Include

[uphill]

It is sometimes difficult for us, especially we who are not specifically trained in a field of research or in the rules of logic, to be objective about the literature in an area outside our specialty. The power of the written word, the forceful current of a persuasive argument, and the care with which confirming evidence is presented and refuting evidence suppressed or camouflaged, all make it difficult to see the flaws in some of the popular works on quantum physics, biology--or any other science.

We can rely on intuition but all too often, intuition fails to deliver accurate results.

When I consider exobiology (study of the origin, evolution, and distribution of life in the universe), I'm drawn back to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. Darwin's idea is very very simple; it goes like this.

1-Organisms pass their characteristics on to their descendants, which are mostly but not completely identical to their parent organisms.
2-Organisms breed more descendants than can possibly survive.
3-Descendants with beneficial variations have a better chance of surviving and reproducing, however slight, than those with non-beneficial variations.
4-These slightly modified descendants are themselves organisms, so repeat from step 1. (There is no stopping condition.)

That's it. That's all there is to Natural Selection: a simple four step loop; a mindless algorithm that displays no intent, no design, no purpose, no goal, no deeper meaning.

And if it holds true here, it will hold true elsewhere.