Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life is the Architect of the Universe

by James N. Gardner
Inner Ocean Publishing, Makawao, HI, USA, 2003
336 pp., illus. 8 pp. col. insert. Trade, $29.95; paper, $17.95
ISBN: 1-930722-26-5; ISBN: 1-930722-22-2.

Reviewed by Rob Harle
Southern Cross University, Australia

recluse@lis.net.au

This book is accurately researched, very well organized and considering the subject matter, an easy read. The contents, for review purposes at least, can be divided into two areas. The first consists of an extensive review and discussion of the various existing explanations of the purpose, nature and future of the cosmos. In the second Gardner expounds his brave, new hypothesis, The Selfish Biocosm. This discusses "the role of life and mind in shaping the origin and ultimate fate of the universe" (p. xxiii). Shaping is an important keyword as the main thesis of Gardner’s hypothesis is that "the destiny of highly evolved intelligence is to infuse the entire universe with life".

Gardner himself readily admits that much of his hypothesis is speculative. I find well-reasoned and considered speculation a perfectly valid way to extend knowledge; without this approach, we would tend to get stuck "inside the box". His Selfish Biocosm is no New Age science fantasy that can never be tested. He plays by the rules and explains at length how his hypothesis meets the scientific "falsifiable" criteria.

The book is arranged into six parts together with an Introduction, Appendices, Glossary, Bibliography, and excellent Index. Apart from presenting a challenging new theory, the book is also an excellent source book for students of evolution, cosmology and philosophy. Part One discusses "The Profound Mystery of an Anthropic Universe". Part Two, The Coming Fusion of Biology and Cosmology. Part Three, Design, Complexity and Evolution: An Eternal Cosmic Waltz. Part Four, Point Omega: Dreams of a Transhuman Rapture. Part Five, Intimations of Cosmic Grandeur. Part Six, The Biocosm and Humanity. This last section is perhaps the most speculative as it discusses "the implications of the Selfish Biocosm hypothesis for both evolutionary theory and for our self-image as a species" (p. 181).

The book contains far too many lengthy quotes for my liking and far too many "appeals to authority". The latter is not only annoying but tends towards bad science because even a cursory glance at science history shows, "authorities" are very often wrong. Gardner himself mentions one classic example on page 23, citing Hoyle’s "cosmos in a steady state" blunder. Just because a person has made one or more outstanding discoveries, for example in physics, does not mean he is an authority on everything. I find more and more of the so-called "hard scientists", physicists, and cosmologists especially, making authoritarian pronouncements on religious topics and particularly the nature of God. Gardner quoting Dyson’s words, "I do not make any distinction between mind and God" (p. 150) borders on the absurd.

The Selfish Biocosm hypothesis states, "that the anthropic qualities that our universe exhibits can be explained as incidental consequences of an enormously lengthy cosmic replication cycle in which a cosmologically extended biosphere provides means by which our cosmos duplicates itself and propagates one or more ‘baby universes’" (p. xxv). Anthropic as used by Gardner means "life-friendly", this usage is not without criticism. When normally used in a religious sense, it means a God that is interested personally in human beings.

One thing that puzzles me about this hypothesis is that one of Gardner’s basic premises is that the universe is anthropic, and he refers to and means carbon-based life. Certainly our planet is anthropic, but nothing else we have yet discovered indicates that carbon-based life, as we know it, exists or could exist elsewhere. Without imitating earth’s bio-friendly attributes in outer space we humans cannot survive there. I think Gardner should have discussed this idea more, if only to clarify the concept that I’m sure other readers will ponder as well.

The book, to its credit, opens "cans of worms" in almost all chapters. I can envision a hundred different doctoral studies arising from controversial points Gardner makes throughout the book. The final section discusses briefly some religious implications of the hypothesis and slightly less briefly, ethical implications. The religious section has no mention of Buddhism, Islam, nor Advaita Vedanta, which have much to say about mind and cosmos. Details are not required, but a mention would be appropriate if for no other reason than to balance the somewhat insular American concept of the Judaeo-Christian faith. Kant’s system of morals is reenlisted as friendly and relevant to Gardner’s Biocosm hypothesis. This link is fraught with danger, for as great a thinker as Kant was, he also made blunders like Hoyle, especially regarding moral good derived from cosmic sources.

I recommend this book as a thought provoking, challenging read, and if Gardner’s hypothesis is correct, you, dear reader, are in a small way responsible for the future of the universe.