A revolution in the way we think of ourselves is sweeping the world. It’s forcing us to rewrite the story of our origins, our past, how long we’ve been here, and where we’re going. Even though the revolution began in the early 20th century, it has gone unnoticed by average people going about their daily routines—that is, unless they’re among the group of scientists who have dedicated their lives to understanding how life and the universe work.

For the archaeologists struggling to fit the discovery of advanced ice age civilizations into the traditional timeline of history, for example, and the biologists publishing more than 400 peer-reviewed studies showing that nature is based upon cooperation rather than “survival of the fittest,” the revolution in thinking feels like a major-magnitude earthquake. It registers “off the scale” of new ideas as it levels some of the most cherished beliefs of conventional science. In its wake is left a wide swath of outdated teachings, demanding the reevaluation of long-held traditions and destroying the legacy of entire careers. The reason? Discoveries have shown that many of the scientific “facts” we’ve trusted for centuries to explain the universe and our role in it are flawed.

An obsolete paradigm of the universe and our relationship to it was based upon a series of scientific assumptions—false assumptions—that can no longer be taught as fact in light of new evidence. Examples of these include the following:

• False Assumption 1: Civilization is approximately 5,000 to 5,500 years old.
• False Assumption 2: Nature is based upon “survival of the fittest.”
• False Assumption 3: Random events of evolution explain human origins.
• False Assumption 4: Consciousness is separate from our physical world.
• False Assumption 5: The space between things is empty.

When we think about everyday life—the way we care for ourselves and our families, how we solve our problems, the choices we make—we find that much of what we accept as common knowledge is rooted in the core beliefs of these false assumptions, which are holdovers of an outdated science that began 300 years ago. It may be no coincidence that during this same period of time, the world has found itself facing the greatest crises of war, suffering, and disease in recorded history. These ideas of our sterile-sounding chemical origins, of our relatively recent arrival on Earth, and of our separateness from nature have led us to believe that we’re little more than specks of dust in the universe and a biological sidebar in the overall scheme of life.

Is it any wonder that we often feel powerless to help our loved ones and ourselves when we face life’s great crises? Is it any wonder that we often feel just as helpless when we see our world changing so fast that it has been described as “falling apart at the seams”? At first blush there seems to be no reason for us to think any differently, to believe we have any control over ourselves or events. After all, there’s nothing in our traditional textbooks or traditional way of seeing the world that allows for anything else. . . .

That is, however, until we take another look at the new discoveries of the last years of the 20th century. Although the results of paradigm-shattering research have been published in leading technical journals, they’re often shared in the complex language of science, masking the power of their meaning from a nonscientific person. Average nonscientific, nontechnical people don’t feel the impact of the new discoveries because they’re being left out of the conversation. And that’s where our revolution comes in.

Rather than following the first three centuries of scientific imagery portraying us as insignificant beings that originated through a miraculous series of biological “flukes” and then survived 5,000 years of civilization as powerless victims separate from the harsh world we’ve found ourselves in, the new science suggests something radically different. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, peer-reviewed scientific studies revealed the following facts:

• Fact 1: Civilization is at least twice as old as the approximately 5,000 to 5,500 years estimated by conventional timelines.¹
• Fact 2: Nature relies upon cooperation and mutual aid, not competition, for survival.²
• Fact 3: Human life shows unmistakable signs of an intelligent design.³
• Fact 4: Our emotions directly influence what happens in the sea of energy we are bathed in.⁴
• Fact 5: The universe, our world, and our bodies are made of a shared field of energy—a matrix—that makes the unity known as “entanglement” possible.⁵

It’s been said that “insanity” is doing the same thing over and over again in the same way and expecting different results. To attempt to resolve the unprecedented crises of our time, looking at them through the eyes of the same beliefs that paved the way to the crises makes little sense. Doing so now, knowing that those beliefs are no longer true, makes even less sense.

To meet the challenges of our time, we must be willing to think differently about ourselves than we have for at least the last three centuries. And to do so means that we must cross some of the traditional boundaries that have isolated the discoveries in one area of scientific study from those in another. When we do, something wonderful begins to happen.

References:

1.  Andrew Curry, “Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?” Smithsonian Magazine (November 2008). Website: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html.
2.  Ronald Logan, “Opening Address of the Symposium on the Humanistic Aspects of Regional Development,” Prout Journal, vol. 6, no. 3 (September 1993).
3.  Michael J. Behe, “Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry.” From a speech delivered at Discovery Institute’s “God & Culture Conference” (August 10, 1996). Website: http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm.
4.  Glen Rein and Rollin McCraty, “Structural Changes in Water and DNA Associated with New Physiologically Measurable States,” Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 8, no. 3 (1994): pp. 438–439.
5.  E. W. Silvertooth, “Special Relativity,” Nature, vol. 322 (August 14, 1986): p. 590.