Most people have heard of the concept of reincarnation and have a certain stance on it based on their level of education, religious affiliation, worldview, etc. People often firmly embrace or reject the idea of reincarnation without really thinking about it seriously. Research has shown that opinions on reincarnation are generally divided, primarily determined by belief. Those who accept the possibility of reincarnation believe in a certain form of immortality of the soul and the evolutionary refinement of mankind. Those who oppose reincarnation usually do not accept the idea of being reborn in the same body. Both sides can have valid reasons: the first because they don’t find the meaning of life in just one physical manifestation of their soul, while the latter rightly do not want to accept the possibility of repeating the same embodiment because, as Heraclitus says, it is not possible to step into the same river water twice.
Interestingly, both sides are correct according to philosophical explanations of the concept of reincarnation. Actions that have given ancient teachings such as Egyptian, Indian, and Tibetan. According to these teachings, a person consists of two parts: mortal and immortal. The mortal part is singular and does not reincarnate, while the concept of reincarnation only applies to the immortal part. Therefore, reincarnation exists and does not exist. It does not exist for the transient, but it exists for the permanent in a person.
With this essential reconciliation of opposing views on the concept of reincarnation, however, we have not examined the question of reincarnation with regard to the knowledge of modern man.
Can science tell us something about the concept of reincarnation? Biology as the science of life should provide certain guidelines on that. And indeed, it does, especially through the achievements of the latest disciplines such as genetics, embryology, and ecology.
But in order to interpret the laws discovered by these biological sciences, it is necessary to first confront the fundamental hypotheses of biology. Experts reluctantly do this, fearing reflections. and which could call into question previously accepted assumptions.
An explicit example of such scientific “restraint” can be seen in the tacitly reconciliatory attitude between the valid scientific hypothesis of human biological evolution and religious doctrine. What has changed since the 19th century when the triumphant statement that humans descended from monkeys resounded? The developmental sequence between ape-like primates and humans has not been confirmed, and the time of human origins has been pushed far back into the past. Literal belief in religious doctrine has been discarded, but the biological hypothesis has also not been proven.
The theory of evolution
The official, so-called synthetic theory of evolution, which is based on revised Darwinism, posits that life originated in the primeval ocean in the distant past of the Earth. This supposedly happened as a random consequence of exclusively physical and chemical reactions in certain climatic conditions. Science believes that it took approximately the same amount of time for the first single-celled organism like an amoeba to emerge It was expected that a human would evolve from an amoeba. The reason for this is the unique general structure of living beings. With the exception of viruses, all other living beings consist of a basic cell model. It is unknown and incomprehensible in biology how the protoplasm of a cell originated because there are no fossils or remains that could be studied. The problem lies in the fact that even the simplest single-celled organism has an extremely complex structure, the ability to grow, develop, move, and reproduce, along with constant exchange of substances and energy in complex biochemical processes of metabolism. The conditions for the accidental origin of this simplest organism can be compared to the conditions that would allow the accidental creation of a self-driving car that fuels itself and, after a certain number of kilometers, splits into two identical functioning vehicles.
The second problem is that it is not known which factors and to what extent they influence the evolution of living beings. The official theory takes into account three main forces, or three axes. One of the evolutionary factors is mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. However, only mutation is capable of creating new qualitative hereditary changes, which subsequently allow the other two main evolutionary forces to act. It is not known what causes mutations that enable evolutionary changes, but it is known that only mutations in gametes (sex cells) are evolutionarily important because only those mutations can be passed on to offspring. According to the official theory, evolutionary changes occur through random mutations in gametes, and through trial and error, one gamete accidentally encounters the “winning combination” of mutations that perfects that individual, thanks to physical and chemical influences from the environment. Simply put, modern biology does not know how life originated on Earth and how the evolution of living beings took place. The biological theory of evolution merely acknowledges the existence of evolution and recognizes its results, but not its driving forces. In one reasoned word, excluding “accidentally”, the origin of useful mutation cannot be explained. Natural selection and genetic power do not determine a qualitative change in genes, thus they do not represent immediate driving forces of evolution, except for their ability to suppress or highlight mutations.
Ecology
On the other hand, modern biology increasingly speaks about the complexity of the evolutionary action of lesser-known forces. Within this framework, ecology introduces the concept of an interactive relationship or so-called ecological factors that significantly affect the existence and evolution of all living beings. Protoplasm (cell nucleus and cytoplasm) is the common biological basis of plants, animals, and humans, who are existentially connected in nature. Plants accumulate solar energy through photosynthesis, converting it into matter, thus creating food for themselves, animals, and humans. From an ecological perspective, the Sun is the “father” and the Earth is the “mother” of life.
