A Green Road Journal

Quaker Inspired, Evidence Based, Art And Science Of Sustainable Health Plus Success - How To Create Heaven On Earth - Education For Seventh Generation Rainbow Warriors

Share this post:
TEDx; The 10 False Assumptions Of Modern Science, or Scientism; How To Set Science Free From Materialism Consciousness, Ego, Delusional Beliefs, Dogma, Fake Paradigms, Greed, Greenwashing, Profit Motive, Bias, Wishful Thinking And False Assumptions

Many people falsely believe that scientists, doctors, physicists, PhD professors and other authority figures are like God, and can do or say nothing wrong or false. Many people also believe that these same experts have the ultimate authority and cannot be questioned or challenged, even if they are totally or partially 'mistaken'.

Some people will even go so far as to label anyone who challenges these 'experts' as a conspiracy theorist, despite that person or organization telling the truth.

Wouldn't you agree that any individual or organization, including 'peer review' panels are subject to bias, corruption, belief systems, and/or unconscious motivation, or projection, which can and does affect the end product?


All truth goes through three stages..

First it is ignored, or labeled as a conspiracy theory, quakery, or fake news.

Second, it is viciously attacked and the messenger is demonized, dehumanized and sometimes even put to death, or is often jailed.

Third, the truth that did not change from the first two stages above is accepted as 'fact', and people behave as if it has always been this way. 


Rupert Sheldrake is one of these people who challenges the existing orthodoxy, experts and authority figures, by shaking up their firmly held, dogmatic belief system. Dogma is always unscientific, because it dismisses questioning, inquiry and duplicating theory via research, experience, and verifiable experiments.

TEDx; The Science Delusion Rupert Sheldrake at TEDxWhitechapel
VIDEOhttps://vimeo.com/61657027  18 min.

Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion: Why Materialism is not the Answer
VIDEOhttps://youtu.be/mR1SLQwHDog  50 min.

Exopolitik - Since 1981, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake has been researching morphic fields - his hypothesis about form-giving, immaterial fields which serve as a kind of blueprint for creation. In his lecture "The Science Delusion", Sheldrake points out several scientific dogmas which prevent science from overcoming its materialistic world view..


One of the sad facts about the world is that the education system is mostly about teaching kids and young adults all about WHAT to believe, not about how to think, inquire and ask questions, or seek truth.

Here is just one teeny tiny example of how these scientism beliefs are projected out into the world and most people 'assume' that they are true..

Go deeper

Hemp Is A Renewable, Carbon Absorbing, Climate Change Reversing Product With A Trillion Dollar Potential, Replaces Monopolies Like Toxic Fossil Fuels, Plastic, Chemicals, Tree Clearcutting, Steel, Meat


Wikipedia; "Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author,[3] and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] known for his "morphic resonance" concept.[5] He worked as a biochemist and cell biologist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973[3] and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics in India until 1978.[6]

Sheldrake's morphic resonance conjecture posits that "memory is inherent in nature"[3][7] and that "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind".[7] Sheldrake proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms".[8] His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as precognition, telepathy and the psychic staring effect[9][10] as well as unconventional explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory.[11]

Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a measurable phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterised as pseudoscience. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and an inconsistency between the idea and data from genetics and embryology. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science.[a]

Sheldrake's ideas have found support in the New Age movement from individuals such as Deepak Chopra.[25][26][27]

Early life

Sheldrake was born in Newark-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire,[1] to Doris (née Tebbutt)[28] and Reginald Alfred Sheldrake (1903–1970) on 28 June 1942.[29] His father graduated from Nottingham University with a degree in pharmacy[30] and was also an amateur naturalist and microscopist. Sheldrake credits his father with encouraging him to follow his interest in animals, plants[8] and gardens.[31]

Although they were Methodists, Sheldrake's parents sent him to Worksop College, a Church of England boarding school.[1] Sheldrake says,

I went through the standard scientific atheist phase when I was about 14 ... I bought into that package deal of science equals atheism. I was the only boy at my high Anglican boarding school who refused to get confirmed. When I was a teenager, I was a bit like Dawkins is today, you know: 'If Adam and Eve were created by God, why do they have navels?' That kind of thing.[3]

At Clare College, Cambridge, Sheldrake studied biology and biochemistry, and after a year at Harvard studying philosophy and history of science, he returned to Cambridge where he gained a PhD in biochemistry for his work in plant development and plant hormones.[3][8]


After obtaining his PhD, Sheldrake became a fellow of Clare College,[32] working in biochemistry and cell biology with funding from the Royal Society Rosenheim Research Fellowship.[33] He investigated auxins, a class of phytohormones that plays a role in plant vascular cell differentiation,[34] and published a number of papers related to the topic.[35][36] A 2012 profile in The Guardian described the Sheldrake of that era as "one of the brightest Darwinians of his generation".[3] His development with Philip Rubery of the chemiosmotic model of polar auxin transport has been described as "astonishingly visionary".[37] Their work in the 1970s was confirmed in the 21st century.[37]

Sheldrake says that he ended this line of research when he concluded,

The system is circular, it does not explain how [differentiation is] established to start with. After nine years of intensive study, it became clear to me that biochemistry would not solve the problem of why things have the basic shape they do.[34]

Having an interest in Indian philosophy, Hinduism and transcendental meditation, Sheldrake resigned his position at Clare and went to work on the physiology of tropical crops in Hyderabad, India,[8] as principal plant physiologist at ICRISAT from 1974 to 1978.[6][8] There he published a number of papers on crop physiology[38] and co-authored a book on the anatomy of the pigeonpea.[39]

Sheldrake left ICRISAT to focus on writing A New Science of Life, during which time he spent a year and a half in the Saccidananda Ashram of Bede Griffiths,[8][40] a Benedictine monk.[1] Published in 1981, the book outlines his concept of morphic resonance,[8] about which he remarks,

