The Unity of the Sciences and Unification Thought

losophy also, including Antony Flew ’s book There Is A God . (14) My scientific expertise, which has had some training, but which is currently...

0 downloads 5 Views 224KB Size
When Paradigms Shift: A Cosmic Scientific Revolution David A. Carlson, PhD Professor, Cheongshim Graduate School of Theology Paper prepared for the 19th International Symposium on Unification Thought Japan March 8 – 11, 2013 INTRODUCTION

I have a scientific background. I consider myself quite fortunate when I refl ect upon the fact that I have been able to gain both scientific knowledge, in my yo unger days, and philosophical and theological knowledge, in my later years. Althoug h much of what I learned in my college science courses has long become out-date d, I am left with both a scientific approach to things, as well as with a basic awar ” that is science. After encountering the Divine Pri eness of the incredible “mystery”

nciple (1) many years ago, and after studying it in some depth for a number of ye ars, and having come to an awareness of its emphasis on the unity of science and theology, I have been able to utilize both perspectives in my career. I drew upon t his utilization in an earlier essay concerning biological evolution, (2) and my concer n with where it seemed to me that evolutionary thought seemed to be heading.

Since the time of writing that essay concerning biology, however, I have ha d more time to think, to reflect, and to bring myself somewhat up to date with so me of the sciences. Although I have long held an abiding interest in science, per s e, I have in the past several years come to focus my attention more on the philos ophical implications of the sciences, now that I understand their genuine significanc e in the overall scheme of human life and the universe. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading such books as The Symbiotic Universe, (3) A Sense of the Cosmos, (4) Do

Proteins Teleport in an RNA World?, (5) The Icons of Evolution, (6) The Politicall y Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, (7) The Language of God, (8) and Myths, Models and Paradigms, (9) which are generally sympathetic to religion, as well as books in the other genre (versus spirituality, or neutral) such as Why

Darwin Matters, (10) A Universe From Nothing, (11) Black Holes and Baby Univers es, (12) The Evolution of Physics, (13) and many others. I have read further in phi

losophy also, including Antony Flew’’s book There Is A God. (14)

My scientific expertise, which has had some training, but which is currently more of a layman’’s interest than that of a scientist’’s, may not be as precise as th at of some scientists, but I continue to enjoy the discussion and debate about scien ce, and especially I find very stimulating the broader debate about the philosophica l and theological implications of the findings of the sciences. This is the primary re ason I thoroughly enjoyed reading, and find myself re-reading, Antony Flew’’s book, since he takes the sciences and their philosophical implications very seriously, in much the same manner as I do. In fact, I strongly recommend that every Unificatio nist read this book, as preparation for their debate with secularists/atheists. I also encourage every scientist to read this book, inasmuch as it encourages scientists t o consider the philosophical implications of their work, which is something they ver y often do not do. Ever since the ICUS Conferences (15) which Rev. Moon initiated and hosted for many years, the vision of the unity of the sciences and absolute v alues has been a very relevant topic. At the same time, I consider myself as one a ble to dialogue on the highest levels concerning the ideas and implications of the D

ivine Principle (which I have been teaching for years), Unification Thought, (16) wh ich I have also taught, and Unification thinking in general. If I don’’t personally hav e a response to your specific question, I can easily find someone, among my many scientific friends, who will have a response, and invariably a quite good one at th at.


I am writing this essay in order to take advantage of this opportunity to up date my own reflections and thoughts about Unification Thought and the unity of th e sciences. I have certain opinions, and I more than welcome any constructive criti cisms or ideas from those of you joining us in Japan for this significant conference. ” of the universe is consistently uni I will argue in this paper that the “lawful-ness” form throughout the universe, that there is a closely inter-connected and hierarchic al structure to the universe, which is supported by this lawful character, and that p ermeating throughout the fabric of the universe is the purpose of the Designer. Ind eed, it is because of this lawful purposeful nature that the universe exists and func tions as it does. It is on the foundation of this purpose that pervades the universe

” that one can legitimately speak of the “unity of the sciences.”

Let me begin with some basic observations. In Unification Thought, there is a section called Ontology, and in this section are set forth the most fundamental l aws and principles upon which this universe (from a scientific viewpoint) or this cr eation (from a more religious viewpoint) is based, and according to which it functio ” as the ns in all of its amazing diversity. Everything in this universe is “connected,” science of ecology might tell us. In lecturing on the significance of the “connected ” (17) and the interconnectedness of all reality, centering on the subject part being” ner, I often make use of a diagram (18) which, in a very simplified manner, illustra tes the entire cosmos, and the manner in which it exists.

From this diagram can be appreciated, at least at first appearances, the fac t that all the sciences, from quantum or nuclear physics, up through chemistry (ino rganic and organic/biological), and biology (including molecular biology, histology, c ytology, physiology, and ecology), to the areas of psychology, sociology, and even astronomy, are connected. True Father states:

When we examine the universe, we see that all beings exist in pairs, relating to one another as subject and object partners, plus and minus. The mineral, plant, and animal worlds, and even the human world, exist based on the pair system. All beings desire the experience of true love through a reciprocal relationship. (19)

He adds:

The entire creation is interconnected through the structure of the pair system. This is true even for the mineral world. Everything operates either positively …the chemical elements of the mineral or negatively… world fuse together according to the laws of attraction. (20)

Whereas it is true that “all beings desire the experience of true love through a rec ” which is the genuine nature of the “law of attraction” ” found in iprocal relationship,”

the universe, this is not on the surface a scientific viewpoint, and we can pass on this concept until later.

All things are connected through a giving and receiving action, which is a consistent pattern on all levels of existence. That is to say, the give and receive a ction on any given level of existence, which follows a consistent pattern anywhere in the universe, creates not only the environment for that level of existence, but al so the appropriate foundation for the next higher level of being. There is, of cours e, the divide separating the inorganic (non-living) and organic (living) realms of bei ng. This is to be expected, what with our current understanding of the nature and ” What is i function of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the so-called “molecule of life.” mportant to notice in this respect is that scientists, whether they are physicists, ch emists, biologists, physiologists, astronomers or geophysicists, should appreciate th e fact that there does exist in the universe an essential inter-connectedness betwe en and among all these various realms. Why such a connection exists and the purp ose for which the entire universe functions the way it does are not inconsequential issues. I argue that it is because there is a God, a Designer. Whether you call the Designer of this immense cosmos God, Designer, Intelligent Mind, or Infinite Intelli gence (and all these terms have been used by scientists, particularly physicists), is open to individual choice. Beyond this issue, however, what must be realized by s cientists, I believe, is the fact that their specialized scientific fields focus on only o ne part of a much greater whole, and they would do well to be doing their researc h with that greater whole, and especially with the purpose behind it, in mind, as th ey design and carry out their experiments and engage in their research. In other w ” This would entail a “paradigm shi ords, they need to try and see “the big picture.” ” The big picture is what is expressed in my diagram. With this big picture in mi ft.” nd, new and important avenues of research and investigation will invariably open u p to humble scientific minds.

