by Michael Gladish
In 2011, Dr. Ian Thompson (PhD), a nuclear physicist in California, published a book titled Starting Science From God. In it he proposed rational scientific theories capable of explaining many of the mysteries of modern science based on the operation of God in the orderly steps and stages of creation. It was the beginning of a new era of study we now call “theistic science.”Now this work has been complemented by another book just published by the Swedenborg Scientific Association, titled, Intelligent Default, by the Rev. Dr. Reuben Bell (DO, PhD). In this new work, Bell makes the case for Swedenborg’s theistic science in relation to “the problem of organic form.” As he says, it’s not a question of whether God created and maintains the world, it’s a question of HOW, and he answers that question in excruciating scientific and philosophical detail.
by Reuben P. Bell
Naturalistic scientists tell us, over and over, that nature is from nature. And they’re smart. Their science is really good. They’ve been doing it for 400 years, and it is very powerful. Meanwhile, religiousscientists tell us that either 1) The earth is 7,500 years old, and Creation happened by magic. Once. Or 2) Nature was “designed” by a Creator, with evidence for this in the many irreducibly complex systems we see at work in natural things. The trouble is that Creationism is a hard proposition to support, and “Creation Science” requires some pretty creative reasoning to confirm. Intelligent Design science is good, really good. But given that nature is “designed” these scientists can’t tell us how it is designed. Not even a little bit.“ Evolution science is wrong,” they say, “but we really don’t know how it works either.” So that’s a big let-down. Other scientists hedge. Some talk a good line, but they too often are like fish, swimming up close to that spiritual edge, but then turning away at the last minute, to avoid being labeled “religious.” (That can kill a career in science, you know.) They talk about the “emergence” of complexity in nature, leading all the way to living forms and even consciousness. They talk about the origin of life, and quantum particles that come into and go out of this world—from where? . . . to where? But they won’t mention a Creator, and for those few who are bold enough to do so, they can’t tell us how it works. Not even a little bit. So where do we go from here?
by Andrew James Heilman
When we look at a bird, or anything else in this world, we are seeing something in the spiritual world, and yet clothed with physical material or chemicals. This is what Sir. Hans Sloane learned when he saw a bird in the spiritual world which was virtually identical to a bird in the natural world, perhaps the hummingbird of Jamaica which he called “the most beautiful bird he ever saw.”
by Ian Thompson
We remember that “Divine is the same in things greatest and least.” Hence the heavens, minds, and nature should themselves have an internal trine, to contribute to their overall function. So now there is the trine of 3 degrees, and an ennead of 9 sub-degrees. (‘ennea’ is Greek for 9).
by Stephen H. Smith
Protein synthesis was chosen as a subject for inquiry by the Theistic Science Group in the fall of 2018 at the suggestion of Ian J. Thompson, PhD10. The focus of the of the group from its inception had been the nature of the nexus or interface between the natural and spiritual worlds, as possibly revealed by spiritual correspondences and the workings of Divine influx as explained in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. The biology of protein synthesis was believed to be uniquely suitable for study on the “natural side” of this discussion in virtue of the known science at the molecular, atomic and even quantum levels. It was anticipated that these physical states might be viewed as forms sufficiently sensitive and subtle to receive both “mediate” and “immediate” influx, via “quantum fine tuning,” at the ultimate interface of the spiritual and natural worlds. No less appealing was the idea that protein synthesis, considered from the perspective of spiritual correspondences, might be a window, however tiny, into Divinely generated life forces themselves given the many roles of protein in cell structure and function, as well as protein functions in the extracellular milieu.
by Ian Thompson
In my previous article in this issue, I list three areas in physics which are not yet properly understood. These are (a) quantum gravity, (b) the need for tuning (fine-tuning, or renormalization) of parameters in quantum field theory, and (more generally) (c) the relation between mind and physics. Now I am going to propose a hypothesis for linking together (b) and (c), where influx from mind into physics occurs by local variations in the tuning of parameters that define quantum fields. Such variations could well be the method how influx from spiritual degrees shows itself in physics. This couldbe used to facilitate some of the molecular dynamical processes described by Hingorani (2014) and Smith (previous article).
by Angela Rose
Goethe’s approach to science supports Swedenborg’s conception of causality in a way that reductionist science cannot and overcomes the Cartesian split which lies at the foundation of the materialistic, reductionist worldview of Western science.