The idea came to me in a moment of insight and was extremely exciting. It interested some of my colleagues at Clare College – philosophers, linguists, and classicists were quite open-minded. But the idea of mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species didn't go down too well with my colleagues in the science labs. Not that they were aggressively hostile; they just made fun of it. Whenever I said something like, "I've just got to go and make a telephone call," they said, "Ha, ha, why bother? Do it by morphic resonance!"[8]

After writing A New Science of Life, he continued at ICRISAT as a part-time consultant physiologist until 1985.[6][8]

Since 2004,[41] Sheldrake has been a visiting professor at the Graduate Institute in Bethany, Connecticut,[40] where he was also academic director of the Holistic Learning and Thinking Program until 2012.[40] From September 2005 until 2010, Sheldrake was director of the Perrott–Warrick Project for psychical research.[32][42] As of 2014, he is a fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences in California and a fellow of Schumacher College in Devon, England.[43]

Selected books

A New Science of Life

Sheldrake's A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance (1981) proposed that through "morphic resonance", various perceived phenomena, particularly biological ones, become more probable the more often they occur, and that biological growth and behaviour thus become guided into patterns laid down by previous similar events. As a result, he suggested, newly-acquired behaviours can be passed down to future generations − a biological proposition akin to the Lamarckian inheritance theory. He generalised this approach to assert that it explains many aspects of science, from evolution to the laws of nature which, in Sheldrake's formulation, are merely mutable habits that have been evolving and changing since the Big Bang.[45]

John Davy wrote in The Observer that the implications of A New Science of Life were "fascinating and far-reaching, and would turn upside down a lot of orthodox science", and that they would "merit attention if some of its predictions are supported by experiment".[46]

In an article Sheldrake wrote for The Guardian,[47] he argued that morphic resonance explained the results of experiments on learning in rats, conducted by William McDougall and replicated by Francis Crew and Wilfred Agar, in which the inheritance of acquired characteristics had apparently been demonstrated. However, since the replications were carried out on unrelated rats, Sheldrake ruled out inheritance on the basis of genetic modification as the explanation. He concluded that "the hypothesis of formative causation is unlikely to be widely accepted unless it has a considerable body of evidence in its favour. But if experiments ... begin to yield results which support it then ... there would be good reason to pursue it further. Clearly its implications would be revolutionary."

In subsequent books, Sheldrake continued to promote his morphic resonance hypothesis. Several of these books, including a revised and expanded edition of A New Science of Life, published in 2009 in the United States under the title Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation, present experimental evidence which he says supports his hypothesis.[11]

The Presence of the Past

In his next book, The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature (1988), Sheldrake expanded on his morphic resonance hypothesis and marshalled experimental evidence which he said supported the hypothesis.[7] The book was reviewed favourably in New Scientist by historian Theodore Roszak, who called it "engaging, provocative" and "a tour de force".[53] When the book was re-issued in 2011 with those quotes on the front cover, New Scientist remarked, "Back then, Roszak gave Sheldrake the benefit of the doubt.

The Rebirth of Nature

Published in 1991, Sheldrake's The Rebirth of Nature: The Greening of Science and God[55] addressed the subject of New Age consciousness and related topics.[56] A column in The Guardian said that the book "seeks to restore the pre-Enlightenment notion that nature is 'alive'", quoting Sheldrake as saying that "indeterminism, spontaneity and creativity have re-emerged throughout the natural world" and that "mystic, animistic and religious ways of thinking can no longer be kept at bay".[57] The book was reviewed by James Lovelock in Nature, who argued that "the theory of formative causation makes testable predictions", noting that "nothing has yet been reported which would divert the mainstream of science. ... Even if it is nonsense ... recognizing the need for fruitful errors, I do not regard the book as dangerous".[58]

Seven Experiments That Could Change the World

In 1994, Sheldrake proposed a list of Seven Experiments That Could Change the World, subtitled "A do-it-yourself guide to revolutionary science". He encouraged lay people to conduct research and argued that experiments similar to his own could be conducted with limited expense.[59]

Music critic of The Sunday Times Mark Edwards reviewed the book positively, arguing that Sheldrake "challenges the complacent certainty of scientists", and that his ideas "sounded ridiculous ... as long as your thinking is constrained by the current scientific orthodoxy".[60]

Dogs That Know Their Owners are Coming Home

Seven Experiments contained the seed of Sheldrake's next book, Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home (1999), which covered his research into proposed telepathy between humans and animals, particularly dogs. Sheldrake suggests that such interspecies telepathy is a real phenomenon and that morphic fields are responsible for it.[63]

The book is in three sections, on telepathy, on sense of direction, including animal migration and the homing of pigeons, and on animal precognition, including premonitions of earthquakes and tsunamis. Sheldrake examined more than 1,000 case histories of dogs and cats that seemed to anticipate their owners' return by waiting at a door or window, sometimes for half an hour or more ahead of their return. He did a long series of experiments with a dog called Jaytee, in which the dog was filmed continuously during its owner's absence. In 100 filmed tests, on average the dog spent far more time at the window when its owner was on her way home than when she was not.

During the main period of her absence, before she started her return journey, the dog was at the window for an average of 24 seconds per 10-minute period (4% of the time), whereas when she was on her way home, during the first ten minutes of her homeward journey, from more than five miles away, the dog was at the window for an average of five minutes 30 seconds (55% of the time). Sheldrake interpreted the result as highly significant statistically.

