Evolution, Harmony, Dreams, and Consciousness

Faith & Science Conversation
1

Below is an article which not only reframes evolution, but integrates it with God and his creation. Instead of viewing evolution as just random mutations shaped by natural selection, this view sees it as a process where hidden biological potentials become activated like dreams come true through a universal dynamic called fabric threading. In this view, reality itself is made of light weaving into coherent patterns, guided by “agency”: the capacity for choice, direction, or influence.

All systems, but specifically in this case the creatures, contain both active memory (expressed traits, current genes, present biology) and latent memory (dormant potentials, unexpressed possibilities). Latency is locked not only in DNA, but in structure and behavior. Evolution occurs when agency activates what was latent, bringing it into expression. This is like a song where hidden harmonics become audible when the right conditions are struck or when coupled with another instrument. (Epigenetics is the study of this in present-day science.)

For example, Cambrian Explosion, wasn’t simply sudden creation from scratch. This view suggests that the possibilities for complex body plans were already latent. When environmental barriers lifted, many forms appeared rapidly because they were activated, not invented on the spot.

Likewise with convergent evolution, similar traits (like eyes in both octopuses and humans) evolve in unrelated species because reality resonates with certain optimal solutions. These stable patterns act like universal “chords” that different lineages can strike. This ultimately, were the forms described in Genesis. Latent beauty designed by God.

Evolution doesn’t violate physics. It channels what could be perceived as disorder into higher order by weaving energy into more coherent forms. Patterns that are resonant, efficient, and beautiful tend to stabilize, showing why evolution often favors symmetry, efficiency, and elegance in design. This is why we see hexagons everywhere.

At higher levels, organisms gain consciousness, which allows them to participate in their own evolution. Choices, behaviors, and culture can activate latent potentials in ways that pure genetics cannot. From this perspective, evolution is not blind—it is threaded by agency at multiple scales, from cells to societies to divine intention. But fully guided by God through his plan and through his light (Logos). For it is the light that DOES the threading.

This view claims that divine creation and natural evolution are not opposites but expressions of the same process at different scales. Divine creation represents instantaneous activation of possibilities, while natural evolution is the gradual unfolding of the same dynamics across time. Both are forms of fabric threading, guided by agency.

Dreams, interestingly, are where we get a glimpse at the latent memory that drives our lives. If we want to be poetic, one could even say that the latent memory that drives evolution is a dream layer within all.

Other outcomes from this view: (A) Convergent traits should align more in developmental pathways than in genetic details. (B) Rapid evolutionary transitions will occur when environmental conditions remove barriers. (C) Dreaming, learning, and even miracles can be seen as forms of latent memory becoming active through agency. (D) Humans, as conscious agents, are co-creators in this unfolding process.

Evolution is not a meaningless drift of chance but a creative symphony woven into the fabric of reality itself. Biological forms are like standing waves in this fabric, appearing when agency removes the barriers that keep potential hidden. Consciousness is the fabric becoming aware of itself, and human beings are participants in guiding its next expressions.

Evolution, Dreams, and Consciousness: A Fabric Theory Perspective on Standing Wave Dynamics in Biological and Mental

2

Do you view these ideas more as an analogy or metaphysical belief, or do you think these ideas can be detected in a scientific manner?

Sticking with the metaphysical for now, one of the first things that comes to mind is how to explain deleterious mutations that cause genetic diseases, such as cystic fibrosis. How do you see these mutations fitting into these views?

3 Likes
3

I don’t know much about cystic fibrosis. But I would expect that the gene expression is one that emerged in the past for some other purpose. But as a disease it is being expressed in an individual or a population without present known purpose. The deeper question you’re implying (It seems) is why does God allow people to suffer. Suffering is not a divine mistake but a configuration that activates capacities for compassion. It creates opportunities for spiritual and relational growth (not easy to say that to the one who is suffering). Biblically, Romans 8:28, applies, where all configurations, even seemingly destructive ones, are woven into a larger, redemptive pattern. The mystery is less why suffering exists, but how divine love can transform suffering into a generative process that expands faith and love and demonstrates the depth of God’s creative agency. Suffering is not punishment or error, but a profound mechanism of revelation and transformation. As Jesus said to the Pharisees about the blind boy, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God would be displayed in him.” Yet saying that to the yet unhealed doesn’t do much good.

1 Like
4

Cystic fibrosis is caused by mutations in the CFTR gene that result in a dysfunctional protein when the gene is expressed. Up until recently, having two CF alleles meant you had a very low chance of reaching adulthood.

