scientists so elitist?"

I would answer, but no one seems interested in honest discussion any more. It's jingoism ("elitist") and hatred and no respect for the views of others. I do not mean to imply that I am including Deepak Chopra in that horrible generalization.

The paradox of tolerance: if you respect the viewpoints of others, even those who are intolerant, then your viewpoint will be shouted down and dismissed.

I support a look into Intelligent Design. I am neither a Christian, nor a bible thumper. I appreciate greatly Deepak's centered and calm contribution to the debate at large re: Darwinian evolution vs Intelligent Design. To put it in a general and humble sense, if science is to remain a legit player, then it must open itself to discussion, debate and new ideas! If ID does not hold water, time will bear that out. Let's hear what the other camp has to say, and bear in mind, again, those who support ID are not necessarily coming from a biblical point of view. It is my hope that out of this debate, the truth that lies somewhere between ID and Darwin will become manifest. That truth may be found in an experimental program aimed at verifying the mechanism called Kundalini in the eastern world. Kundalini, as Dr. Chopra knows, is the coiled energy at the base of the spine, in every human being, and when it becomes active can lead to expanded states of consciousness. Kundalini has been known for thousands of years, buried in the Vedas, Upanishads, Panchastavi, and has been praised as the lever behind genius and mystical experience. There is ample evidence, not only in ancient texts and traditions, but through modern sources (see the works of Gopi Krishna) which point to the validity of Kundalini as a field ripe for scientific exploration. This seems to me to be a field which might well remove the wedge lodged between Darwin theory and Intelligent Design. The notion of Kundalini indicates that evolution is a fact, but also that life has purpose and there is a pre-determined target for humankind, that of cosmic consciousness. Now, if this mechanism is proved to exist within the human frame, does it not make a case for Intelligent Design, or whatever one chooses to call it. Now here is a challenge to science, to look into the many cases of Kundalini awak