Sheldrake performed 12 further tests, in which the dog's owner travelled home in a taxi or other unfamiliar vehicle at randomly selected times communicated to her by telephone, to rule out the possibility that the dog was reacting to familiar car sounds or routines.[64] Sheldrake also carried out similar experiments with another dog, Kane, describing the results as similarly positive and significant.[63]

Before the publication of Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home, Sheldrake invited Richard Wiseman, Matthew Smith, and Julie Milton to conduct an independent experimental study with the dog Jaytee. They concluded that their evidence did not support telepathy as an explanation for the dog's behaviour,[65] and proposed possible alternative explanations for Sheldrake's conclusions, involving artefacts, bias resulting from experimental design, and post hoc analysis of unpublished data.[52][66]

The group observed that Sheldrake's observed patterns could easily arise if a dog were simply to do very little for a while, before visiting a window with increasing frequency the longer that its owner was absent, and that such behaviour would make sense for a dog awaiting its owner's return. Under this behaviour, the final measurement period, ending with the owner's return, would always contain the most time spent at the window.[52]

Sheldrake argued that the actual data in his own and in Wiseman's tests did not bear this out, and that the dog went to wait at the window sooner when his owner was returning from a short absence, and later after a long absence, with no tendency for Jaytee to go to the window early in the way that he did for shorter absences.[67]

Reviewing the book, Susan Blackmore criticised Sheldrake for comparing the 12 tests of random duration – which were all less than an hour in duration – to the initial tests where the dog may have been responding to patterns in the owner's journeys. Blackmore interpreted the results of the randomised tests as starting with a period where the dog "settles down and does not bother to go to the window", and then showing that the longer the owner was away, the more the dog went to look.[64]

The Sense of Being Stared At

Sheldrake's The Sense of Being Stared At was published in 2003. The book explores telepathy, precognition, and the "psychic staring effect". It reported on an experiment Sheldrake conducted where blindfolded subjects guessed whether persons were staring at them or at another target. Sheldrake reported subjects exhibiting a weak sense of being stared at, but no sense of not being stared at,[68][69] and attributed the results to morphic resonance.[70] Sheldrake reported a hit rate of 53.1%, describing two subjects as "nearly always right, scoring way above chance levels".[71]

David Jay Brown, who conducted some of the experiments for Sheldrake, states that one of the subjects who was reported as having the highest hit rates was under the influence of the drug MDMA (Ecstasy) during the trials.[76]

The Science Delusion (Science Set Free)

The Science Delusion was published on 1 January 2012 in the UK, and in the US on 4 September 2012 as Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery. It summarises much of Sheldrake's previous work and encapsulates it into a broader critique of philosophical materialism, with the title apparently mimicking that of The God Delusion by one of his critics, Richard Dawkins. In an interview with Fortean Times, Sheldrake denied that Dawkins' book was the inspiration for his own, saying, "The title was at the insistence of my publishers, and the book will be re-titled in the United States as Science Set Free ... Dawkins is a passionate believer in materialist dogma, but the book is not a response to him".[77]

In the book Sheldrake proposes a number of questions as the theme of each chapter which seek to elaborate on his central premise that science is predicated on the belief that the nature of reality is fully understood, with only minor details needing to be filled in. This "delusion" is what Sheldrake argues has turned science into a series of dogmas grounded in philosophical materialism rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena. He argues that there are many powerful taboos that circumscribe what scientists can legitimately direct their attention towards.[78]:6–12 The mainstream view of modern science is that it proceeds by methodological naturalism and does not require philosophical materialism.[79]

Sheldrake questions conservation of energy; he calls it a "standard scientific dogma",[78]:337 says that perpetual motion devices and inedia should be investigated as possible phenomena,[78]:72–73 and has stated that "the evidence for energy conservation in living organisms is weak".[78]:83 He argues in favour of alternative medicine and psychic phenomena, saying that their recognition as being legitimate is impeded by a "scientific priesthood" with an "authoritarian mentality".[78]:327

Citing his earlier "psychic staring effect" experiments and other reasons, he stated that minds are not confined to brains and remarks that "liberating minds from confinement in heads is like being released from prison".[78]:229 He suggests that DNA is insufficient to explain inheritance, and that inheritance of form and behaviour is mediated through morphic resonance.[78]:157–186 He also promotes morphic resonance in broader fashion as an explanation for other phenomena such as memory.[78]:187–211

Reviews from outside of the scientific community could be positive. Philosopher Mary Midgley writing in The Guardian welcomed it as "a new mind-body paradigm" to address "the unlucky fact that our current form of mechanistic materialism rests on muddled, outdated notions of matter".[80] She also stated that Sheldrake's "analogy between natural regularities and habit" could be found in the writings of C S Peirce, Nietzsche, William James and AN Whitehead.[80]

In another review, Deepak Chopra commended Sheldrake for wanting "to end the breach between science and religion".[27] Philosopher Martin Cohen in The Times Higher Educational Supplement wrote that "Sheldrake pokes enough holes in such certainties [of orthodox science] to make this work a valuable contribution, not only to philosophical debates but also to scientific ones, too", although Cohen noted that Sheldrake "goes a bit too far here and there".[81]

In the media and in public

Sheldrake has received popular coverage through newspapers, radio, television and speaking engagements. The attention he receives has raised concerns that it adversely affects the public understanding of science.[4][16][17][22] Some have accused Sheldrake of self-promotion,[22] with one commenting, "for the inventors of such hypotheses the rewards include a degree of instant fame which is harder to achieve by the humdrum pursuit of more conventional science."[17]

On television

An experiment involving measuring the time for subjects to recognise hidden images, with morphic resonance being posited to aid in recognition, was conducted in 1984 by the BBC popular science programme Tomorrow's World.[11] In the outcome of the experiment, one set of data yielded positive results and another set yielded negative results.[85]