On the foundation of this broader perspective, or big picture, let us procee d for the moment to look somewhat more closely at some of the individual science ” and wo s. We can begin with physics and inorganic chemistry, the “hard sciences,” rk our way up.



I had the opportunity to study chemistry in both high school and college, b ut only through reading popular books on physics have I learned something about p hysics. Studying a science, per se, is interesting, but science is actually quite limit ” science. For that reason, ed, as long as it remains confined to the scope of “pure” I have enjoyed books on the relationship between science and religion. When one considers scientific fields from the point of view of philosophy or theology, one en counters speculations about purpose, value, and significance. One of the most influe ntial books on this topic, to my mind, is There Is A God, by Antony Flew, which w as mentioned previously. This book consciously (deliberately) and pointedly ponder s such questions as the existence of God and the origin of life, as well as other is sues. Flew raises some essential questions in his book, among them being the stat ” of the laws of physics. us and “given-ness”

” of physics even exist and, furthermore, function the way t That the “laws” hey do is an amazing fact, a fact to which many notable physicists have drawn att ention. Physicists, for example, have observed that “the laws of physics ‘really exi ” (21) That is to say, the st,’’ and scientists’’ job is to uncover and not invent them.” ” by scientists in the process of their r se laws have not been creatively “put there” ” The issue is even more poign esearch, but that the laws already exist “out there.” ant, however, when seen philosophically:

The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are mathematically precise, ” Einstein spoke of them as “reason universal, and “tied together.” ” The question we should ask is how nature came incarnate.” packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that — scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked— and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God. (22) (emphasis mine)

The nature of the universe can be depicted in terms of quite simple laws, one exa mple being Einstein’’s famous E=mc2. This is something to take note of. John Barro w:

observes that the unending complexity and exquisite structure of the universe are governed by a few simple laws that are symmetrical and intelligible. In fact, “there are mathematical equations, little squiggles on pieces of paper, that tell us how whole universes behave. Like Davies, he dismisses the idea that the order of the universe is imposed by our minds. (23)

” is presumably E=mc2, seemingly very simple, but in the c One of those “squiggles” ” ontext of a profound background of thought and research. Seeing such “squiggles,” physicists have speculated about what it is that “breathes fire into the equations a ” (24) Furthermore, why is it that the u nd makes a universe for them to describe?” niverse embodies these particular laws, and not some other set of laws? These are actually very important questions.

” an infinite n Some scientists have raised the possibility of a “multi-verse,” umber of universes, the implication being that at least one of such an infinite numb er of existing universes would, by sheer chance of course, be the very one in whi ch we live, with all of its mathematical precision. Paul Davies addresses such a po ssibility in this manner:

Multiverse proponents are often vague about how the parameter values are chosen across the defined ensemble. If there is a “law ” describing how parameter values are assigned as one of laws” slips from one universe to the next, then we have only shifted the problem of cosmic biophilicity up one level. Why? First, because we need to explain where the law of laws comes from. (25) (emphasis mine)

Such questions and issues are very relevant to philosophy.

According to recent news reports (late 2012), researchers have now “disco ” the Higg’’s particle or Higg’’s Boson, that sub-atomic particle or “glue” ” whic vered”

h holds the universe together. (26) Physics just keeps getting more and more inter ” enough, in the news recently (December 14, 20 esting! And, if that was not “new” 12) was a report about physics research related to “lattice quantum chromodynamic ” wherein scientists were seeking to design experiments for the purpose of deter s,” mining whether or not we exist as living in a computer simulation. The idea was to make a computer simulation of a subatomic particle, and to see what that simulati on might look like. “If you make the simulations big enough, something like our uni ” (27) I cannot even begin to understand the concepts in the verse should emerge.” background of such an idea (lattice chromodynamics!?), but it is very interesting to read about. Any interested layperson ought to read such news with a sense of ex citement and awe, for we seem to be reaching further and further into the very se crets of the universe.

Even beyond that, however, is the fact that one student involved in the res earch went so far as to comment: “If we stumble upon the nature of our existence, would we then look for ways to communicate with the civilization who created u ” The “civilization who created us” ”? Well, if we can talk scientifically or fashiona s?” ” who created us, it seems to me as if we are approaching bly about a “civilization” ” talk about a “God” ” who created us! What is the point where we can “scientifically” inspiring to me is to see that some scientific researchers are going so far as to b ” It may not be much longe e seriously thinking in terms of some form of “creation.” ” God, and this is coming from the hard sciences which r before science is “finding” work in the context of strict and logical mathematics! This would entail a paradig m shift.


The mathematical character of the world can clearly be seen in both the m ethodology and results of the various sciences. We certainly owe thanks to mathem atics for much of what we have discovered through precise and sophisticated scien tific research. (28) It is the conclusion of many of the top (ie Nobel Laureate) scie ntists that there must be a Designer, or Infinite Intelligence, serving as the Master ” subatomic, physical, and biol Designer behind the cosmos, with all of its “amazing” ogical phenomena, which can be measured mathematically.

So multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind. (29)

” of science grows even more insistent when we turn to The “enchantment” ” sciences, such as organic chemistry and biology, especially m consider the “softer” olecular biology. Just in passing, I would like to say that my college training was i n the various biological sciences. Because of that, these new discoveries are quite exciting to me, now that I have become acquainted with some of the more pressing and relevant philosophical and theological areas, and the issues and questions whi ch they raise.


There is, in Unification thinking, the important concept of “dual characterist ” as presented in both Divine Principle (30) and in Unification Thought. (31) Thi ics,” s concept can easily be verified, in principle, by any physicist, chemist, biologist, z oologist, or botanist. The notion that every entity is composed of an outer dimensi on (consisting of atoms, molecules, cells, or body) and is guided or directed by an inner dimension (or inherent directive nature, such as physico-chemical law, instinc t, or life) is intuitive and is the basis for scientific research. The outer dimension i s ordered appropriately, as guided by the inherent directive nature, such that every thing exists and functions according to the same, consistent laws of physics, chemi stry, and biology.