The concept of an ecosystem, which consists of a habitat (biotope) and a community (biocenosis), is introduced to explain the complex interaction between organisms and their environment. Within an ecosystem, there is a constant exchange of matter and energy, ensuring the survival and evolution of all species. Therefore, in addition to genetic factors, ecological factors play a significant role in shaping the diversity and adaptation of living organisms. Ecology has scientifically invalidated the strict division between living and non-living nature and has initiated the idea of unity among living systems in nature.
Each individual is an independent unit of life, while also being an integral and functional part of the organizational whole to which it belongs. The relationship between an individual and a species to the ecosystem is analogous to the functional relationship between a cell and its corresponding tissue, organ, and organism. Cells of a tissue consume, grow, and reproduce, just as single-celled organisms do in their ecosystem.
Analogously, we can also speak of the evolution of ecosystems as a living entity, where plant and animal species are like tissues and organs within an organism. According to ecological laws, an individual is subordinate to the organizational whole it belongs to, similar to how a cell is within an organism.
The concept of life and its development can no longer be scientifically defined solely by phenomena, but the principles and laws that are shared throughout nature must be taken into account. From an ecological perspective, evolution can be understood as a process Solution does not depend on a random change in an undefined direction, but on the need and relationships within the whole.
Therefore, the knowledge of ecological and other laws and their permanent and purposeful interactions within nature marginalize the randomness of the driving forces of the synthetic theory of evolution. With this, modern biology has strongly undermined its official hypothesis of evolution with its own evidence, and it has not yet dared to present a replacement.
Ecologically speaking, nature is a macrobiosis, a huge, living, intelligently organized system of unique life. Instead of an evolutionary process of randomly organized living matter, ecology suggests a process of intelligent materialization of individual life forms that are beneficial parts of the corresponding ecosystem, and thus of nature as a whole.
Ontogenesis – the emergence of a living being
What do we really know about how things, beings, and phenomena come into existence?
Let’s take a building as an example. How does a building come into existence? First, an idea is needed, which is The idea of a building arises. Then, this idea is shaped into a building design, an intelligent plan according to which the building will be constructed, including the necessary materials and resources for construction. Only after that can construction begin according to the predetermined design, and in a specific order.
In the formation of a physical organism, everything starts with the activated biological “idea” of the being, i.e., the fertilized egg cell, or zygote, which contains an “intelligent” genetic code, genotype, upon which the “construction”, i.e., embryonic development of the being can begin.
For example, in the creation of a symphony, it is first necessary for the artist to “capture” its fundamental idea. After that, it is necessary to write the musical notation of the entire score, and finally, the rehearsed orchestra will be able to perform the symphony.
In each of the mentioned examples, we notice three identical stages of the physical manifestation of things, beings, or phenomena. This is the process of incarnating the idea – identity that manifests in its material form according to an intelligent plan or record. it comes to biology, the necessity of the circular process of transition from unmanifested to manifested, from genetic record to the expressive form of life, is particularly emphasized.
First of all, in a fertilized egg cell (zygote), the chromosomes of both parents merge, determining the specificity of the genetic identity and the genotype of the future organism. This genotype contains, down to the smallest detail, precisely predetermined biological characteristics and properties of the being. Everything that will later be expressed will only be a physical manifestation, or rather, the incarnation of the genotype.
Embryonic development begins with the division of the zygote, followed by fetal development, which is the gradual construction process of the organism. This is the most complex process in nature. There is no intelligent human creation that can be compared to it. It is also an expression of the greatest mystery of nature that unfolds before human eyes. What little we know about it shows us how modest the scientific knowledge of humanity is.
Biology does not provide an answer to the question of what determines an individual’s human identity, but by knowing the laws of biological inheritance, it excludes the possibility of its material origin. This aligns with traditional philosophical teachings that speak of the dual evolution of man. According to these teachings, there is the evolution of the body and the evolution of the human immortal soul, which descends and incarnates into the body. Through successive incarnations, the soul gathers experiences and develops self-awareness, which is essentially analogous to the process of biological evolution. In the aforementioned biological process of reincarnation, the “immortal” human genotype is involved.