Sheldrake was the subject of an episode of Heretics of Science, a six-part documentary series broadcast on BBC 2 in 1994.[86] On this episode, John Maddox discussed "A book for burning?", his 1981 Nature editorial review of Sheldrake's book, A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance. Maddox said that morphic resonance "is not a scientific theory. Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned with exactly the language that the popes used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reasons: it is heresy."[85] The broadcast repeatedly displayed footage of book burning, sometimes accompanied by audio of a crowd chanting "heretic".[85] Biologist Steven Rose criticised the broadcast for focusing on Maddox's rhetoric as if it was "all that mattered". "There wasn't much sense of the scientific or metascientific issues at stake", Rose said.[87]

Debating and lecturing

Sheldrake debated biologist Lewis Wolpert on the existence of telepathy in 2004 at the Royal Society of Arts in London.[88] Sheldrake marshalled evidence for telepathy while Wolpert argued that telepathy fits Irving Langmuir's definition of pathological science and that the evidence for telepathy has not been persuasive.[89] Reporting on the event, New Scientist said "it was clear the audience saw Wolpert as no more than a killjoy. (...) There are sound reasons for doubting Sheldrake's data. One is that some parapsychology experimenters have an uncanny knack of finding the effect they are looking for. There is no suggestion of fraud, but something is going on, and science demands that it must be understood before conclusions can be drawn about the results".[88]

In 2006, Sheldrake spoke at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science about experimental results on telepathy replicated by "a 1980s girl band", drawing criticism from Peter Atkins, Lord Winston, and Richard Wiseman. The Royal Society also reacted to the event saying, "Modern science is based on a rigorous evidence-based process involving experiment and observation. The results and interpretations should always be exposed to robust peer review."[90]

In April 2008, Sheldrake was stabbed by a man during a lecture in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The man told a reporter that he thought Sheldrake had been using him as a "guinea pig" in telepathic mind control experiments for over five years.[91]Sheldrake suffered a wound to the leg and has since recovered,[91][92] while his assailant was found "guilty but mentally ill".[93]

In January 2013, Sheldrake gave a TEDx lecture at TEDxWhitechapel in East London roughly summarising ideas from his book, The Science Delusion. In his talk, Sheldrake stated that modern science rests on ten dogmas which "fall apart" upon examination and promoted his hypothesis of morphic resonance. According to a statement issued by TED staff, TED's scientific advisors "questioned whether his list is a fair description of scientific assumptions" and believed that "there is little evidence for some of Sheldrake's more radical claims, such as his theory of morphic resonance". The advisors recommended that the talk "should not be distributed without being framed with caution".

The video of the talk was moved from the TEDx YouTube channel to the TED blog accompanied by the framing language called for by the advisors. The move and framing prompted accusations of censorship, to which TED responded by saying the accusations were "simply not true" and that Sheldrake's talk was "up on our website".[94][95]

In November 2013, Sheldrake gave a lecture at the Oxford Union outlining his claims, made in The Science Delusion, that modern science has become constrained by dogma. Sheldrake argued that these dogmatic constraints are particularly evident in physics. Despite the fact, he said, that scientists around the world consistently get different measurements for such "constants" as the gravitational force or the speed of light, they insist that the variation is attributable to experimental error or they "make up" proportions of dark energy and matter, assuring that the variations they've observed can be made to fit into the established paradigm. "What if the laws of nature vary throughout the day," Sheldrake asked.[96]


A variety of responses to Sheldrake's ideas have appeared in prominent scientific publications.

Sheldrake and theoretical physicist David Bohm published a dialogue in 1982 in which they compared Sheldrake's ideas to Bohm's implicate order.[97] In 1997, physicist Hans-Peter Dürr speculated about Sheldrake's work in relation to modern physics.[98]

Following the publication of A New Science of Life, New Scientist sponsored a competition to devise empirical tests for morphic resonance.[53] The winning idea involved learning Turkish nursery rhymes, with psychologist and broadcaster Sue Blackmore's entry involving babies' behaviour coming second.[21] Blackmore found the results did not support the theory however Sheldrake disagreed,[21] and detailed the experiments in his next book, The Presence of the Past.

In 2005, the Journal of Consciousness Studies devoted a special issue to Sheldrake's work on the sense of being stared at.[23] For this issue, the editor could not follow the journal's standard peer review process because "making successful blind peer review a condition of publication would in this case have killed the project at the outset".[99] The issue thus featured several articles by Sheldrake, followed by the open peer-review to which Sheldrake then responded.[23] Writing in Scientific American, Michael Shermer rated the peer commentaries, and noted that the more supportive reviews came from those who had affiliations with less mainstream institutions.[23]

Sheldrake and developmental biologist Lewis Wolpert have made a scientific wager about the importance of DNA in the developing organism. Wolpert bet Sheldrake "a case of fine port" that "By 1 May 2029, given the genome of a fertilised egg of an animal or plant, we will be able to predict in at least one case all the details of the organism that develops from it, including any abnormalities." Sheldrake denies that DNA contains a recipe for morphological development. The Royal Society will be asked to determine the winner if the result is not obvious.[100]

An editor for Nature said in 2009 that Maddox's reference to book burning backfired.[22]

In 2012, Sheldrake described his experiences after publication of Maddox's editorial review as being "exactly like a papal excommunication. From that moment on, I became a very dangerous person to know for scientists."[3]

Sheldrake and Steven Rose

During 1987 and 1988 Sheldrake contributed several pieces to The Guardian's "Body and Soul" column. In one of these, he wrote that the idea that "memories were stored in our brains" was "only a theory" and "despite decades of research, the phenomenon of memory remains mysterious".[108] This provoked a response by Professor Steven Rose, a neuroscientist from the Open University, who criticised Sheldrake for being "a researcher trained in another discipline" (botany) for not "respect[ing] the data collected by neuroscientists before begin[ning] to offer us alternative explanations", and accused Sheldrake of "ignoring or denying" "massive evidence", and arguing that "neuroscience over the past two decades has shown that memories are stored in specific changes in brain cells". Giving an example of experiments on chicks, Rose asserted "egregious errors that Sheldrake makes to bolster his case that demands a new vague but all-embracing theory to resolve."[24]