If we, then, with some of the physicists, accept the notion that there is a Designer (or, Creator God), and the notion that mathematical reasoning as well as t he laws of creation derive from such a Designer, then it is an easy step to saying that all the sciences can, in principle, be unified, as was shown in the diagram first introduced in an earlier section. They can be unified because they all originate fro m the same divine source. The hard sciences such as physics and chemistry, and even biology are easy to deal with in a mathematical fashion. They all function acc ” first set up by the Designer at the ording to the same set of “cosmological laws” very beginning of time. True Father states in the Peace Messages, that

Though modern science may be accomplishing spectacular advances, these are all part of the process of discovering new facts and truths within the realm of God’’s creation. The vast expanse of this universe operates in accordance with laws following an order that cannot be fathomed by human thought or science. In this sense, God is also the absolute scientist. (32)

” sciences, it is a bit more challe When we move on to some of the “softer” ” involved in these sciences is not as precise as that, nging, since the “mathematics” for example, found in physics. Nevertheless, it can be shown that there is, indeed, a mathematical basis for the cosmos. The well-known Fibonacci /sequence/ratio (3 3) is one such curious instance, but there are others. The Fibonacci sequence is a s follows, wherein each number is simply the sum of the previous two.

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, etc.

When this sequence is diagrammed mathematically (geometrically), a fascinating dia ” curve. This spira gram emerges and this can be represented by a beautiful “spiral” l curve (a golden ratio), in turn, has many natural manifestations, such as the spiral of a nautilus shell, the abdomen of a honey bee, the spiral structure of DNA, and even the curvatures in waves on the ocean.

The philosophical issues involved in our discussion come even more to the ” sciences. Again, it is the philosophe surface when one turns to consider the “life” r Antony Flew who raises some significant issues and questions, doing so in such a way as to challenge those scientists who are confirmed atheists, that is to say, t hose who believe that science can answer every question, and that we don’’t even need to consider the possibility that there is a God who not only designed the cre ” even exists at all is a reality ation, but also created it. Indeed, the fact that “life” for which no scientist has yet been able to offer any sufficient explanation.

A far more important consideration is the philosophical challenge facing origin-of-life studies.

Most studies on the origin of life are carried out by scientists who rarely attend to the philosophical ….The philosophical question dimensions of their findings… that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replicating capabilities, and ”? Here we are not dealing with biology, “coded chemistry” but an entirely different category of problem. (34)

Again, “Living matter possesses an inherent goal or end-centered organization that ” (35) Finally, Flew raises a ver is nowhere present in the matter that preceded it.” y interesting point when he states:

scientist Gerald Schroeder points out that the existence of conditions favorable to life still does not explain how life itself originated. Life was able to survive only because of favorable conditions on our planet. But there is no law of nature that instructs matter to produce end-directed, self-replicating entities. So how do we account for the origin of life? The Nobel Prize-winning physiologist George Wald once famously argued that “we choose to believe the impossible: ” In later years, he that life arose spontaneously by chance.” concluded that a preexisting mind, which he posits as the matrix of physical reality, composed a physical universe that breeds life. (36)

I could add any number of other thoughtful quotes, but I hope the point is clear: it is not known where life first came from. This is a very important question, but th ere has been, as of yet, no satisfactory answer. To think that DNA, for example, i s just a collection of physical chemicals is no longer adequate for explaining in any meaningful fashion the facts as revealed by the strictest standards of scientific re search. Flew points out that there are unresolved issues intimately tied to the eme ” and “co rgence and development of life. Concepts such as “irreducible complexity” ” must seriously be taken into account. Let me briefly consider these ded chemistry” concepts.

Using the example of something as mundane as a mousetrap, but also the example of the “bacterial flagellum, from a living organism, (37) it has been argued (rather persuasively, to my mind) that the proper and coordinated functioning of t he various elements of a mousetrap, or of a bacterial flagellum, cannot so easily c ome about without some manner of pre-arrangement. There are no less than eight independent parts which must come together in just the right way at just the right time, or there is no mousetrap! The statistical probability of such a proper juxtapo sition of disparate items happening purely at random is virtually astronomical. The mousetrap and the flagellum both, of course, have been used to argue against the veracity of Darwinian evolutionary theory. The example of the flagellum of a one-c elled organism, the details of which I will not attempt to engage in here, is also uti lized in order to show that such complexities do not so easily emerge, if we assum e that everything is based on the blind chance of evolution.

With such examples as these in mind, it has been said that, given the state of our present knowledge, it is more difficult not to believe in a God than it is to believe in one. That is to say, if you don’’t believe in a Designer of the universe, you have before you a very difficult task in trying to explain rationally the exquisit ely fine-tuned and mathematically precise nature of the universe that scientists are now discovering through their research.

When we go up to another level of complexity, the issue of coded chemistr y, the mysteries just multiply. As a former molecular biologist, I can genuinely app reciate the issues Flew raises in his book, perhaps more than the average layperso n. Quoting the physicist Paul Davies, he states:

…most theories of biogenesis have concentrated on the chemistry of life, but “life is more than just complex chemical reactions. The cell is also an information storing, processing and replicating system. We need to explain the origin of this information, and the way in which the information processing machinery came to exist. He emphasizes the fact that a gene is nothing but a set of coded instructions with a precise recipe for manufacturing proteins. Most important, these genetic instructions are not the kind of information you

find in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics; rather, they constitute semantic information. In other words, they have specific meaning. These instructions can be effective only in a molecular environment capable of interpreting the meaning in the genetic code. The origin question rises to the top at this point. “The problem of how meaningful or semantic information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces presents a deep conceptual challenge. (38)

” information, or “coded chemistry,” ” as being manifested th The notion of “semantic” rough sheer blind chance is very alien in the context of the most recent findings o ” is anot f scientific investigation and experimentation. A “deep conceptual challenge” her way of saying we need to consider a paradigm shift. To close this section, it i s appropriate to finish with yet another quote from Antony Flew. He comments:

My concern is not with this or that fact of chemistry or genetics, but with the fundamental question of what it means for something to be alive and how this relates to the body of chemical and genetic facts viewed as a whole. (39)

When we stop to consider the fact that the laws of nature, as embodied in ” of science have been lab physics, chemistry, and biology, as some of the “realms” eled, we can realize that these laws, and thus the sciences which investigate these ” inasmuch as they “exist” ” as the laws of one scientifica laws, are already “unified” lly approachable universe. Science, in other words, is already unified. It is people (scientists) who are not unified. Individual scientists have studied their own individu ” are separated. al fields, but with fragmented hearts, and therefore the “sciences” “When an idea or theory ‘works’’ it always does so relative to what we are asking ” (40) Most scientists only ask the questions relevant to their own limited, of reality.” specialized realm: What happens and how does it happen? Perhaps they should be ” and “what can this offer to the well-being of hu asking: “why does this happen?” ” This would involve a paradigm s mankind, and how can it contribute to humanity?” hift. If the hearts of the various scientists are united, that is an automatic unity of ” purpose, and the sciences. Physicists will do their work with regard to the “whole”

aid and support the work of chemists and biologists. Chemists, in turn, can take c redence of all the latest research in physics, and the other sciences, and will carry ” purpose, and aid and support th on their investigations with regard to the “whole” e work of biologists and others. This kind of cooperation carried up the hierarchy of the sciences, will bring an automatic unity of the sciences. As Jacob Needleman points out:

…we can conclude that the practice of modern science is based on a demand for human fragmentation, the division between thought and feeling. Searching for an outer unity, …in his the scientist demands of himself an inner disunity… practice the scientist endorses the division and inner fragmentation from which all of us suffer in our daily lives. (41)

The important question then becomes, how can we heal the inner fragmentation of human beings, including scientists? Unification Thought and Divine Principle are ver y relevant and timely in this regard.

