Having just written an article on creationism / intelligent design and its inconsistency with evolutionary theory, I believe that the science camp will feel let down after reading my current article. And yet I find no conflict with my scientific outlook on life and my growing spirituality as I move forward into the third decade of my life. In fact, I found out that my growing spiritual background allows me to better understand, almost intuitively, different aspects of biology, chemistry and physics. Furthermore, even if I carry out experiments to test my "hunches", in many cases, premonitions actually turn out to be true, thanks only to my previous meditation (intentionally?) On Infinite.I not advocating any particular god / its or religion in this article. And while many of my colleagues will forever shun me after reading this clip, I would like to at least provide a bit of personal background first and then give some argument for why belief in something beyond ourselves in not only possible but highly probable. First my background. Having run out (and I mean that in every sense) of a very religious, Catholic family, I went off to get my bachelor's degree in microbiology, and then my Ph.D. in genetics. There were two driving forces here: first, to use my training as a convenient excuse to distance myself, as much as possible, from the hallowed comments from all my family members. And second, having learned about such things as the Miller-Urey experiment (in a nutshell, the discovery that the chemicals could form the building blocks of life) to finally prove that science could in fact answer all our questions about this universe.Not took a lot of me away from these two driving forces in earning my bachelor's degree. But when I started the doctoral degree, something started to change. Perhaps that is why, when I was halfway through my dissertation, I had pretty much learned all there was to learn in science. Everything was yet unknown land, and it would be up to me to discover these hidden truths. Someone might argue that the uncertainty that I now face brought me straight back to where our ancestors once had been, not knowing the reasons for the tides or the seasons, and thus inventing stories about gods who did such things happen. This may be true because, the more I sifted through the information we maintain that they have on biological phenomena, the less I actually found. If anything, the more I learned, the more I realized how little we really know about the world in which we live. Yes, we have made progress in the determination of certain physical and chemical laws, and we have strong theories about things like evolution and the theory of special relativity. But what about the big questions, such as: What is our purpose here? Why life, and reproduction of life, if all life ends in oblivion? And furthermore, what was the driving force for all this (us, matter, universe) to start? Another great source of inspiration for my change of heart was on quantum mechanics. The more I delved into the theories of probability, chaos theory, and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the more I came to understand that we were just starting to scratch the surface of what is defined as reality. To give one small example, is the quantum theory, entanglement, or "scary action at a distance" that Einstein coined the term. In essence, the subatomic particles that are paired opposite spin pair-mates. When a subatomic particle is spinning clockwise, the other will spin clockwise (and vice versa). Even when separated by large distances (this has been tried now for 600 yards), the particle is spinning counter-clockwise spin counterclockwise continue as long as its partner is spinning clockwise. If one should act upon it clockwise particle, changing its spin, its partners now turn its spin and go clockwise. This happens even though no connection medium / energy between two particles, because the term "spooky action at a distance" was born. Reverse function of spin going on immediately, without any kind of energy that is transferred from one particle to other.But it gets weirder. The two subatomic particles, although the "predicted" opposite spins, can not be accurately predicted for either spin until it is actually measured by an observer. Until the measurements, are either particle as a kind of quasi-duality, spinning both clockwise and counter-productive. It takes the act of observation that the particle "to be" a spin or the other. The "becoming" is immediate, much like the spin-reversal particles.Looking at this from a metaphysical level, one can say that our own consciousness affect our reality, making it become a reality or another. Moreover, at some deep, incomprehensible level, we are all connected to each other, with all our actions have deep, incomprehensible consequences for the rest of reality, and at each other.Interestingly, if you look at the teachings of Sunyata (Sanskrit for emptiness) Buddhism; one finds that the basic principles of quantum mechanics were on site almost 2500 years before they were "discovered" by Einstein and his ilk. Sunyata Buddhism teaches that the issue is entirely without defining quality or essence. Reality is always in a state of constant change, and perhaps the only "constant" is change itself. Continuity is created by the memory of the observer, which aims to establish definitions of reality, to categorize it, to make it "clean and tidy". Taoist teachings also make some interesting remarks about quantum reality, with statements like: "The way to be is non-being, is the way action for failure" and "The Tao ... covers the entire universe. And though its meshes are large, do not let a thing slip through. "Go back a few points, physicists say that the instantaneous spin-turnaround and" will "is impossible because of both phenomena counteract the absolute speed of light (probably nothing in the known universe