Sheldrake responded to Rose's article, stating that there was experimental evidence that showed that "memories can survive the destruction of the putative memory traces".[109] Rose subsequently responded, asking Sheldrake to "get his facts straight", explaining the research and concluding that "there is no way that this straightforward and impressive body of evidence can be taken to imply that memories are not in the brain, still less that the brain is tuning into some indeterminate, undefined, resonating and extra-corporeal field".[110]

In his next column, Sheldrake again attacked Rose for following "materialism", and argued that quantum physics had "overturned" materialism, and suggested that "memories may turn out to depend on morphic resonance rather than memory traces".[111] Philosopher Alan Malachowski of the University of East Anglia, responding to what he called Sheldrake's "latest muddled diatribe", defended materialism, argued that Sheldrake dismissed Rose's explanation with an "absurd rhetorical comparison", asserted that quantum physics was compatible with materialism and argued that "being roughly right about great many things has given [materialists] the confidence to be far more open minded than he is prepared to give them credit for".[112]

They subsequently agreed to and arranged a test of the morphic resonance hypothesis using chicks. Sheldrake published his paper stating that the results matched his prediction that day-old chicks would be influenced by the experiences of previous batches of day-old chicks. "From the point of view of the hypothesis of formative causation, the results of this experiment are encouraging" and called for further research.[113] Rose published separately, stating that morphic resonance was a "hypothesis disconfirmed".[17] He also made further criticisms of morphic resonance, and stated that "the experience of this collaboration has convinced me in practice, Sheldrake is so committed to his hypothesis that it is very hard to envisage the circumstances in which he would accept its disconfirmation".[17] Rose requested Professor Patrick Bateson FRS to analyse the data, and Bateson offered his opinion that Sheldrake's interpretation of the data was "misleading" and attributable to experimenter effects.[17]

Sheldrake responded to Rose's paper by describing it as "polemic" and "aggressive tone and extravagant rhetoric" and concluding that "The results of this experiment do not disconfirm the hypothesis of formative causation, as Rose claims. They are consistent with it."[114]

In academic and popular culture

Between 1989 and 1999 Sheldrake, psychonaut Terence McKenna and mathematician Ralph Abraham recorded a series of discussions exploring diverse topics relating to the "world soul" and evolution.[115] These also resulted in a number of books based on these discussions: Trialogues at the Edge of the West: Chaos, Creativity and the Resacralization of the World (1992), The Evolutionary Mind: Trialogues at the Edge of the Unthinkable (1998), and The Evolutionary Mind: Conversations on science, imagination & spirit (2005). In an interview for the book Conversations on the Edge of the Apocalypse, Sheldrake states he believes the use of psychedelic drugs "can reveal a world of consciousness and interconnection" which he says he has experienced.[116]

Sheldrake has been described as a New Age author[119][120][121] and is popular among many in the New Age movement who view him as lending scientific credibility to their beliefs,[25][85] though Sheldrake does not necessarily endorse certain New Age interpretations of his ideas.[25] Psychic Sylvia Browne, while channelling her spirit guide "Francine", said that morphic resonance carries emotional trauma and physical ailments from past lives which may be released through affirmations.[122]

The morphogenetic field plays a large role in the Nintendo DS game Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors. Experiments in the game's back story involve putting pairs of siblings under extreme circumstances and trying to get them to telepathically send puzzle answers to each other in order to survive.[124]

Origin and philosophy of morphic resonance

Among his early influences Sheldrake cites The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) by Thomas Kuhn. Sheldrake says that the book led him to view contemporary scientific understanding of life as simply a paradigm, which he called "the mechanistic theory of life". Reading Kuhn's work, Sheldrake says, focused his mind on how scientific paradigms can change.[8]

Sheldrake says that although there are similarities between morphic resonance and Hinduism's akashic records,[125] he first conceived of the idea while at Cambridge, before his travel to India where he later developed it. He attributes the origin of his morphic resonance idea to two influences: his studies of the holistic tradition in biology, and French philosopher Henri Bergson's book Matter and Memory. He says that he took Bergson's concept of memories not being materially embedded in the brain and generalised it to morphic resonance, where memories are not only immaterial but also under the influence of the collective past memories of similar organisms.

While his colleagues at Cambridge were not receptive to the idea, Sheldrake found the opposite to be true in India. He recounts his Indian colleagues saying, "There's nothing new in this, it was all known millennia ago to the ancient rishis." Sheldrake thus characterises morphic resonance as a convergence between Western and Eastern thought, yet found by himself first in Western philosophy.[7][126]

Sheldrake has also noted similarities between morphic resonance and Carl Jung's collective unconscious, with regard to collective memories being shared across individuals and the coalescing of particular behaviours through repetition, described by Jung as archetypes.[7] However, whereas Jung assumed that archetypal forms were transmitted through physical inheritance, Sheldrake attributes collective memories to morphic resonance, and rejects any explanation of them involving what he terms "mechanistic biology".[11]

Lewis Wolpert, one of Sheldrake's critics, has described morphic resonance as being an updated Drieschian vitalism.[15][127]


Science is not just science in most cases. Science is 'contaminated' by the profit motive in every industry that pursues science as the answer to all problems. The profit motive introduces bias and corruption into the scientific process. 

In addition to the profit motive, scientism is also contaminated and corrupted by a basic 'assumption' that the whole world is only physical, and nothing else. In other words, science is limited to what can be experienced by the five senses, and a belief or assumption that materialism is all that there is.

Go deeper into this rabbit hole...

Defining Materialistic Physicalism Consciousness, Role Of Emotions, Left Brain Oriented, 3 Dimensions, 6 Illusions of Materialism Explored, Why Perception Is Not Reality, Carl Jung Shows Mysticism Is Final Step


Although AGR tends to disagree with all of the pro gun, pro Trump views of NaturalNews, this article was good enough to feature. AGR always seeks to find areas of agreement even with those who are opposed to AGR in every other area.