” sciences, which inclu We must now turn our attention to some of the “soft” de psychology, sociology, and history. Even though not as precisely observable thr ough scientific methodologies, we can still find some remarkable instances of their numerical character. The field of numerology attests to a wide application.


Having taken a preliminary survey of some of the well-known sciences let ” because it is this concept us return to the basic concept of the “connected being,” that paves our way to a genuine philosophical understanding of the unity of all th e sciences.


According to Unification Thought, every existing entity in the cosmos can b e artificially separated out from its reality, and studied philosophically, as an “isola ” being, or an “individual truth being,” ” in terms of its ontology, structure, functi ted” oning, and so forth, apart from any of its real connections with other entities.

Any individual human being can be studied in terms of his/her mind and bo dy (psychology and physiology), and what makes them the person that they are. Bu t, in philosophical terms, that is a rather artificial construct, since nothing exists, in reality, in isolation. We are always connected with other people, and with the thin gs around us. The science of ecology, for example, teaches us that everything is r elated to everything else, and influences everything else. Looking in this more reali ” Philosophically stat stic manner, we come to the concept of the “connected being.” ” with its universal image (mind, body, male, female) ed, the “individual truth being,” and individual image (individual uniqueness) can, at the same time (simultaneously) ” As a connected being, every entity in the be understood as a “connected being.” cosmos is studied, not artificially, in terms of its individual ontology or make-up, b ut in terms of the reality of its relatedness or relationships with other beings. This is a very simple concept, but the implications are profound, especially in terms of morality and ethics, that is to say, in the context of a family, and in terms of the implications for the sciences.

By definition, a connected being is a being which possesses “dual purpose ” that is, every connected being has a “purpose for the individual” ” and a “purpos s,” ” (42) Such dual purposes would be an important dimension of any e for the whole.” paradigm shift in scientific thinking and research. Both of these dual purposes are ” or “give and receive action.” ” This purpose f fulfilled through “circular movement” actor, endowed to an existing entity by the Designer (God), plays out, or functions, on all the levels of existing beings, and this is, ultimately, what brings all the scie nces into a true unity. Each level of being has its particular purpose, but the over”) harmonizes all these particular pur riding purpose for the whole (the “big picture” poses (individual purposes) of each level of being into a smooth and harmonious un iverse.

As mentioned previously, science and scientists have not traditionally been concerned with any sense of purpose. Science has usually focused on natural phen omena in terms of what happens and how it happens and has not usually concerne

d itself with why things happen. This has been the focus of science, and is actuall y a very important consideration but, at the same time, it has served to be the we akness of science, especially adding to its fragmentation and specialization. Without ” science will only continue to suff some concern for purpose, for the “big picture,” er the fragmentation and specialization that has characterized it up to this point. (4 3) Along with purpose comes value and values. If the purpose factor is taken into account, the focus of science, the advance of science investigation, and even new and exciting avenues of experimentation may open up. True Father states:

The universe is filled with all beings existing as pairs at their level, but ultimately, they follow the principle of being absorbed into higher levels of love. Thus, minerals want to absorbed by plants, plants by animals, and finally all of creation by human beings. Through this process they ultimately reach the position where they can experience the essence of true love, which is the love nearest to God, the origin of love, who created everything with an intrinsic nature to provide value to a higher level. (44)

” seriously, I believe their res When scientists take the concept of “purpose” earch and development will take on an entirely new and fresh complexion. If and w hen physicists and chemists do their research from the perspective that what happ ” to achieve a greater purpose on a hig ens and how it happens are both “designed” her level, their focus will be sharper, and they can design experiments along more precise lines. If and when biologists of all fields do their research from the persp ” to not only achie ective that what happens and how it happens are both “designed” ve a greater purpose, but to serve for the well-being and happiness of human bein gs, their focus will be sharper, and they can design experiments along more precis e lines. The same can be said for any of the fields of science.

From the Unification Thought perspective, everything in creation was desig ned ultimately, to exist for and serve the purpose of human beings. Human beings, in turn, exist to bring happiness to God. This is the way God, as the Grand Desig ner, created all things. Thus, all the scientific entities which physicists and chemist s study exist for their own sake (individual purpose), but also exist for the sake of a higher level of being (whole purpose), and, ultimately, for the sake of human be

ings. Lower level beings exist to serve, support, and contribute to higher level bei ngs and, furthermore, serve to create the environment in which higher level beings can properly exist and act. This, of course, is a more philosophical way of saying ” is suggesting. what the “anthropic principle”

” (45) holds that the universe exists in such a man The “anthropic principle” ner that it supports human life and allows for scientific research. In Greenstein’’s w ords:

The Anthropic Principle is the statement that if some feature of the natural world is required for our existence, then it must indeed be the case. Such a statement cannot possibly be doubted. It is logically true; true as only a tautology can be. (46)

He states elsewhere, in the form of a question:

Was it God Himself who crafted those laws so precisely for our benefit? Using the cold, abstract methods of modern science, have we succeeded in proving the existence of a Supreme Being? (47)

” scie He seems to be wonderfully open to the nearly obvious conclusion. But, “true” ntist as he is, he adds to this the qualification: “We cannot explain by reference to ” (48) This is our dilemma: scientists with God the fitness of the cosmos for life.” such a narrow-minded perspective. Admittedly, the reference to God is not the ans wer to any scientific mysteries. Science is bound to discover far more truth as it a dvances. But scientists need to open their minds and hearts to the possibility that t here is a Designer behind this amazing universe. It is not a violation of science to take that into consideration. The scientific method is not going to suffer damage if scientists continue to apply the rigid controls over their experimentation and resear ch. But they should wonder: what is the purpose behind all of this science. Science can be used to help people (vaccines) or to hurt people (bombs).

The anthropic principle holds that this universe does not seem to be a merely acci dental reality, or anything random, but that it seems, from every indication to have been purposely, deliberately, and specifically designed to be as it is. That is so th

at human beings can properly exist, act, engage in scientific investigations, and to l ove others.