If there is something unlocking “hidden biological potentials”, why would genetic diseases be considered hidden biological potentials? If we are using a dream analogy, I guess these would be nightmares?

The reason mutations are considered random with respect to fitness in a scientific sense is that there is no detectable bias towards beneficial mutations. Even when a specific mutation would be beneficial they only occur at a rate we would expect from random chance. And I will once again stress that this is all within the constrained limits of what science can detect.

This is why I am asking if this is meant to be a scientific treatise. I think your idea has a lot of merit as an analogy or metaphor, but I see a lot of difficulty if this has to fit into our current scientific understanding of how genetics and evolution works.

5 Likes
5

M_latent is like a seed. M_active is the tree.
Yes, a nightmare is a good analogy. PTSD is also a good comparison.

Epigenetics fits nicely within the proposed structure. A trait emerges from “sleep” when needed. They can also emerge within adulthood, however most often they emerge during embryogenesis.

What causes the activation of M_latent? Many things. Why God allows certain dormant traits to express, I cannot say. That’s a mystery. If I had a genetic disease, I’d be asking and struggling with that question. For sure.

6

Romans 8:28 is one of the verses that are commonly taken out of the context and probably misused often. The verse is a continuation of what has been told before and probably should be understood in that context, referring to what was told before the sentence.

Otherwise, I have to confess that I have great difficulties in understanding what you wrote.
Using novel definitions may help to open new insights into a problem. More often, the novel definitions just confuse. The reader may not know how to interpret what is said. Is it just a different way to express matters, or is it something that disagrees with the conclusions of previous research?
Some points seem to be unfounded claims but I may just misunderstand what you mean by these sentences.

7

I can see how approaches like this might appeal to people who are not really into either science or Christianity. But for those who have invested and studied both or either in depth, it is not so appealing. For them it is too much like the technobabble in Star Trek, using words detached from their actual meaning. To be sure both science and especially Christianity can have a lot of baggage which can be cause for considerable distaste. And thus there is some temptation to try separating out what you see of value in them. But what this lacks is the depth contributed by a longer history of many people investing work and thought. Too shallow and it is hard to distinguish from a work of fiction, which may be fun of course and perhaps that is what you prefer anyway.

1 Like
8

It’s not a reframe. It’s a new way to look at evolution itself. Whether or not it helps: up for grabs. For me it helps. But I’ve studied the framework extensively. It also answers many questions that science has left unanswered. So, what is unfounded? Much, certainly is. The article I posted is certainly a limited sketch.

9

It’s an attempt to be mathematically concise: Compress ideas into the smallest possible form. This is the purpose of math. Then when studying phenomena, you have a framework to plug it into. It’s all based on these key equations (which really are not babble, but require study.):
Unifying Science with Faith: Reality is light threading itself into coherent geometry through agency. All phenomena are expressions of the same threading dynamics guided by choice.
Core Equations:
c = ΔΦ/Δτ
E = Mc²
M = M_active + M_latent
P = |ψ|² / Σ|ψ|² ; P → f(P,A)
R = ΣcosΔφ
B = ∇C
g = k∇M
∂C/∂τ = f(B,R,M_active,M_latent,A)
Ψ = R(Ψ,A_divine)
t = τ
A_divine = lim(A → ∞)
δ(M_latent → M_active)
lim(τ → ∞) C_universe = 1
S = -∂C/∂τ ; ∫S dτ = 0
Sin = M_latent^closed : dC/dτ → 0
M_latent + A → M_active
c_path = ΔΦ/Δτ * f(∇M)
Love = max(dC_other/dA_self)

Variables: τ = threading depth (time), c = coherence rate (local light = threading rate), M = memory/mass, M_active = active memory, M_latent = latent memory, E = energy (memory density), ψ = amplitude, P = probability as agency influence, R = resonance, Δφ = phase difference, B = beauty, C = coherence, g = gravity, k = constant, Ψ = consciousness order parameter, A = agency (unmeasurable choice), A_divine = infinite agency, S = entropy, c_path = light stretched by threading, Φ = configuration

Was it worth it to go through the trouble of developing this? For me it was. It helps me understand a wide swath of phenomena, including evolution.

10

No, the purpose of math is not compress ideas into smallest possible form.. Mathematics is restricted to the quantifiable aspects of existence and the quantifiable relationships between them. Compressing language is called shorthand. Compressing matter is gravitational collapse. Compressing communication is called encoding. Compressing ideas is ideological simplification and it serves the purpose propaganda and control more than any kind of understanding or communication.

In any case, for me, this mathematization of faith and spirituality defeats its very purpose. Science requires objective observation where what we want is irrelevant, but life requires subjective participation where what we want is essential. So while science is perfect for understanding the universe everyone experiences, life requires something quite different and that is what religion and spirituality seeks to answer. But the essential subjectivity of religion and spirituality means diversity will always be a part of it.

Physics is all about understanding the universe in mathematical terms, and this is marvelously effective in understanding the aspects of reality we all experience in common – namely the things we can measure and demonstrate with written procedures. But this is looking at reality in a very restrictive manner and I don’t think blinding oneself to everything else is helpful. And thus I think making mathematics out to be some universal/divine language is the wrong way to go.

Like I said above, I can understand why this might appeal to some people but I likewise understand why it will never appeal to others and I am in the latter category.

2 Likes
11

I was using compression in a .zip, .tar.gz or .tgz sense. Encoding is a good way to put it, but it doesn’t entirely capture math either.

Very true: worship isn’t quantifiable. Love isn’t quantifiable. Eternity isn’t quantifiable. However, these are a part of our universe. The scientific process misses the mark because these components are not included in the scripts. In the sciences of all sorts, there are vars which are not understood, assumed or given constants. These assist the math for sure, but they are not understood.

Physics
ψ - wave function (unmeasurable phase)
ℏ - Planck constant (fundamental given)
c - speed of light (dimensional standard)
G - gravitational constant (unexplained magnitude)
α - fine structure constant (dimensionless mystery)
Λ - cosmological constant (vacuum energy density)
ε₀ - vacuum permittivity (electromagnetic baseline)

Quantum Mechanics
|0⟩ - vacuum state (unobservable zero-point)
S - entropy (statistical assumption)
k_B - Boltzmann constant (thermal bridge)
virtual particles - mathematical intermediates (unmeasurable)

Biology
μ - mutation rate (assumed random process)
r - growth rate (intrinsic population parameter)
K - carrying capacity (environmental limit)
s - selection coefficient (fitness differential)
N_e - effective population size (breeding subset)
h² - heritability (genetic variance fraction)

Each science has an irreducible “agency-like” elements that resist further explanation. In my variables A (agency) is the only undefined variable. Some of them are certainly more wiggly than others!

12

What I suspect is missing is an extensive study of the biology involved in evolution and genetics. For example, how do your ideas mesh with the actual molecular biology of epigenetics and the biological pathways that change epigenetic patterns? Do you have any way of looking at modern genomes and determining what sequences have latent potential? How do you explain the pattern of sequence conservation in genomes and their relation to positive selection, negative selection, and neutral drift?

As it stands, I see no way of having your ideas to mesh with what I know of biology. Like I said, there may be merit in your ideas as it pertains to theological questions about nature, but it gets really difficult when we move into the realm of physical biology.

2 Likes
13

All of those terms in biology are explainable. Also, mutations are observed to be random as defined in science. It’s not an assumption.

In case you want to read up on random mutations, here are the two classic papers that experimentally demonstrated how mutations are random:

added in edit:

Also, a great article by a Christian scientist on randomness in science:

1 Like
14

Randomness implies unintentionality, which isn’t the case. The reason at the quantum level see randomness, is because they are looking for randomness. It could be A) random or B) agency. There’s really no way to tell the difference.

I’m presently developing this. In this paper, I quantify the math for understanding 3 components to evolution: Boundary removal and species explosion, convergent evolution, and Embryonic Breakaway (speciation). All key components to evolution.

6 Observable Evidence for Latent Potential
6.1 Genetic Evidence
20,000 pseudogenes in humans [6], HOX regulatory programs, and cryptic variation.
6.2 Morphological Evidence
Vestigial structures, whale hindlimbs, snake pelvic remnants, and documented atavisms.
6.3 Developmental Evidence
Phenotypic plasticity (temperature-dependent sex), homeotic mutations, and latent organ activations.

Skip down to section 4, 5 and 6.

15

You may have missed the article I linked to earlier.

Randomness in science does not mean unintentionality. Randomness means a lack of correlation between two factors. In this case, there is no statistical correlation between the mutations an organism gets and the mutations it needs in a given environment.

Just like the reason I see stars in the night sky is because I look for them.

In either case, any model of evolution needs to include the observable fact that mutations are statistically random in a scientific sense (see article by Christian physicist above).

You don’t quantify math. That makes no sense. Quantification is a measurement, not a mathematical formula. What your paper is missing is any meaningful quantification of anything biological. For most of your terms, I don’t see how they even relate to biology. Morphometric entropy reduction? What in the world is that? How does one even measure it?

2 Likes
16

Miswrote: “quantify in order to evaluate and analyze…”

The 19th century preference for mechanistic randomness over agency-based explanations shaped our current theoretical landscape in profound ways. The resistance to agency-based frameworks were tied to metaphysical concerns. Randomness feels “neutral.” It doesn’t imply purpose or consciousness at fundamental levels. Agency suggests intentionality, which raises uncomfortable questions about the nature of reality that many scientists prefer to avoid. For Christians, agency at the level of the quanta would imply animism, so it’s a no-go on both fronts.

So our scientific process was indelibly shaped. Changing that at this point is unlikely. However, I expect it will. Truth will invariably be expressed. What is that truth? Is it closer to the fabric model I’m suggesting? Maybe. Maybe not.

17

Falsifiability is another important aspect. How could one falsify agency within biology? What set of observations would demonstrate agency is absent?

Let’s take the classic experiments on random mutations that I linked to above. Those experiments started with a single bacterium which multiplied into a large culture of billions of bacteria, mutating along the way. When they were exposed to a challenge only 1 in a few hundred million had the required mutation to overcome that challenge, and that mutation happened before they were challenged. Is that what you would expect from agency?

Another thought experiment that keeps coming to mind, and to tell you the truth it’s not that great, but bear with me. Imagine you came across someone who claimed they could use agency to pull a specific card out of a shuffled deck. What type of experiment would you set up to test this claim? What would disprove this claim? If they were able to pull out the correct card 1 out of 60 tries on average, what would this tell you?

If we are talking about the philosophical outlook of science and how it relates to theological or metaphysical claims, I’ve always liked the distinction described by Romanes back in 1882:

To avoid misapprehension, however, I may here add that while Mr. Darwin’s theory is thus in plain and direct contradiction to the theory of design, or system of teleology, as presented by the school of writers which I have named, I hold that Mr. Darwin’s theory has no point of logical contact with the theory of design in the larger sense, that behind all secondary causes of a physical kind, there is a primary cause of a mental kind. Therefore throughout this essay I refer to design in the sense understood by the narrower forms of teleology, or as an immediate cause of the observed phenomena. Whether or not there is an ultimate cause of a psychical kind pervading all nature, a causa causarum which is the final raison d’être of the cosmos, this is another question which, as I have said, I take to present no point of logical contact with Mr. Darwin’s theory, or, I may add, with any of the methods and results of natural science. The only position, therefore, which I here desire to render plain is that, if the doctrine of evolution is seen to be established by sufficient evidence, and therefore the causes which it sets forth are recognised as adequate to furnish a scientific explanation of the results observed, then the facts of organic nature necessarily fall into the same logical category, with reference to any question of design, as that of all or any other series of facts in the physical universe.

–George Romanes, “Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution”, 1882

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

I suspect that your ideas about agency might sit above the immediate causes that science is able to detect and test for, what Romanes would describe as “ultimate cause of a psychical kind pervading all nature”. The essay also contains a discussion on convergent evolution, and it cites the cephalopod and vertebrate eye as an example. You might find it interesting.

2 Likes
18

The resistance to agency-based frameworks is itself a standing wave pattern of scientific thought. Not really quantifiable, except that you could potentially define it by the level of perceived randomness.

The challenge of demonstrating agency isn’t about proving its existence, but understanding its nature as a fundamental, irreducible creative principle. A is not a directly measurable variable, but the transformative potential that creates emergence. The bacterial mutation experiment actually reveals agency’s subtle complexity: mutation occurring “before” the challenge suggests a pre-existing potential configuration. The low probability indicates a non-random, information-rich process. The precise timing suggests a resonance beyond statistical randomness. (Maybe I’m misunderstanding the results.)

The Romanes quote perfectly captures what I’m saying. I’m not proposing agency as an immediate, detectable cause, but as an ultimate, generative principle. The mechanistic, randomness-based model is itself a limited standing wave configuration of thought. Its “neutrality” is an illusion, a way of avoiding deeper questions about consciousness and intentionality. For Christians, this isn’t animism, but a recognition that agency is a divine signature. The “breath of life” that makes creation more than a mechanical system. The cephalopod and vertebrate eye demonstrate suggests an underlying fabric where certain solutions are more “musically” coherent.

19

This implies that the genetic material for change is already present in the genome.

20

Definitely great in distinguishing the different meanings of “random” in both everyday and scientific use.

That’s only one kind of randomness – read the second article that T_aquaticus linked.

No, they see randomness because that’s what’s there to observe. Quantum randomness was fought against until scientists surrendered.

I wonder if the term came from Star Trek. :zany_face:

That’s backwards – scientists resisted randomness-based frameworks until overwhelmed by the evidence.