NATURALNEWS: "Much of modern science remains stuck in an endless inward spiral of false paradigms. That's why "scientific" medicine, for example, offers no real answers to the really big diseases: cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and so on.

More importantly, modern medicine will never solve these problems unless it abandons its false assumptions and embraces the "higher science" beyond reductionism and materialism.

Much like myself, Sheldrake is very much "pro science." But he is disturbed by how scientific advancement has become trapped in a cultural tar pit of delusional beliefs and false assumptions. These false assumptions, listed below, hold science back and prevent human civilization from progressing toward a more profound understanding of nature, ourselves and our universe. (And that's the whole point of science in the first place. Not to enrich corporations but to deepen our understanding of the universe.)

The following 10 items are Sheldrake's, but the comments for each item are my own. For the record, Sheldrake may or may not agree completely with my own explanations for each heading here, but they are written in the spirit of what I believe he is wanting to say. If you want his full explanation of these ten items, read his book.

False Assumption #1) 

The universe is mechanical

Modern science believes the entire universe is made of up "stuff" and nothing else. There is no consciousness, no spirit, no mind and nothing other than mechanical and chemical stuff.

This explains modern science's obsession with finding smaller and smaller particles at CERN. Many scientists actually believe that if the smallest bits and pieces of a mechanical universe are finally identified and labeled -- because labels are really, really important to the materialistic worldview -- then the entire cosmos will finally be understood and the "delusion" of God / creator / architect can finally be dismissed forever (in their view). Their goal is the ultimate pessimism: to destroy any belief in a higher intelligence and to doom humans to living pointless lives that end in their total destruction at the moment of death.

False Assumption #2) 

All matter is unconscious

The most astonishing delusion in modern science is the fact that most modern scientists do not believe they are, themselves, conscious beings. This is also true with Stephen Hawking, whom I have written about in some detail. (See my popular mini-documentary The God Within for a full explanation.)

Modern science assumes that humans are nothing more than biological robots and that animals are not conscious either. They literally believe that consciousness is an illusory artifact of the chemical brain. Not surprisingly, they also do not believe that plants and other living systems are conscious. Even further, the idea that inanimate objects such as minerals or crystals might have some sort of consciousness is considered heresy by most modern scientists.

This denial of consciousness is an assumption, however. There is no evidence supporting the assumption. In fact, first-person evidence of the human experience appears to directly contradict the false assumption that humans are not conscious.

False Assumption #3) 

The total amount of matter and energy is always a constant

This assumption of modern science is especially suspicious given that even conventional cosmologists readily admit that 96% of the universe has yet to be detected at all. That's the "dark matter / dark energy" portion of the universe, and to my knowledge, neither dark matter nor dark energy have ever been directly measured or seen by human scientists.

Except for the theoretical Big Bang, there is no phenomenon by which modern scientists believe the totality of matter and energy can come into existence or exit our universe.

This assumption is especially bizarre considering the theoretical framework of the Big Bang theory, which claims all the known matter and energy in the entire cosmos spontaneously appeared without cause, all on its own, without any intention or reason. The Big Bang theory -- and its accompanying theory of cosmological inflation -- are, by any definition, a bizarre kind of material mysticism that goes to great lengths to deny the existence of a creator / designer / engineer / intelligent advanced civilization / etc.

False Assumption #4) 

The laws of nature are fixed

This, too, is an assumption that looks to have already unraveled thanks to the efforts of a few modern-day scientists themselves. As a simple example, multiple physics experiments are now being conducted all over the world -- and widely replicated -- which show "faster than light" teleportation of information via quantum entanglement.

As just one example of this, here's a ScienceDaily.com article describing faster-than-light quantum teleportation spanning 143km:

(In theory, instantaneous quantum teleportation could take place over a billion kilometers. The distance makes no difference. Quantum teleportation ignores the apparent laws of physics, including the "cosmological speed limit" known as the speed of light.)

According to classic laws of nature, such quantum teleportation is impossible. In fact, all quantum computing should be impossible, and come to think of it, transistors shouldn't function either. But they do. And they do it by breaking the classic laws of physics.

Yet the far stronger argument for challenging false assumption #4 is found in multiverse theory which states that our known cosmos is just one of an infinite -- yes, infinite! -- number of other universes, each with its own variation of the laws of physics. Only in a small fraction of all universes is, for example, the strength of the weak nuclear force set at precisely the right number to result in the formation of stars, planets and carbon-based life. But because there are an infinite number of universes, there are also an infinite number of universes where the laws of physics exactly equal our own... and even where "mirror" human civilizations almost perfectly reflect our own.

Look up the "anthropic principle" if you'd like to dig into this subject a little more. Or read Goldilocks Engima: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? by Paul Davies.

I also recommend author David Deutsch.

False Assumption #5) 

Nature is purposeless, with no goal or direction

The Darwinian framework of biological science assumes that nature achieves highly complex biological structures, social structures, mechanical engineering and behavioral cultures simply through the process of natural selection. While natural selection is constantly taking place throughout nature, it alone is not sufficient to explain the ability of plants, animals, humans and possibly even universes to achieve remarkable end goals purely through chance and inheritance.

There appears to be a "driving creative force" behind much of what we observe in nature, including in animals and humans. This driving creative force, if you get right down to it, appears to have a connection with spirit -- a non-physical "mind" which gives consciousness to physical beings of all kinds.

What we see in the natural world -- in ecosystems, plants, animals and even humans -- is not explainable through natural selection alone. There exists intention, consciousness and a seeming desire to achieve complex goals by taking fantastic evolutionary leaps which modern science cannot explain.