” is interesting, because it means, in effect, that th This “anthropic principle” e universe was deliberately meant to exist as it does because human beings were expected to exist and thrive, in true love, in such a universe. This is why all the e ntities studied by the various sciences (quarks, atoms, molecules, minerals, plants, animals, people, families, etc.) are connected, and have the purpose of serving high er level beings, ultimately serving human beings. According to Unification Thought, every entity that exists has an individual purpose (to exist and function to maintai ” whole purpose (to exist and function to support the next hig n itself), an “external” her level being in the hierarchy of being), but most importantly, it has an “interna ” whole purpose, which is to serve, support and allow human beings to exist and l” act in the cosmos. To say that the universe was deliberately meant to exist as it d oes because human beings were expected to exist and thrive in such a universe is also why there are consistent laws, which can be studied with the use of mathem atics, governing all things throughout the universe. It furthermore somewhat disqual ” That is a nice, and interesting, concept, but it ifies the notion of the “multi-verse.” is only a concept, and has no bearing on reality. As Antony Flew points out “ther ” Just like some of evolut e has never been any evidence that such a reality exists.” ” there probably never will be such evidence. It is nothing mor ion’’s “missing links,” e than a figment of the evolutionists’’ imagination.

Now that I have come this far, on the assumption that there is a Designer behind all the sciences, it is necessary to pause and address two challenges which would run counter to the argument that I am making. One challenge to this paper is the theory of evolution, and the other challenge is atheism.


It is widely accepted in today’’s scientific thinking that Darwin’’s theory of e ” serving in paradigmatic fashion to tie the v volution brought us a “unifying thread,” arious sciences together in a coherent pattern. Indeed, the theory of evolution is a ” This has been a powerful paradigm for n integral component of the “culture war.” a number of years. However, these days such a paradigm has been called into que

stion.. Both Jonathan Wells, in his Icons of Evolution, and Ann Coulter, in her book

Godless: the Church of Liberalism, (49) powerfully critique the leading ideas of Da rwinian evolution, and rightly so. Coulter, especially, offers a witty and focused arg ” view of Darwinism. Wells argues ument against many of the ideas of the “liberal” more in a scientific mode, based on his extensive research in the laboratory. Both are well-worth reading.

Certain ideas in the biological field, which I learned many years ago in coll ege, still hold sway. One of these ideas is that the great majority of mutations are deleterious. (50) Another idea, which was analyzed quite seriously by Gerry Schro eder, just to see if the argument had any merit, is that of a monkey typing on a ty pewriter.

(51) It was argued that a monkey banging on the keys on a typewriter

” Schroeder found that th would eventually end up “writing a Shakespearean sonnet.” is argument was clearly without merit. Both of these ideas, as well as the idea of ” noted earlier, all serve to discount the argument of Darwin “irreducible complexity” ian biologists, who argue that all things can come through the process of evolution, and that we do not need God as a part of the System. Scientists should reconside r, in light of the findings of modern science.

True Father, in the 천성경, also addresses the idea of evolution. He states:

Today’’s evolutionary theory should recognize that advancement is based on the principle of subject-object relationships. The minds of these two beings should be in accord and be stimulated through a greater mutual purpose. Only when they are spurred on to pursue the fulfillment of ….All that purpose together can they rise to a higher place… males and females came into being in order to reproduce their own species, not others. Monkeys do not become people and …The universe protects the integrity snakes don’’t turn into frogs… …One of the reciprocal realm of subject and object partners… cannot go from the amoeba to higher forms of life just like that; …How can we refute plus and minus must become as one… evolutionary theory? It is a serious issue in the academic world. Did the male and female monkey come into being through evolution? (52)

He adds:

If you were to bring together a male king orangutan and an ugly woman, marry them, and make them pray and offer devotions for thousands of years, would they ever have offspring? Would they be able to produce a baby?...The differentiation of species is very strict. There are thousands of species between amoebae and monkeys. Each of these species brings forth their young through the gates of the females and males, which means thousands of births. The thinking that one could go from one species to another disregarding the levels of thousands of species would suggest that it could all be done within one birth, a notion that is completely wrong because it denies the fact that the gates of love need to be passed through. How can an amoeba pass through the gates of love for thousands of species and become a human being? Would similar bone structures make all the other characteristics similar too? …if a sparrow were to mate with a bunting, would they give birth to a new kind of bird? (53)


Elements that repel each other cannot become one, even at God’’s command, and even if the master of the laboratory made strenuous efforts to bring them together for thousands of years. (54)

He first holds that the separation between species is absolute, and cannot be breached. For example, as noted, if you try and mate a sparrow and a bunting, ” the notion that all thi it will be unsuccessful. He also argues for the “pair system,” ngs exist in correlative pairs. This implies that between the amoeba and the human ” through which it is impossible to being are virtually thousands of “gates of love,” pass on the basis of one’’s own power. I merely want to note that there has been

substantial criticism of evolutionary theory, and it, therefore, no longer serves as a serious challenge to this paper. The details of such criticism lie beyond the scope of this paper, but the reader is directed to other sources for a more extended dis cussion, and criticism of Darwinian evolutionary theory. For this, see the books me ntioned. (55)


The question of whether or not God exists is actually the most important i ssue of our time. Our current society is virtually inundated by all manner of manife station of this issue. From the basic theism-atheism debate to the controversy bet ween traditional marriage and gay marriage, liberalism versus conservatism, and ev olution versus Design theory, the debate rages in current discussion. Since the pub lication of Richard Dawkins’’s book, The God Delusion, (56) atheism seems to have found a new lease on life, given its popularity. The question is, however, is atheis m a viable perspective? According to Antony Flew it is not. The reason, as given ” and c by Flew, is that Dawkins simply plays up his popularity, promotes “science,” riticizes the weaknesses of religious belief and ritual, and the liberals love it. Neve rtheless, he does not address the core issues in question. Science is a positive thi ng, and there is no harm in promoting it. Moreover, there are flaws in religious rit ” ual and belief, but it is not necessary to “throw out the baby with the bathwater,” as it were. The flaws and weaknesses in religion simply need to be corrected. Asi de from those flaws, religion presents serious issues which scientists need to consi der, and grapple with. Dawkins may be an eloquent scientist, but he fails to respon d to the real questions that philosophers are asking.

Furthermore, the findings of modern physics and biology, as I mentioned, a re making it increasingly difficult to believe in the blind forces of, say, atheism or evolution, and still be able to explain some complex processes and to answer some difficult questions. These days, it is easier to believe in a God than it is not to so believe. So, once again, I feel that the issue of atheism is no longer a challenge t o this paper. The full discussion is beyond the scope of my argument here.

Let me now turn to consider more of the sciences, in this case the “soft s ” of psychology, sociology, and history. ciences”


” Most sociologists attest to the importance of the family as the “basic unit” of society. Societies are formed of families, and a nation is formed of various soci eties. The family unit plays a central role in Unification thinking and practice, so it is well worth the effort to address it in some detail.


Now that we have presented some food for thought, in terms of the conne ctedness of the sciences, the reason for that being the existence of a Grand Desig ner, and with Darwinian evolutionary theory having been placed on the defensive, a llow me to turn back, once again, and take a look at more of the sciences, this tim ” sciences of psychology, sociology and history. If the sciences are to e the “softer” be united together into a grand unified view, all the sciences must be capable of being included.

Let us first examine ourselves, human beings, more closely. We turn once again to the sciences of psychology, sociology and history. It appears that human b eings, too, have a mathematical dimension. Of course, the human physical body ope rates according to the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. But, beyond that is the spiritual dimension, which involves inter-personal relationships of love and bea uty. We must consider the family as the basic unity of society. It is also the “scho ” and is represented by the “four great realms of heart.” ” ol of love,”

A pyramid is a geometrical figure and its mathematical dimension can be pr operly studied using the tools of plane geometry and trigonometry. As unusual as i t may seem to see it in this way, the nuclear family (father, mother, and children) ” as it exists in real time and spa can also be understood as a mathematical “entity” ce. Although there are obvious differences between a pyramid and a family, in the sense that both a pyramid and a family can be examined from a mathematical pers ” is not unlike a “pyramid.” ” This will take some elaboration befor pective, a “family” e we can understand it.

” construct, such as whe When one considers the family as a “mathematical” ” diagrammed on a piece of paper, various n one sees the “four position foundation” numbers can be derived from it. For example, in a family centered upon God, ther e are four (4) positions: grandparents, father, mother, and children. Therefore, in s uch a family, there are twelve (12) possible relationships. In addition to the number s 4 and 12, the Divine Principle elaborates in some detail the derivation of the nu “ of the nuclear mbers 21 and 40. (57) If we set forth the “four position foundation“ ” for a family existing, not on pap family in this way, we can say that the “formula” er, but in real historical time and space is:

Family Four Position Foundation = 12 + 4 + 21 + 40

By analogy, we can say that the formula for the volume of a pyramid is:

Volume = 1/3 X the area of the base of the pyramid X the height of the p yramid

” existing as a “geometrical figure” ” in time and space is analogous to a A “pyramid” ” as a “social entity” ” in time and space. Of course, there are differences: t “family” he family is an entity comprised of different individuals, all of whom possess free will, reason, the capacity for family love, and so on, whereas a pyramid is a geom etrical construct which is invariable and exists in an unchanging manner according to natural law.

” is still an “entity” ” which can But the “ideal, God-centered family”

be realized (through love, living for the sake of others, expressions of beauty, etc.) as an existing reality in time and space. It is in this sense that I speak of their a nalogical resemblance.

These family-related numbers (12, 4, 21, 40) all derive from the growth pe riod. To explain what I mean let me first say something that may startle you: guid ” This is obviou ed merely by instinct, a kangaroo cannot establish an “ideal family.” s, of course, but it is a convenient and attention-getting device that helps us to di scuss the nature of the family. As mentioned, the family is formed of individuals po ssessing free will.

An individual ought to use their free will for the purpose of act

ualizing true love in the family context. If all four positions of the family succeed i n doing so, then an ideal, God-centered family can be realized. Thus, a kangaroo c

annot realize an ideal family, but human beings certainly can. They have that poten tial. These numbers (12, 4, 21, 40) derive from the growth period in the sense tha t human beings must grow and achieve a perfection of their character (and thus of their ability to actualize true love), and this growth period is thus the time during which we grow and achieve the ability to actualize true love in the family, which is thus characterized by the numbers 12, 4, 21, and 40. If this is accomplished, an i deal, God-centered family is realized on earth in time and space, and this becomes ” Although not as precise as the mathematics of, say, the start of a “new creation.” ” to physics or chemistry, there is nevertheless a definite “mathematical dimension” psychology and sociology, and thus, by extrapolation, to human history. To unders tand this in some detail, I refer you to the concept of “parallel providential period ” in the Divine Principle. (58) Interestingly enough, Arnold Toynbee, the historian, s” also noticed this phenomenon, and often referred to it in his historical writings. (5 9)


According to Unification Thought, because of the fall of Adam and Eve, hu man history began as a fallen history, characterized by sin, and in need of restorat ion or re-creation. (60)

The Divine Principle, which takes a providential perspective of human histo ry, speaks of the providential numbers of 12, 4, 21, and 40 and illustrates how imp ortant they are in history. In the Divine Principle historical time periods of 40 year s, 400 years, 21 days, 210 years, 120 years, etc., are recognized. Divine Principle sets forth both the importance and the rationale of these numbers in the form of a ” to illustrate the “historical quality” ” n interesting chart (61) of “historical parallels” of these numbers. The very structure of history is determined by these numbers. This can be ascertained by a close examination of Scripture (especially the Old Te stament) and of modern history, as understood from the Divine Principle perspectiv e. The important thing to be noted here, however, is that these historical “number ” all derive from the family (see the chart). In Unification thinking, we go so far s” as to say that the all-embracing purpose of history, its very raison d’’ette, is to cul minate in the appearance of the Messiah, who is the only individual with the ability

to establish on earth an ideal, God-centered family. In short, that is the purpose o f human history: to achieve the restoration of the ideal, God-centered family, as fir st intended by the Designer. Of course, such an idea implies the coming of the Me ssiah, the fulfillment of the 3 great blessings, and the establishment of the Kingdo m of God on earth, all of which are eschatological in nature.

Now, much of what I have been speaking of can be explained also in psyc hological and sociological terms. That is to say, an individual must be psychological ly healthy in order to actualize true love in relating to another human being. (62) The literature is filled with the number of psychoses and neuroses suffered by peo ple today, and, on the sociological level, the news is filled with the various social crimes, especially sexual crimes, that are committed by psychologically-troubled in dividuals. Sociologists point to the fact that the vast majority of social problems st em from a breakdown in the family. (63) When one considers the development of s ociety from day to day, year to year, and decade to decade, one is taking an histo rical perspective. Thus, these sciences (psychology, sociology, history) are actually ” of “parapsychology,” ” although beyond the sco intimately connected. The “science” pe of this paper, since it deals with the invisible world of the spirit, can also be br ought into this perspective, since it addresses issues vitally connected with human beings. (64)

To further understand the structure of history and its numerical character, it is important to understand the concepts of horizontal restoration through indemni ty, and horizontal restoration through indemnity carried out vertically. (65) Although also beyond the scope of this paper, briefly, these refer to the manner in which we fallen people restore past historical mistakes during our own lifetime and, shoul d we fail to restore such mistakes, how these mistakes become “historical baggag ” that is accumulatively passed down to subsequent generations, our descendants. e” A reference to the chart can easily illustrate what is meant by these two concept s.

When one considers the implications of this historical chart, and reflects de eply upon those implications, it is not difficult to imagine that there does exist behi nd history a Divine Mind, a Mind that is guiding human history. If the reality of Go d is acknowledged in this manner, then the way in which the entire cosmos, and e ” laws of creation (na verything it contains, is connected by the same “mathematical”

tural law such as physico-chemical law, family law, and historical law) can easily s erve as the foundational thought or paradigm for unifying all the sciences. This is t rue for quantum physics, Newtonian physics, inorganic and organic (biological) che mistry, molecular biology, cellular biology, physiology, anatomy, botany, zoology, ec ology, astronomy, astrophysics, psychology, sociology, and history.

With this broader perspective, and with the sense that there is an underlyi ng purpose, a purpose which originates in the Divine, and flows smoothly and consi stently through all the levels of being, down to the lowest levels of energy, scienti sts of whatever field can begin to research and formulate experiments in this direc tion. This will surely catalyze the unity of the sciences and a closer cooperative ef fort among and between the various researchers. (66)


I have tried to elaborate, in this essay, something of the mathematical natu re of the sciences, and how they are all harmoniously interconnected, centering on God’’s design for the creation. This interconnectedness is a point which scientists need to take into consideration. The time during which science was supreme, and s eemingly capable of solving every problem, has passed. Scientists must now be hu mble in their work and recognize that there is a master Designer, the Author of th e laws of nature, and that a faith in this Designer is more likely to advance scienti fic knowledge than is non-belief. This paper was concerned with the issue of the unity of the various sciences, and from what I have argued, I hope the fact that th e sciences are all connected in terms of dual purposes, and circular movement cen tered on the purpose of the grand Design, can be appreciated. That is to say, phys icists and chemists should carry out their physics and chemistry with the notion th at all things have the higher purpose of binding higher levels of being together in a coherent whole. Furthermore, the living entities in biology have the higher purpo se of maintaining life in order to support human beings as the children of God, as Jesus and Reverend Moon have taught us. Even the sciences of astronomy and astr ophysics should recognize the fact that all things in the universe operate in accord ance with a divine law, and that that law is manifested in the natural laws of the u niverse. Everything functions in harmony and that is not accidental. All things funct ion in harmony so as to bring forth a habitable cosmos for the sake of the existen

ce of human beings, who exist as God’’s children. To take this perspective would r equire a paradigm shift on the part of science and those who engage in scientific r esearch.

Philosophically, we can understand very easily the unity of the sciences. B ” of the sciences, the kind of unity which ut, that is not sufficient for a real “unity” this paper is addressing. A real unity will come only when scientists themselves ar e united, not just conceptually, but in heart. Another aspect of the required paradig m shift is this: If a scientist merely seeks after money, fame and fortune, and hono ” as many r, or if he/she is “philosophically motivated, driven by “pseudo-science,” are, then there will never be achieved a unity of the sciences. On the other hand, if a scientist cultivates a humble attitude toward the great mystery that is the univ erse, and if he/she carries out their research, in whatever field he/she might work in, with a sense of the purpose in mind, and for the greater good of humanity, eag er to share discoveries across the sciences, and to support each other in their wor k, in an interdisciplinary manner, and if they work along productive avenues of res earch, the sciences will inevitably achieve unity, in the real sense.


1. HSA-UWC, Exposition of the Divine Principle, New York: HSA-UWC, 1996. ” (Biologists) Up 2. See David A Carlson, “What are those Evolutionary “Scientists” To? ” in David A Carlson, The Dawning o How Philosophy is Subverting Science,”

f a New Culture: The Advent of a God-Centered World , Korea: CheongShi m GST University Press, 2008, 90-114. 3. George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe, New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1940. 4. Jacob Needleman, A Sense of the Cosmos, New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1965. 5. Richard L. Lewis, Do Proteins Teleport in an RNA World?, New York: ICUS, 200 5. 6. Jonathan Wells, The Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What W

e Teach About Evolution Is Wrong, New York: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2000.

7. Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Desi

gn, New York: Regnery Publishing Company, Inc., 2006. 8. Francis Collins, The Language of God, New York: Free Press, 2006. 9. Ian G. Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms , New York: Harper & Row, Publis hers, 1974. 10. Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters , New York: Henry Holt and Company, O wl Books, 2006. 11. Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rathe

r than Nothing. New York: Free Press, 2012. 12. Stephen Hawking, Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays. New Yor k: Bantam Books, 1994. 13. Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics: from Early Physic

s to Relativity and Quanta, New York: Simon and Schuster, Clarion Books, 1938. 14. Antony Flew, There Is A God: How the World’’s Most Notorious Atheist Change

d His Mind, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Harper One, 2007. 15. Initiated in 1972, the International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences (IC US) brought together eminent scholars and scientists from across disciplines, nations and cultures in search of absolute values and unity among the scie nces. This effort continued for more than 20 years. For a commemorative volume with many of the Founder’’s speeches, see Moon, Sun Myung, Science and

Absolute Values: Twenty Addresses by The Reverend Sun Myung Moon. K entucky: ICUS, 1997. 16. Unification Thought Institute, New Essentials of Unification Thought: Head-Win

g Thought. Japan: UTI, 2005. 17. UTI, Essentials, 138-171. 18. Diagram 1 is a diagram I often used in lecturing on Ontology when explaining t

he ” significance of the “connected being.” 19. Family Federation for World Peace and Unification. 천성경 Cheon Seong Gyeong.

Korea: Sunghwa Publishing Company, 2006, 2143. 20. FFWPU, 천성경, 1644. 21. Flew, There Is A God, 107. 22. Flew, There Is A God, 96. 23. Flew, There Is A God, 108-09. 24. Flew, There Is A God, 97. 25. Flew, There Is A God, 120. 26. This morning, February 20, 2013, the Higg’’s particle was, once again, in the n ews as predicting the demise (in the very distant future) of the universe. 27. Quote taken from the news report. 28. For further reflection on this issue, see David A Carlson, “Intricate Connections:

Concerning the Mathematical Precision of the Universe In View of a Design ” in Davi Theory of Creation and Some Implications of Unification Thought,” d A Carlson, The Dawning of a New Culture: The Advent of a God-Center ” Korea: CheongShim GST University press, 2008, 69-89. ed World,” 29. Flew, There Is A God, 121. 30. HSA-UWC, Exposition, 15-21. 31. UTI, Essentials, 22-39. 32. Family Federation for World Peace and Unification. Messages of Peace: Pyeong

Hwa Hoon Gyeong, New York: FFWPU, PM 2, 35-36. ” is a fascinating fact of reality. 33. The Fibonacci ratio/sequence and “golden mean”

If one begins with a simple mathematical sequence, and then diagrams this sequence geometrically, and then applies the resulting curve to nature, it s eems to account for an interesting range of natural phenomena. Many peopl e in history have been intrigued by this ratio. 34. Flew, There Is A God, 124. 35. Flew, There Is A God, 124. 36. Flew, There Is A God, 131.

37. Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Des

ign, New York: Regnery Publishing Company, Inc., 2006, 108-115. 38. Flew, There Is A God, 128-29. 39. Flew, There Is A God, 90. 40. Jacob Needleman, A Sense of the Cosmos: The Encounter of Modern Science a

nd Ancient Truth, New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 14. 41. Needleman, Sense, 20. 42. UTI, Essentials, 138-171. In this section of Unification Thought, the concept of dual purposes is elaborated in considerable depth. ” of science. This ca 43. One possible result of such a fragmentation is the “misuse” n be easily perceived in the context of our present time. A person can study sci ence for the purpose of developing vaccines to help people become healthy, or they can study science for the purpose of building bombs in order to k ill other people. 44. FFWPU, 천성경, 2143. ” see George Greenstein, The Symb 45. For a discussion of the “anthropic principle”

iotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos, New York: William Morrow and Co mpany, Inc., 1988, 45-55. 46. Greenstein, Symbiotic, 46. 47. Greenstein, Symbiotic, 189. 48. Greenstein, Symbiotic, 189. 49. Ann Coulter, Godless: the Church of Liberalism, New York: Random House, Inc.,

Crown Forum, 2006, 199-281. 50. See Wells, Icons, 177-193. See also Wells, P.I.G. Guide, 36. 51. Flew, There Is A God, 75-78. 52. FFWPU, 천성경, 1692-93. 53. FFWPU, 천성경, 1676-1682. 54. FFWPU, 천성경, 1644. 55. The three books mentioned: Wells’’s Icons and PIG Guide, and Coulter’’s Godles

s are

strongly recommended reading for every scientist and everyone concerned about the state of our modern society. Every Unificationist should read the m also. We must be able to persuade people that God does exist and that evolutionary theory is not the correct perspective. 56. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, London: Bantam Press, 2006. 57. HSA-UWC, Exposition, 294-299. These numbers (12, 4, 21, and 40) are all der ived from the family and, therefore, once again we can see the reason for the e mphasis on the family in the Unification Movement. The fact that these nu mbers appear in human history (as the Parallel Providential Periods) is just short of amazing. 58. HSA-UWC, Exposition, 289-311. 59. While he was teaching classical Greek history at Oxford University in 1914, he

” periods for this phenomenon. coined the term “parallel” 60. UTI, Essentials, 364-367. 61. HSA-UWC, Exposition, 311. The original ancestors, Adam and Eve, were suppo sed to pass through their growth period keeping to God’’s commandment “not to ” Had they done so, th use their sexual organs until they reached maturity.” ey would have achieved a mature level of thought, feeling, and volition, an d they would have had the capacity to actualize true love. Because of the f all, however, their mentality did not achieve such a level. The time of their ” thoughts, feelings, and the growth was instead used to embody “Satanic” ” was taken away from God by Satan. consequent actions. Thus “time itself” This is why we see in history these time periods of, for example, 210 yea rs, 400 years, etc. If people keep faith during those years, God is able to ” that time. When all four numbers (12, 4, 21, 40) are “restored” ” “take back” back to God, the foundation for the Messiah is completed and the Messiah ” and establish the “true family of God.” ” can come with the “original seed” 62. UTI, Essentials, 301-321. For an exposition of the nature and make-up of the individual and the family, and their important connection in terms of moralit y and ethics, see Theory of Ethics in UTI, Essentials. 63. See Jean Bethke Elshtain, “Philosophic Reflections on the Family At Century’’s ” End,”

Paper presented at the Sixth International Congress of Professors World Pe ace Academy, on The Future of the Family, Sheraton Walker Hill Hotel, in Seoul, Korea, August 21-25, 1995, 1-3. 64. The area of parapsychology is an important area for scientific research. Especi ally at Cheongpyeong is there a lot of such activity taking place. Rather than ignoringthe reality, science ought to investigate in order to determine the t rue nature of the phenomena taking place at Cheongpyeong. Cheongpyeong would be a good place for researchers to further investigate the scientific principles involved in paranormal activity. 65. HSA-UWC, Exposition, 292-294. These important historical concepts relate ver y closely with the kinds of psychological and emotional baggage people inheri t from their ancestors. Many psychological studies have the potential to rev eal such information. 66. This was the motivation behind the founding of ICUS (International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences). This annual conference, as noted previously, ca me to be one of the premier gatherings in the world for scientists.


Barbour, Ian G. Myths, Models and Paradigms. New York: Harper & Row, Publisher s, 1974. Carlson, David. The Dawning of a New Culture: The Advent of a God-Centered Wo

rld. Korea: CheongShim GST University press, 2008. Collins, Francis. The Language of God. New York: Free Press, 2006. Coulter, Ann.

Godless: the Church of Liberalism. New York: Random House, Inc.,

Crown Forum, 2006. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press, 2006. ” Th Ehlstain, Jean Bethke. “Philosophic Reflections on the Family at Century’’s End.” e

Sixth International Congress of Professors World Peace Academy, Sheraton Walker Hill Hotel, Seoul, Korea, August 21-25, 1995. Einstein, Albert and Infeld, Leopold. The Evolution of Physics: from Early Physics t

o Relativity and Quanta. New York: Simon and Schuster, Clarion Books, 1938. Family Federation for World Peace and Unification. 천성경 Cheon Seong Gyeong. Korea: Sunghwa Publishing Company, 2006. Family Federation for World Peace and Unification. Messages of Peace: Pyeong Hw a Hoon Gyeong. New York: FFWPU, 2007. Flew, Antony. There Is A God: How the World’’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed

His Mind. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Harper One, 2007. Greenstein, George. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow and Comp any, Inc., 1940. Hawking, Stephen. Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays. New York: Bantam Books, 1994. HSA-UWC, Exposition of the Divine Principle, New York: HSA-UWC, 1966. Krauss, Lawrence M. A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather th

an Nothing. New York: Free Press, 2012. Lewis, Richard, L. Do Proteins Teleport in an RNA World? New York: ICUS, 2005. Moon, Sun Myung, Science and Absolute Values: Twenty Addresses by The Revere

nd Sun Myung Moon. Kentucky: ICUS, 1997. Needleman, Jacob. A Sense of the Cosmos. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 19 65. Shermer, Michael. Why Darwin Matters. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Owl Books, 2006. Unification Thought Institute, New Essentials of Unification Thought: Head-Wing

Thought. Japan: UTI, 2005. Wells, Jonathan. The Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We

Teach About Evolution Is Wrong. New York: Regnery Publishing, Inc. Wells, Jonathan. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.

New York: Regnery Publishing Company, Inc., 2006.