can travel faster than light speed). But if no energy is transmitted, the speed of light is not broken. Can anything be to get transferred, which would not apply to the electromagnetic energy called light? Some researchers call this "something" information. If reality is what we make of it, and if we are all somehow connected, it is so far of a stretch to assume that our mysterious affinity, and our mastery of reality, are both products of an unknown informative field called God ? In addition to my own responsibilities, now has biology been able to explain many unknowns. We are still left with three puzzles: 1. In 1953, carried the Stanley L. Miller and Harold Urey C. what would become known as the Miller-Urey experiment. With gases such as methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O), Miller and Urey ran a continuous electric current through the mixture to simulate lightning is believed to occur frequently on the early Earth. At the end of a week, Miller noted that 10-15% of carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. Thus, Miller and Urey showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential for cellular life could be made simply on the conditions that are believed to be on the early Earth. This finding inspired Juan Oro to find that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in water solution. He also found that his experiment produced nucleotide base adenine, and adenine is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA. There is also a part of adenosine triphosphate or ATP, a large energy release molecules in cells. Subsequent experiments showed that the other RNA and DNA bases can also be synthesized using this chemistry.And yet, despite the enormous importance of these experiments, we are still left with the fundamental question: Why would simple atoms, molecules at all? Why would simple inorganic compounds are trying to coalesce, and become "organic" building blocks of life? More recently, Carl Woese, a microbiologist, was known in his theory of cellular evolution, which states that the basic organic components such as lipids, amino acids and carbohydrates came together to form organized structures called cells. Carl has proposed a new theory of cellular evolution and its mechanisms. Nevertheless, we are still left with the question, again, of what would drive organic compounds that merge to form cells at all? We go further, cells form even larger structures, called organs. Body form even larger structures, called organ systems. And organ systems form organisms, such as you and I, your dog, fleas on your dog, and so on. Still, why did this ever-increasing organizational systems developed in the first place? And why not continue to develop and evolve? In essence, becomes issue # 1: Why would life be more organized and complex 2?. Not only does life seem to grow more complex, designed to perpetuate this complexity through the mechanism of reproduction. Copying can be done in several ways, such as asexual (as when the plants produce shoots and buds that can break off and replanted) and sexually (involving preshuffling of genes, so that, after fertilization, the new organism is different from either parent and not a clone). On the cellular level, the reproduction made by "hijacking" of the cell's internal machinery, and to use machines to make new copies of the invading organism, as is the case for many viruses such as HIV. Even more odd, reproduction can occur by infectious protein particles called prions, which do not contain genetic material itself, but somehow the "catalyzing" other neighboring states proteins to become like them. Despite everything we've learned about reproduction, but we get to return to the same modus operandi, and question # 2: Why? Why should living things, from organisms, down to the cells, down to simple molecules, designed to reproduce, go to their increased organization and complexity? 3rd My last question will be the best answer. Why would the case, trying to become even more complicated, in order to reproduce itself, and this increased complexity, also be aware of his own self? Our human brains, for example, are considered the most complex systems on Earth. Have a certain level of biological complexity, with essentially outdone itself, lead to "crash" of consciousness? If a stone (to our knowledge) are not aware of itself, makes this condition is changing, now that we've placed a hundred or even thousand, stones together into some kind of system? Honestly, why would a stone may eventually need to know that there is a stone? Right now we have just what and how of life questionnaire. We have no idea at all about why. Maybe one day science will find the answers to even the why questions. Perhaps we will discover different physical and biological laws that will explain those currently incomprehensible phenomena complexity, reproduction, and consciousness. Or perhaps we will be able to adjust the scientific method, which is more than just our five senses to be the absolute judge of our reality.We have traveled a long way since the first natural philosophers arose, ask questions about the origin and laws of the universe. Interestingly, these were the first natural philosophers, priests and monks who never saw a contradiction between their faith and their love of learning. St. Francis de Sales claims that "learning is the eighth sacrament the priest." Perhaps more clearly than we saw these individuals affinity between God's manifestations and God, and "spooky action at a distance" power of God's Word on God's creation. What else but the quantum theory could explain the famous line from Genesis, when God said "Let there be light", and it was so sum up, I take a quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet? "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy. "Let us dream about, and let us imagine, these many more things and realities.