As a simple example of this, consider the fact that although many thousands of humanoid-like fossils have been unearthed in the last two centuries, there are still no fossils that record the theoretical "missing link" which is supposed to link humans to primates. Why have no such fossils been found? Almost certainly because they do not exist.

False Assumption #6) 

All biological inheritance is material, carried in DNA

The idea that your DNA controls your body and your life is now an ancient myth. Only in the materialistic circles of old school "science" do people still think DNA alone controls your health, your behavior and all your inherited attributes.

Today we know that there are epigenetic factors beyond DNA which strongly influence the development of biological beings. We also know that environmental factors (i.e. exposure to chemicals, heavy metals, nutrients, etc.) strongly influence either the suppression or the hyper-activation of genes. Vitamin D, for example, is one of the most powerful gene activators in human biology, turning on "healing genes"  microscopic light switches.

Furthermore, consciousness and free will overrides DNA. While you may have an inherited tendency toward a particular behavior, you can choose to override that behavior as a matter of choice. The mind trumps the mechanics, in other words, if the mind is sufficiently trained (through meditation, typically).

False Assumption #7) 

There is no such thing as a "mind" other than an artifact of brain function

I find it bewildering that most modern-day scientists still do not dare acknowledge the existence of the "mind" -- a non-material awareness / presence / consciousness that coexists with the brain but is not derived from the mechanics and chemistry of the brain.

Comically, many scientists use their minds to attempt to disprove the existence of all minds. They would like us to believe self-awareness is an illusion or that terms like "mind" or "consciousness" are just "word tricks" used to talk about brain chemistry, not actual concepts that really exist.

But they have failed. To date, there is no scientific proof whatsoever that supports the odd notion that consciousness does not exist or that the mind is not present in a conscious being. "Science" cannot disprove these things because the tools of modern-day science are materialistic by definition and therefore incapable of proving or disproving non-material phenomena. It's like trying to measure the speed of a moving object with a thermometer.

False Assumption #8) 

Memories are stored chemically in the brain and disappear at death

In summary, modern scientists believe that memories are stored chemically, using the brain as some sort of biological hard drive, and that if they could only find the location of the brain in which these chemicals are stored, they could literally "read your mind" like copying files from a thumb drive.

This assumption is wildly off the mark. I'm convinced that memories are holographically stored across not only brain matter itself, but also in a non-material spirit matrix of some sort which interacts with the physical brain.

This is why the physical location of memories in the brain can never be located by scientists. This is also why some people are shockingly found to be fully functional in our world even though they have virtually no brain matter whatsoever. For example, here's a New Scientist story about a man who had almost no brain matter whatsoever but still possessed average IQ and was a normal part of society.

And yes, the man had memories, too. So if memories are "stored" somewhere in the brain as modern-day scientists falsely believe, then how could this man have memories if he had virtually no physical brain to begin with? How could he function at all? (And his story is just one of many...)

False Assumption #9) 

Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory

Modern-day "skeptics" go to great lengths to try to disprove anything that even smacks of "mentalism" or telepathy. But they can't rationally refute the scientific work of people like Dean Radin, author of The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena.

Radin has, over and over again, scientifically shown strongly convincing evidence for low-level telepathy and other phenomena such as premonition. Explanations for such phenomena are entirely consistent with quantum non-locality and quantum entanglement, which Einstein called "spooky action [at a distance]."

The most likely explanation for all this is that the human brain, being a holographic, hybrid physical / non-physical computational and awareness engine of sorts, is also "entangled" with all matter in the universe at a quantum level. The brainmind, if you will, seems to be both a transmitter and receiver of quantum information that is continually and instantly rippling across the cosmos. Tuning in to that information is a lot like tuning to the correct radio station and suddenly finding the music becoming crystal clear. (David Icke uses this same analogy to explain many of his own concepts about consciousness and the nature of reality.

False Assumption #10) 

Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works

Get this: most modern-day scientists do not believe that any vitamin, any mineral or any food has any biological effect whatsoever on the human body other than providing calories, sugars, proteins, fiber and fat. This wildly delusional belief is enshrined in the FDA's regulatory framework and is practiced throughout hospitals and health clinics across the planet.

Yet it is a truly moronic belief. How can vitamin D have no effect on the human body when nearly every organ in the body has vitamin D receptors? How can minerals play no role in human health when elements like magnesium and calcium are necessary for the most fundamental chemical processes of muscle neurology?

The physical part of the human being obviously requires physical building blocks. Those building blocks are nutrients, plant-based chemicals, minerals, proteins and water. They are not statin drugs, blood pressure meds, chemotherapy and radiation. The mechanistic model of medicine is an utter failure for human civilization. It has been a huge success in generating profits for drug companies and hospitals, however, which is exactly why this failed system is so desperately defended by those who profit from it.

"Skeptics" who attempt to refute the science of the work of people like Dean Radin eventually end up declaring something like, "If that were true, we would already know it" -- a classic example of failed circular reasoning bordering on self-congratulatory dogma.

Get the book "Science Set Free" and learn moreIn this article, I've only touched on some of these important concepts. To really delve into this, read Science Set Free by Rupert Sheldrake.

The ideas described in the book are truly revolutionary. They are also perfectly natural -- and in fact, many should be obvious to any true scientist who isn't brainwashed by academic dogma or corporate profit agendas.

Albert Einstein is famously quoted as saying, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Yet that's what much of modern science is trying to do... let's solve the cancer problem by finding a chemical that kills cancer! Yeah, that'll do it!

Or let's study the tiny particles created by an atom smasher, then we'll know the mind of God, yeah!

But these approaches will never succeed in answering the really big questions because they are rooted in 19th-century assumptions which we now know to be false. There is more to our universe than mere materialism. There is more to human consciousness than brain chemistry. There is more to biology than genetics and natural selection.

