|
home | what's new | other sites | contact | about |
|||
|
Word Gems exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's it's "fields" not "laws"
return to "Evolution Controversy" contents page
The following item was briefly introduced, but in the midst of other discussion. It’s so important, however, that I thought it beneficial to emphasize it here, on a page of its own. The regularities of natural phenomena have come to be referred to as “laws.” But this concept of “law” has a very long history. A human history. It’s an anthropomorphism. People make laws, legislatures and kings make laws, and not for sport – but Nature knows nothing of this inflexibility. Why is this worthy of mention? “Law” is a potential “brain freeze” term. When we speak of “law,” due to long habitual conjunction, we might automatically fall into modes of thinking which suggest, “Well, if it’s a law, then we’d better be careful. You can’t break the law. The law is always here and something to be feared.” But Nature is not a king or a congress. It doesn't make laws. There are regularities in Nature, but, as we learn of them, we find these to be evolving, elastic, mutable. We must keep all this in mind as we proceed in our discussion. There are no “laws” in the universe. But there do seem to be morphic fields, the invisible, adapting, "blueprints" of Nature.
|
|||
|
|