How obvious does it have to get, folks? THERE IS MORE TO DISCOVER if we only set ourselves free from the mental shackles of dogmatic, permanently pessimistic "science" as practiced today in our westernized, materialistic culture.

Join me in spreading the word about Rupert Sheldrake. This man is a true scientist taking part in the consciousness revolution which I believe to be a necessary step to the true uplifting of human civilization."

Go deeper

The War on Cancer, The War on Drugs, The Global War Against Terror, Nature, The War on Poverty/Hunger And War On Communism Have All Been Lost, Can Never Be Won; Complete Waste Of Time, Money And Energy

Drug War Is A Complete And Utter Failure, Says DEA Task Force Officer And Former Judge

Fentanyl Is Up To 10,000 Times More Potent And Dangerous Than Morphine Or Heroin, Used To 'Cut' Street Drugs, Causing Epidemic Of Opioid Overdose Deaths; Patients Addicted To Medical Prescription Drugs Resort To Street Drugs Like Heroin, Cut With Fentanyl

Synthetic Drugs Cause Opioid Overdoses, Deaths And Hospitalizations; Drastic Reductions In States With Legalized Medical Marijuana Laws; Sessions Demonizes Safe Nature Provided Medicine As Evil, But Toxic, Deadly Addicting Synthetic Drugs Are Good?

Medical Industrial Big Pharma Complex; How Big And Bad Is The Fraud, Deception And Catch 22 Death Count Due To Greed, Corruption And Lack Of Conscience? Medical Hormesis Theory Does Not Work


Fake Science, Bias, Corruption And Profit Motive; The Problem With Scientific Peer Review And Nuclear Industry Review Panels In Particular; Lysenkoism And Suppression Of The Truth Is The Rule In Nuclear Industry

Fake Greenwashing; Fake 'Green' Products, Fake News, Fake Services And Industries; Misleading Half Truths, Public Manipulations, Corporate Deceptions, Mass Media Fakery And Propaganda, Monopoly Spin Machinations Via 1 Percent Monopolies

What Is Consciousness? The Theory Of Everything Inside An Evolving Consciousness; Introduction To Multiple Forms Of Consciousness - Materialistic, Altered States, Quantum, Void, Hero, Non Physical, Religious And Universal Oneness

Defining Basic Plus Altered States Of Consciousness Via Trauma, Accident, Epilepsy, Oxygen Deficiency, Infections, Psychosis, And Intentional Methods Fasting, Sleep Deprivation, Psychoactive Drugs, Lucid Dreaming, Hypnosis, Meditation, More

Defining Religious Consciousness, Which Is Right, Science Or Religion? What If Both Are Right? Evolution Of Consciousness Within All Individuals And Religions Is Defined, Outlined And Charted Via Multiple Methods

Dr. John Hagelin, Ph.D; Explores Definition Plus Origin Of Consciousness, And Superstring Unified Field Theory

Dr Emoto; Vibrations, Water Has Memory, Energy, Consciousness, Intention, Healing, How And Why Homeopathics Work Via Universal Laws That Can Be Accessed Via Love, An Open Mind, And Seeking Truth, Top Secret Water Documentary


All of the ten false assumptions have their root in Materialism Consciousness, which is ego. As a first stage in the evolution of consciousness, it is the equivalent of kindergarten in school. Because the left brain thinking limits a person to logic, everything else flows from there.

Most schools and colleges train students in WHAT to think, not HOW to think. 

Schools Failing To Teach Children To Express Feelings, Be Creative, How To Think; Waldorf Education; Teaches Empathy, Emotional Intelligence, Freedom, Spirituality, Holistic Connection With Nature; Rudolf Steiner

Schools also do not teach students about multiple intelligences, or the difference between soul and ego, which results in many sociopaths being created.

Soul Versus Ego; What Is The Difference? Do Everything With Agape Love, And With No Expectation Or Attachment To The Outcome, Miracles, Higher Power And Detachment Explored

Schools and colleges train students in logical left brain thinking and the profit motive, while denying, suppressing, and ignoring the right side of the brain, which offers things like creativity, intuition, imagination and a connection to the heart, plus empathy and compassion. Because schools and colleges lift up ego/selfishness and suppress spirituality, empathy, sharing and compassion, we end up in society with a huge number of entirely left brained, greedy, ignorant, selfish, intelligent sociopaths. Then we wonder why we end up with people like Donald Trump and the 1 percent at the top of huge fascist corporations. 

Schools and colleges teach Materialism, greed, ignorance of how to think, selfishness, and dogma of false science, based on false beliefs, with everything based on ego. Religions teach dogmatically in the same way, but focus on controlling everyone via their false fundamental belief system, that has an underlying motive of 'saving' everyone via their particular faith based belief system. Both directions are initially based on Materialistic Consciousness, one via science, and the other via religion. 

Selfishness Plus Status, Versus Service, Selflessness, Agape Love, Empathy And Compassion - Reviewing Plus Analyzing Ayn Rand's “Atlas Shrugged”, Galt's Gulch Project And Her Movies; Fake Selfish Hero's And False Leaders


The first step in the evolution of consciousness is Materialism, whether in religion or science. The second step consists of a hero's journey, where a person has to follow a path less traveled, in order to get 'untrapped' by either school or religion. Unlearning is an important part of traveling down a path less traveled. 

TEDx - Ancient Story Of The Hero's Journey; Everyone Is A Hero, This Is Your Call To Adventure

Who Is Dr. Goodheart? How And Why Everyone Needs To Accept The Call, Find Their Inner Hero Archetype, Let It's Light Shine, Form A Sustainable Community And Then Heal The World

The 10 False Assumptions Of Modern Science; How To Set Science Free From Materialism Consciousness, Ego, Delusional Beliefs, Dogma, Fake Paradigms, Greed, Greenwashing, Profit Motive, Bias And False Assumptions

Share this post: