WATER AND ITS PROPERTIES.

Problem Setting

The problem of influence upon living organisms, particularly upon human being, exerted by small and supersmall doses of bio-active matters (BAM), by ionising and other kinds of electromagnetic radiation, by magnetic and other physical fields, has recently attracted attention. In addition it is necessary to specify that supersmall doses of BAM, in particular, are assumed to be that high dilutions that at least one BAM molecule is not likely to be found in the medication injected in the organism. Small and supersmall doses of physical factors are considered to be the doses, which effect upon biological object results in a negligibly small energy, relatively to kinetic energy of molecules, being liberated under given temperature [Voeykov, 1999].

A very interesting object, having unique parameters, is blood. From the very ancient times it caused terror and awe, people were afraid of it and held it sacred. Many considered it the panacea for all diseases and disasters.
The blood is wholly conditioned by its main property of continuous movements: protective cells are being always in search of viruses, erythrocytes are continuously travelling back and forth, thrombocytes are looking for damages in the vessel walls… The paramount function of blood is the delivery of oxygen to tissues. At that, the role of “transport facility” is played by one of the most successful combinations developed by the evolution of erythrocytes and haemoglobin bond.
Centuries ago the science knew practically nothing about the composition of liquid flowing in our vessels and many physicians were fond of an idea of blood regeneration. As the legend goes on, the first operation on blood transfusion was carried out in 1492 by the courtier doctor of the Pope Innokentiy VIII. Three ten-year-old boys had to give their vital energy to the enfeebled head of the Church. The physician dissected their bodies, collected the blood and poured it into the flaccid veins. By a negligible margin did the old man outlive the unfortunate children… Nevertheless, during centuries since that, the experimenters tried to connect arteries of a lamb with those of a human being or to substitute blood for red wine or even for liquid gelatine. No doubt that today’s medicine has taken leave of the naive notions that it is possible to pour another liquid into the veins. The attempts of absolute blood copying have been abandoned and tries are being undertaken to discover at least its substitute, which would be able to find oxygen.
A perfectly special object is water with its ability to form structures and store information. GDV method gives an opportunity to see the difference between the luminescence of water samples in the initial and “charged” state. By dint of this method it will be possible to confirm or refute several suppositions, developed in medico-biological and ecological spheres, to a closer probability. Thus, for example, it has recently been assumed that water, having low content of salts of hardness, conditioned by a total content of calcium and magnesium, stimulates the development of cardiovascular diseases.
A substantial evidence of the water memory existence is homeopathy. Medical influence of homeopathic preparations is based on the trace they leave in structural water memory.
Such biological liquids as urine and saliva are also of great diagnostic importance.
For instance, it is known that the saliva kills HIV-infected cells. Even the saliva of HIV-infected people contains only non-infected components of this virus. Scientists from various countries of the world suppose that the explanation lies in the fact that human saliva represents an effective remedy. The experiments have demonstrated that saliva inactivates 90% of HIV-infected blood cells, breaking the virus into non-infected components, thereby reducing the production of HIV and other viruses in these cells by 10000 times.
It was found out that proteins, contained in saliva, bring the content of viruses only by 2-5 times down. If this is the remedy, why the virus is practically absent in the saliva of HIV-infected people?
However, the concentration of saliva antiviral antibodies is too small to clear up the absence of viruses, either. The researchers from Texas University assumed that the main reason consists in the fact that the content of salts in saliva is seven times as smaller as in the other body liquids.
The salt is necessary for the cells to remain alive. Putting erythrocytes, containing salt, in the glass with potable water, they will absorb this water, swell and “burst” very fast. The same will occur to leucocytes, which may contain HIV.
The importance of investigation of such biological liquid as the urine for medico-biological purposes cannot be exaggerated.
The physiological role of alcohol in the basic metabolism is worth revealing by GDV method. The alcohol may exist in the organism without inflows from the outside, i.e. may have endogenous origin, being formed at the expense of glucids in the metabolism and under the influence of intestinal flora. Endogenous alcohol causes the so-called natural alcoholemia, changing within twenty-four-hours under the effect of different factors, in the organism.
Nutritive value of ethyl alcohol becomes apparent only by moderate consumption rates, exceeding which the alcohol exerts strong toxic influence and is undoubtedly harmful.
Nutritive characteristics of ethyl alcohol manifest more effectively in wine rather than in water-alcohol solutions, as far as wine includes alcohol in small concentrations (10-20%), accompanied by other matters and always consumed with food.
Owing to the experiments conducted by Doctor P.Kostov during typhus epidemic in Sophia (Bulgaria), the influence of wine upon the convalescent patients was disclosed. The patients were offered wine in daily doses of 250-500 ml throughout a month. Whereas with patients, not receiving wine, colon bacillus was observed in 2-3 months after the convalescence, continuing to be bacteriocarrier; with patients, receiving wine, the bacillus vanished completely in 2-4 weeks. At the same time, the weight gane and general condition improvement of the latter was recorded.
In the survey [Voeykov, 1998] various examples of the living organism’s reactions to low-intensive factors, which play a role of informational signals under natural living conditions, and the examples of directional influence of low-intensive factors of artificial nature upon them, are stated. In that very survey the reasons for the fact that until recently the representatives of dominating tendencies in physico-chemical biology rejected the very opportunity of effect of such factors on the biological objects, are considered. On the other hand, the theoretical notions of E.Bauer on the problem of structural and energetic specificity of living systems are set forth. Without fail it follows from his “principle of stable nonequilibrium”, according to which all the living systems are constantly at high nonequilibrium condition comparatively to their environment and only use their energetic resources to preserve this condition, that there exists their high sensitivity to the influence of low-intensive factors. This main property of living systems is traced to all the levels of their organisation, starting with the molecular and cellular. Particularly, as appears from the data stated in the survey, a certain part of macromolecular components of a living cell is under an electron-exited condition, which results from the living systems’ capability for emanating photons in a wide range of electromagnetic spectrum, including ultra-violet. In the present survey the attention will be concentrated on the fundamental properties of water, providing, in particular, the possibility of “excitation” of the living systems’ bio-photon fields by the ordered in space and time impulses of energy of high density, upon the question of energy sources for “excitation” of bio-photon field of molecular substrate of living systems.

Structural and dynamic features of liquid water

Physico-chemical characteristics of water.
The main chemical property in the constitution of organism is water. Not only active cells consist by 60-65 % of water, but also resting cells and tissues, for instance spores and seeds, include not less than 10-20 % of water [Levi A., Sikevitz F., 1971]. Modern biochemistry and bio-organic chemistry has enriched our minds with the knowledge of superfine details of structure of large albumen and nuclein acid molecules, and, at the same time, the notions of characteristics of water, a medium within which all the bio-chemical processes take place, of its structural features are quite limited. Water specialists acknowledge the following: “We do not deal with one, two or several, but we deal with many theories of water structure, which continue to emerge extremely fast. The way out should be found, and not only because these theories are imperfect, but also on account of their being successful” [Horn P, 1972]. Co-existence of many water structure models is likely to indicate the real multiformity of fundamental living substance, and it may be assumed that such a multiformity is necessary to realise the vital activity processes normally.
Judging nearly by all its physico-chemical properties water is a unique substance. If density of all the liquids grows with the temperature fall, water density reaches its maximum at 4oC and then decreases. Hence, ice remains on the water surface, preventing from absolute frost penetration into the water bodies. Water possesses an extremely high heat capacity: it heats up slowly, gets cold slowly and keeps much more heat energy than the other liquids under thermal change. These characteristics of water provide for maintenance of average temperatures comfortable for life on the Earth and for protection of living organisms from abrupt temperature drops. It is not quite well known that thermal dependency of water heat capacity, as well as of density, is non-monotone, either. At temperature of about 37oC heat capacity of water is minimal. This lucky “fortuity” enables us to liberate surplas heat quicker under body temperature rise higher than normal (36-37 oC).
Water has very high permittivity, which fact gives an opportunity to dissolve a large number of compounds in it. The importance of water surface tension is rarely high. This property, on the one hand, provides for the accumulation of immense energy on the surface of “water-air” separation, and, on the other hand, inhibits gas exchange between water and gas medium.
All the hypotheses, put forward to explicate nontrivial water characteristics, give consideration to the fact that apart from covalent bonds between H and O atoms inside the molecule itself there are also intermolecular hydrogen bonds (H-bonds). Hydrogen atom connected with a strongly electronegative element (nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, etc.) has deficiency in electrons and thus is able to interact with an unshared electron pair of other electronegative atom of this or another molecule. Consequently, a hydrogen bond appears, graphically represented by the three points:

Bond energy: 25 kJ/mol 10 kJ/mol

This bond is much weaker than all the other chemical bonds (the energy of its formation is 10-40 kJoule/mole, whereas the energy of covalent bonds O-H exceeds 280 kJoule/mole) and, as until recently considered, is defined by electrostatic or donor-acceptor interactions.
The atoms of other elements do not form bonds like hydrogenous, because the electrostatic attraction forces of opposite ends of dipoles of polar bonds (O-H, N-H, etc.) are quite weak and only work on small distances. Having the smallest atom radius, hydrogen enables such fields to come close to each other so that attractive forces become apparent.
One of the most “customary” water models, given nearly in all physical chemistry manuals, is the model of Frank and Wen [Frank H.S., Wen W.Y., 1957]. According to it, hydrogen bonds in liquid water are being continuously formed and broken off. Moreover, these processes pass cooperatively within the limits of short-lived groups of water molecules, called “flickering clusters”. Time of their life is determined over the range from 10-10 to 10-11 sec. Such an idea plausibly illustrates a high degree of liquid water mobility and its low viscosity. It is considered that owing to such characteristics water serves as one of the universal dissolvents.

“Water Memory”.
The model of “flickering clusters” is not able to elucidate a large number of both already known factors and factors, which have recently started to grow very fast. The two-century homeopathy practice indicates that pure water, judging by its chemical composition, can possess a colossal biological activity, and its particular activity depends on its prehistory [Voeykov V.L., 1997]. Nothing but not long ago the principles of homeopathy were experimentally acknowledged. In 1988 an article, produced by a large group of biologists from various countries under the direction of French immunologist J.Benveniste [Davenas E., et al., 1988], was published in “Nature”. In this article, the principle of homeopathy was reproduced on a relatively simple biological model. Adding antibodies, specifically interacting with the basophiles (a type of human immune cells), to the latter, a violent reaction of the cells was observed. Under the reduction of concentration of antibodies in the solution, their effectiveness was naturally decreasing. However, it was found that if such lean solutions of antibodies, which no longer exerted any influence on the cells, were diluted, the effect suddenly started to manifest itself again. Moreover, making these dilutions the dependence of the effect upon the doze became perfectly unusual: in some dilutions the effect did show itself, in the other it disappeared and showed up again later (see fig.1).

Fig. 1. Dependence of the basophile degranulation (%, axis of ordinates) on the dilution rate of antibody solution (axis of abscissae, logarithm of dilution rate).
Such a regular change of biological activity of antibody “solutions” was observed right up to the dilution of 10-120, under which the probability of disclosing at least one albumen molecule in the water was infinitely small. For the experiment being successful in was important that after each dilution the new solution was carefully shaked. This method of diluting was entirely reproduced from the technique of preparation of homeopathy medications, developed as far back as by Haneman. The authors made an assumption that biological information transfer was carried out due to the fact that it was “stamped” in the water structure, in other words, they claimed that there existed “water memory”.

Unfortunately, the reaction of the academic scientific world to the article by Benveniste and co-authors was not only negative, but sensu stricto scorching. Without any grounds (experiments, which could refute the facts presented by Benveniste, were by no one produced, while the acknowledgement of main results of their research work was obtained in independent laboratories [Endler P.C., et al., 1994; Schiff M., 1995]) Benveniste was almost accused of swindle and lost his job in Pasteur Institute, where he headed the laboratory [Schiff M., 1995].
In recent years Benveniste has been working in the laboratory established by him, where even more striking results have been obtained. A particular impression is made by Benveniste’s experiments, in which specific biological information is transferred to the pure water, memorised by the water pattern, and then this information evokes a response in a biological test-system, having no direct contact with it. For the first time these experiments started in 1992. Soldered ampoule with BAM solution (for instance, neutrophile respiratory burst stimulator) is placed upon conducting reel. Through the electronic amplifier (the construction is not supposed to be open) the reel is connected with another reel of the same kind, to which a biological detector is adjusted (in the given case neutrophile suspension). The circuit current is switched on, and in some minutes biological response the respiratory burst intensity is registered. The reaction efficiency is compared with the respiratory intensity of cellular suspension before making contact, with the respiratory intensity, if, under switched on current, the ampoule with pure water or with solution of nonreactive isomer stimulator of respiratory burst was placed upon the takeup reel. However, if a soldered ampoule with pure water, having undergone 15 minutes processing by the signal of BAM solution placed on the “transmitting” reel under switched on circuit current, is put upon the takeup reel, the water obtains BAM activity [Thomas Y., et al., 1995].
Not long ago Benveniste has struck the world community by the fact that he learned to record biological information by electronic mediums (for example, CD-ROM), to store and transfer it at any distance using electronic communication facilities [Benveniste J., et al., 1999]. For instance, pathogenic E. coli bacterium culture, giving rise to the aggregation of latex particles, by which antibodies are attached to these cells, is taken. Bacterium suspension signal is recorded through a special interface to the hard disk of computer, having Sound Blaster 16 soundmap. Recorded in the form of wav-file, information is then “played back” on the test-tube with water, and the latter obtains antigene characteristics of the original cellular suspension. The effect’s excess of the corresponding control is always reliable, although the effect magnitude varies daily. This technique gives an opportunity to detect immunogene substance at any distance from its location, which opens an important prospect for telediagnostics, for instance, of infectious diseases.
In spite of the fact that Benveniste conducts the experiments publicly, engages in their implementation independent scientists, who reproduce his results using his equipment [Senekowitsch F., et al., 1995], in 1998 he was “awarded” with a buffoonery “Nobel Prize”. By these awards a certain consortium of American universities stigmatises “pseudo-scientists”, who show their worth most brightly.
Benveniste is not the first and not the only explorer, having revealed the possibility of non-substantial (i.e. without direct interaction of molecule, possessing biological activity, with that or other cellular receptor) transfer of biological information. There are a lot of reports on similar experiments, and the greatest part belongs to our country. Nevertheless, Benveniste’s research work is remarkable for the fact that it meets modern requirements of scientific biological experiment and analysis of results most strictly. And what is more, a very important and new conclusion results from Benveniste’s experiments. Since computer soundmap is only able to record frequencies over the range from 1 Hz to about 20 KHz, all the specific sound information lies in the frequency SOUND band, and the frequency of modulated carrying wave is not important. In this connection the analogy with the information transfer from radio transmitter to radio set may be drawn. A radio station may broadcast on a frequency of, for example, 100 mHz and can be only communicated by tuning on this frequency. Still, the information we perceive, transmitted on this frequency, lies in the sound range.
A special role of frequency sound range in influence on various biological objects was discovered by the Leningrad physiologists under the direction of D.Nasonov as long as some tens of years ago. In 1940 D.Nasonov and V.Alexandrov formulated the theory of paranecrosis. According to this theory, the reaction of a living cell to any specific or non-specific irritation involves global reconstruction of its cytoplasm state. Such a state shows itself, particularly, since vital colorants, weakly bound in the resting cell by its molecular components, after its irritation by various factors, including natural physiological irritants, start colouring these components intensively. According to Nasonov and Alexandrov, the intensification of binding together colorants and proteins indicates the rise of their dispersion degree and the transition from one phase state to the other. Using this approach it was demonstrated that the insonification of a wide variety of physiological models (isolated muscle, neuromuscular medication, cell culture) leads to a convertible panecrotic reaction [Nasonov D.N., 1963]. The effect can not be justified by trivial reasons, for instance, by tissue warming-up, as far as the energy, liberated under the tissue absorption of sound waves of the applied intensity, can warm it up to thousandths of degrees at the most. Particularly interesting appeared to be the graphic chart of reaction intensity and sound wave frequency the maximum of influence effectiveness accounted for 4-5 kHz, which corresponds with the maximum of sound sensitivity of human ear.
Thereby, the data, received by Nasonov and Benveniste, points out that a biological object regardless of its nature (microorganisms, blood cells, isolated organs and tissues, and finally, an entire human being) specifically (Benveniste) or non-specifically (Nasonov) perceives vibrations over the range of their sound frequency. These objects are unified by the fact that all of them are water systems. A supposition arises that a primary “target”, with which the sound frequency vibrations interact, is water. Within the scope of standard water model, this supposition is false, since in the “model” water there are no structures and processes, which could be excited by sound waves. However, as appears from the below, lately it was conclusively proved that common normal water possesses a unique sensitivity to sound vibrations.

The influence of physical fields upon the water.
Thus, biological systems possess a fast response to small and supersmall physical influence, particularly, to the vibrations over the range of sound frequencies, which are likely to exert influence upon these systems through their water medium. Maybe, the effects are stipulated by the fact that both cytoplasmic and intercellular water mediums of the living organisms are very complicated, differ greatly from the normal water and, hence, possess the “microphone” characteristics?
Indeed, the water of living and dead cells is not the same. Therefore, if we destroy the living cells (receiving “homogenate”) and centrifugalize them at very high speed, the contents of the cell will be divided into two fractions. Water-insoluble components and fragments of cellular membrane, surrounded by organelle, ribosome, and other membranes will form the sediment, and the so called water-soluble components: several proteins and peptides, free RNA, and other molecules, not to mention lower organic molecules, existing in the cells, will remain in the unsedimentary liquid [Voeykov V.L., et al., 1992]. Putting a large living cell, for instance, unicellular alga Euglena, even to slow-speed centrifugation, prima facie the same result takes place. Large particles of nuclei, mitochondria, etc. go down, fatty drops rise up, and they are separated by the water phase. It is astonishing that within this phase, however, there are no ferments, proteins, and nuclein acids, considered to be “water-soluble” [Clegg J.S., 1984]. Hence, the components of the living cell become “water-soluble” only after its destruction. In other words, the water contained in the homogenate and the water of the living cell differ greatly.
Apart from that, results obtained from the experiments on direct measurement of water diffusion speed in the living cells, point out to the distinction of these “waters”. According to many authors, only from one quarter to one third of cellular water possess the same mobility as “normal” water. The rest of it is slow-moving, and, as the saying goes, “structured”[Berenyi E., et al., 1996]. Similar data has increasingly appeared recently, owing to which fact many settled ideas on the organisation of cellular cytoplasm should be reconsidered. It is being found out that cytoplasm is not a certain solution, components of which, under random collision, interact with each other. It may be compared with a jelly, which starts to “tremble” in response for the external action. But even such a comparison is very relative, because the cytoplasm is penetrated with numerous “pores”, through which metabolite orderly flows go to the places of their processing. Owing to such a structure the cell works as a single whole: the signals from one part of it are transmitted to all the other parts [Ho M.-W., 1993].
Pronounced therapeutic effect of low-intensive microwave radiation (30-300 GHz frequency band, 1-10 mm EM-wave length range) is sometimes explained by special characteristics of water, contained in the organism, and by the fact that a fair part of water is at bound state [Devyatkov N.D., Betzkogo O.V., 1991; ChernavskyD.S., 1986]. Thorough analysis of influence of low-intensive MM-radiation on “normal” water and water solutions has shown that the irradiation of solutions, being at equilibrium state, does not result in any reliably registered changes of its physical parameters [Liaschenko A.K., et al., 1997]. However, it has turned out that it is still possible to find such conditions under which low-intensive MM-radiation influences upon the characteristics of water systems outside of the living organism, either. This fact occurs provided that non-equilibrium water systems: simple water-saline systems with semipermeable membranes, dispersed water, supersaturated gas and salt solutions, and water containing cavitational bubbles and radicals undergo irradiation [Liaschenko A.K., 1998]. Under the effect of weak impulses of microwave field additional non-equilibrium zones, possessing long periods of relaxation, may appear in the non-equilibrium systems, which in fact is equivalent to the idea of “water memory”.
“Water memory” is also revealed in some other purely physical experiments. The change of water characteristics under the influence of magnetic field has been a point of issue during many tens of years. Some of the water experts, proceeding from the fact that water structures are continuously decomposing and arising again, strongly object the very possibility of water, “memorising” its processing by magnetic field. On the other hand, engineering has already started to use magnetic-field water processing, since it leads to water “softening”, which helps to increase the cost efficiency of hydroengineering objects’ maintenance rapidly. In reality, the matter does not concern the fact that under magnetic processing water loses salts producing hardness, first of all, calcium carbonates, but does concern another fact that calcium carbonate crystals, which differ by its characteristics, are generated in the “normal” process water and in the water, processed by a continuous magnetic field. The scourge of pipelines and caldrons is the calcite the strongest crystal, tightly adhering to the walls. After the magnetic water processing calcium carbonate separates out in the form of the aragonite – small soft crystals, which are taken away by the water current and may be easily removed from it using filtration [Boychenko V.A., et al., 1977]. Moreover, such water can loosen the calcite, already deposited on the walls, which turns into aragonite and is taken away by the water current.
Why such a high-performance method of water conditioning is not applied that widely, as it deserves? The obstacles are put, firstly, by the instability of the effect obtained and, secondly, by the “unexplicability” of the magnetic field mechanism, since neither the water itself, no the contained admixtures possess any noticeable magnetic receptivity. The first problem is generally soluble and only requires systematic investigations. Not long ago Fluid Magnetic Corp., Dinuba, CA, USA has carried out such a research work. It has been discovered that the magnet influences on the flowing, but not on the non-moving water, and the influence effectiveness depends significantly upon the combination of the current water speed, pipe diameter, magnetic field intensity and magnetic field lines direction, temperature, pH, and upon other more subtle water characteristics [Kronberg K.J., 1999]. In other words, in this case, as well as in all the mentioned above, the effect depends not so much upon the magnetic field “dose”, as upon the combination of certain dynamic parameters, parameters determined by non-equilibrium degree of the water being processed. But if the optimal parameters of water magnetization are chosen, its memory, registered according to the type of CaCO3 crystals produced on its evaporation, remains for the period of more than two days after the contact with magnetic field.
Unfortunately, successful empiric selection of conditions for obtaining reproducible effects in one or another particular case is not equivalent to getting reasonable explanation for the mechanism of the phenomenon itself. And there must be something in common between the effects demonstrating the ability of water to maintain its special characteristics, acquired as a result of one or another influence upon it by weak physical factors, for a long time. It is obviously impossible to disclose this “common” without radical reconsideration of the existing notions on structural-dynamic water characteristics.

Water Structure.
Hypotheses on the existence of quite stable formations in the water have recently been proposed. Thus, according to S.Zenin’s hypothesis, water represents a hierarchy of regular bulk structures, the basis for which is a crystal-like “water-quantum” consisting of its 57 molecules. This structure is an energy-paying one and is destroyed, followed by the liberation of free water molecules, only under high concentrations of alcohol and similar dissolvents [Zenin S.V., 1994]. “Water quanta” can interact with each other at the expense of free hydrogen bonds, sticking by its planes out of the “quantum” apex. In addition, already two types of second-order structures can be formed. Their interaction brings to the emergence of higher-order structures. The latter include 912 water molecules, which, according to Zenin model, are incapable of interaction by means of hydrogen bonds formation. This is the reason, for example, for high fluidity of liquid, consisting of large polymers. Thereby, the water medium represents a kind of a hierarchically formed liquid crystal. Changing position of the crystal’s structural element under the influence of any external factor or changing orientation of the surrounding elements under the effect of the matters being added, according to Zenin’s hypothesis, provides for high sensitivity of the water informational system. If the degree of structural elements’ excitation is not enough for rearranging the whole water structure at the given volume, after the excitation relieving, in some 30-40 minutes, the system goes back into its initial condition. If, though, the conversion, i.e. the transition to another positional relationship of the water structural elements, comes out to be energy-paying, the coding effect of the matter, having caused this rearranging, is reflected in the new condition [Zenin S.V., 1994]. Such a model enables Zenin to explain the “water memory” and its informational characteristics [Zenin S.V., 1997].
Another model of “quasi-crystal water” is proposed by N.Bul’yenkov. Basing on this model, he not only demonstrates several anomalous properties of the liquid, but also postulates that these are the water structural characteristics that play a role of metrics, determining the structure of both lower bio-molecules and proteins, nuclein acids and polysaccharides, arising in the water [Bul’yenkov N.A., 1988].
American chemist Ken Jordan has suggested his ideas of stable “water quanta”, which include six water molecules (fig. 2) [Tsai C.J. and Jordan K.D., 1993]. These clusters are able to unite with each other and with “free” water molecules at the expense of the hydrogen bonds, exposed on their surface. The peculiarity of this model lies in the fact that the free-growing water crystals the well-known snowflakes must have a 6-radial symmetry, as it automatically follows from the model.

Fig. 2. Three examples of low-energy clusters consisting of six water molecules, which structure is received based on quantum-mechanical calculations. Red balls oxygen atoms, grey hydrogen; small bonds covalent, long hydrogenous.

In spite of the fact that various models propose clusters, differing in their geometry, all of them postulate that the water molecules are able to unite, followed by polymer formation. But the classical polymer is such a molecule, which has all the atoms united by covalent bonds. Covalent bond is a pair of electrons, each of which, in a varying degree, belongs to both nuclei, linked by them. However, until recently hydrogen bond was considered to be purely electrostatic and was described not by quantum mechanics, but by the classical theory of electrostatic interaction. If it is exactly like that, the possibility of existence of more or less stable polymers in liquid water is very dubious. Nevertheless, in 1999 this objection was revoked. A work, published in one of the most prestigious physical journals of the world, experimentally demonstrates that the hydrogen bond between water molecules in the ice has partly (10%) a covalent character [Isaacs E. D., et al.,1999]. Even a partly covalent character of the hydrogen bond “allows” at least 10% of water molecules to unite into rather long-living polymers (no matter, of what structure, specifically). And if the water has water polymers, even the weakest influences upon absolutely pure water (let alone its solutions, especially solutions of high-molecular compounds) might have important consequences, which will be considered in the next paragraph.
Very interesting concept of High Dilutions was developed by a group of French scientists [Conte R. et.at 1996, 1999, 2000]. It is based on introducing ideas of quantum physics and gravitational forces to explaining enigmas of homeopathy, where matter is going to appear only in discontinuity of space-time, without mass, non charged and capable of inducing a neutronic field. Authors are using spectrums to measure and assess the effect of a product on a patient regarding his/her constitution: modification of a spectrum of an organic fluid and comparison to a health control spectrum.

Water Dissociation Followed by Formation of Free Radicals.
Polymer chemistry indicates the fact that under the influence of strains, particularly sound processing, stretching, and punching of a polymer through thin openings, polymer molecules might “break”. Depending upon the polymer composition and upon the conditions, under which it is found, these breaks are followed either by the formation of new random bonds between the “scraps” of initial molecules, or by the decrease of their molecular mass. In particular, such processes account for the ageing of polymers. It is rarely being determined that the polymer fragmentation under such effects is a non-trivial fact. Let us illustrate this statement by the following example. In view of the liberation of full-size filiform DNA molecules, formed from hundreds of thousands and millions monomers-nucleotides, it is necessary to work extremely carefully with them: even a mere mixing of the preparation by a stick may lead to DNA decomposition into smaller fragments. However, the smaller the fragments are, the higher-density energy is needed to break them into even yet smaller. But, in fact, in all the cases within long and short polymers chemically identical covalent bonds are being broken. Consequently, if it is necessary to apply energy, equivalent to the energy of UV- or at least visible light quantum, to a small molecule to break a covalent bond between the two atoms, the same bond within the polymer may be broken under the influence of mechanical oscillation upon it. In the first case, vibration frequency corresponds to the values of 1015 Hz order, in the second to Hz and kHz. Hence, polymer molecule may serve as a kind of transformer, changing energy from the low-density to the high-density. In other words, polymers turn the heat into the light. And so, if liquid water may be to some extent regarded as quasi-polymer, the similar processes may take place in it.
In 1990 a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSA Domrachov G.A. (the Institute of Metalo-organic Chemistry of RAS) and physicist Selivanovsky D.A. (the Institute of Applied Physics of RAS) formulated a hypothesis on the existence of mechanochemical reactions of radical water dissociation [Domrachov G.A., 1995]. They proceeded from the fact that liquid water represents a dynamically unstable polymer system and that, by analogy with the mechanochemical reactions in the polymers, under mechanical effect upon the water, the energy absorbed by the water and necessary for the H-OH breakage, is localised in the microenvironment of the liquid water structure. The reaction of H-OH breakage may be put down as follows:

(Н2О)n(Н2О…H-|-OH) (Н2О)m + E (Н2О)n+1(H) + (OH) (Н2О)m,
where sign stands for an unpaired electron.

Since both the dissociation of water molecules and H OH radical reaction take place under the associated condition of liquid water, as a result of recombination reactions, radicals may have very long (tens of seconds and more) lifetime before destruction [Blough N.N., et al., 1990]. In addition, the way is cleared for carrying out reactions of radicals with various acceptors, dissolved in the water. The passing of reactions, usually requiring considerable energy consumption, such as atmospheric nitrogen oxidation followed by nitrate and ammoniate generation, formation of hydrocarbons and other organic compounds, for example, amino acids, comes out to be possible. This originates from the fact that the reactivity of OH radicals and hydrogen atoms in the water is quite high.
Domrachov and Selivanovsky’s hypothesis concerning the possibility of mechano-dissociation of water was completely experimentally proved [Domrachov G.A., et al., 1993, 1995, 1999; Vax V.L., et al., 1994]. The process of water mechano-dissociation was controlled according to the accumulation of hydrogen peroxide in the water [Domrachov G.A., 1991], as an intermediate and relatively stable product of the two OH radicals recombination. The destruction of water combined with hydrogen peroxide formation takes place by its insonification over the range of sound frequencies (it was known a little bit earlier about quite intensive water decomposition in view of cavitational bubbles formation under the ultrasonic treatment of water [Margulis M.A., 1986]), by its filtration through thin capillaries, by condensation, by processing using UHF-fields, and by freezing-defrosting. In the latter case, in the melt water the hydrogen peroxide outlet rises, if the ice has been split or exposed to other mechanical effects. It is easier to implement the dissociation of liquid water at low temperature (higher than 70oC it is not to be observed), but only in case it contains dissolved oxygen and, what is more, argon. In our opinion, all these results represent one of the strongest evidences of quasi-polymer nature of liquid water.
It is interesting to notice that in the sonicated water hydrogen peroxide content continues to grow for a little while even after the turning down of sound, and then stabilises, most likely at the expense of its decomposition into water and free oxygen. Having calculated the efficiency of water mechano-dissociation, the authors came to a very important conclusion concerning the origin of oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere. In their opinion, having assumed that on the ancient Earth the volume of oceanic waters was the same as it is now, taking into account that the dissociation of water takes place under the influence of various forces, energy density of which is quite low, and that it has practically no realisation threshold, the dissociation of water is the paramount factor, responsible for the emergence of O2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. If it is true, the dominating nowadays dogma, maintaining that the atmosphere oxygen is purely a product of biological photosynthesis, is unfounded.
In 1998 the two works by Japanese authors were published, stating the catalytic water decomposition by copper oxide, on the one hand, under its moderate illumination by visible light [Michikazu Hara, et al., 1998], and on the other hand, simply under its mechanical mixing [Shigeru Ikeda, et al., 1998]. As appears from these works, under certain conditions the decomposition of water, finally followed by hydrogen and oxygen formation (and on the intermediate stages by formation of radicals), is carried out under quite soft effects upon it. At the same time, gaseous hydrogen yield (which, being cheap and pure fuel material, particularly attracted the authors’ attention) was quite large.

New methods of Water Structure investigations
Not long ago, in Slovenia, the researchers of Institute for Bioelectromagnetics and New Biology have carried out investigations aimed at the determination of influence degree of various ionic compositions of water upon the corona discharge around water drops [Skarja M., et al., 1997,1998].
Since the ions play a very important if not an essential role in the discharge process, the usage of different ionic configurations within the investigation is essential from the informative point of view. As far as this research work is of fundamental importance, let us study it in more detail.
The authors suppose [Skarja M., et al., 1997] that the influence of ionic compositions stems from two effects, namely from the extraction of substances from the surface of an investigated object (mostly in an ionised and radical form) and a subsequent transport and reactions with the emulsion in the discharge area, and from the influence of extracted substances in the air on corona discharge. In the series of experiments [Skarja M., et al., 1997] they used water with the solution of different salts as a research liquid-phase object. The investigations were put into practice with the help of a specially developed method of corona discharge electrography of water drops with computer analysis of images. This method differs from the usual corona discharge photography (Kirlian photography) in the mechanisms of image formation. It relies on chemical reactions and deposition of substances transported in the discharge area, rather than on usual photoreactions, which pass slower. The images are contact images obtained on specially prepared photographic paper. They are not contact photographs as in the usual technique, where the light of discharge causes photoreactions in the photoemulsion. Here the changes in the photoemulsion were caused mainly through the transport of water and the related ions and radicals [H+ ion, hydroxyl (HO) and hydroperoxy (HOO) radicals], as well as of salt ions generated and extracted at the water surface, and their subsequent interactions with the emulsion in the discharge area. The discharge itself (electrons and ions originating from air ionisation) also interacts with the emulsion. As proved with separate experiments, the transport and reactions of substances from water give the major contribution to the brightness of images. The reproducibility of results was achieved through simultaneous imaging and comparing of two drops from different samples. In the experiments [Skarja M., et al., 1997] different salt solutions were compared between themselves and with distilled water.
The images of corona discharge around the drops were obtained by means of the conventional Kirlian device adjusted to the research needs. The characteristics of the device was as follows. The generator voltage was adjusted in the range from 6 to 25 kV and from 45 to 70 kHz . The voltage impulse was in the form of damped sine wave with damping time of 90 microseconds. A squared metal plate (200 x 250 mm) served as a high voltage electrode covered by an insulating plate (plexiglas 4 mm thick, dielectric constant 3.3) with photographic paper and two drops on top. The drops were grounded by two electrodes (diameter 1 mm) immersed into the drops and in contact with the paper. Simultaneous observation of images of two drops, received under the same conditions, prevented potential non-equivalent interpretation of both images. On the synchronous photographing of the drop pair, the pictures obtained were scanned and by means of special computer software transformed into a grid of 100 x 100 pixels. The images received were analysed using parameters subdivided into three groups: parameters related to the whole picture, parameters obtained from the angular analysis and parameters obtained from the radial analysis. Statistical data was processed with the help of t2 criterion.
Basing on the experiments made by the authors, the following results were achieved. In general, the images of ion solutions are brighter than those of the water. The width of the streamers containing iodine solution is narrower than of those containing other NaCl and CoCl(2) solutions, which, in their turn, are narrower than water streamers. Within the framework of the mentioned above analysis, some other qualitative and quantitative differences were revealed.

Summary
Now let us sum up the intermediate results. So, nowadays there are conclusive proofs for the fact that there exist quite stable polymer structures in the liquid water. Nevertheless, we think that the very presence of such structures can not elucidate the effects, associating with the characteristics of water as a receiver, keeper, translator, and, perhaps, as a converter of information of biological importance. Realisation of all these functions requires water to have its own activity, to be considerably a non-equilibrium system. However, its non-equilibrium should have dynamic, and not statistic (compressed spring), character. It was shown above that weak physical effects upon the water leave marks only in case if either the water itself is moving (for instance, relatively to magnet), or if some inner directed processes take place in it. Of no small importance is the fact that the very presence of the marks of weak field influence upon the water may be disclosed most reliably not within the analysis of “statistical” characteristics of water, but within the investigation of the process taking place in it (for example, crystallisation) or even of its effect upon the objects, exposed to dynamic non-linear processes [Kaarianen A.].
Nonetheless, if the matter concerns bio-informational characteristics of water, the importance of the role played by vibration, oscillation structure of biological information in the processes of its perception, in recent years has become clearer. We ourselves, being the representatives of the living world, receive almost 90% of the information owing to the eyesight, possessing the ability to perceive electromagnetic field oscillations over the optical range. Hearing is the ability to perceive information, coded in the form of sound-wave vibrations. No doubt that the amplitude modulation of these vibrations (brighter-dimmer, louder-quieter) is significant, but it is evidently of minor importance for the informational value of messages perceived by us. Not by having a definite magnitude, but by oscillatory changing of the power of influence upon mechanoreceptors, we are able to learn a lot from the sense of touch. Even the environment could solely be judged by its vibrations, since we do not feel constant temperature (of course, within certain limits) [Voyekov V.L., 1999].
But let us come back to the informational function of water. What regular oscillatory processes (while only regular oscillatory processes, and not “white” noise, can possess informative value) may the matter concern? The authors [Voyekov V.L., 1999] believe that the informational processes occurring in the water are mainly determined by those free radical processes, which are initiated, controlled and maintained in it under the influence of both weak and strong physical fields upon water, under dissolving any compounds in it or removing other compounds from it. On the other hand, as it is stated in the works [Cagnon T.A., Rein G., 1990; Rein G., 1995; Rein G., Tiller W., 1996], structural “crystallographic” characteristics of water, being a quasi-polymer substance, are not only a necessary condition for the production of free radicals in it, but also a condition, fixing the character of processes involving these radicals.
As concerns the investigation of various solutions, the authors’ [Skarja M., et.al. 1997, 1998] main conclusions consist in the fact that the corresponding quantitative analysis of the corona discharge images, free from subjective estimation, can find the difference between the salt solutions and the water, as well as between the unit ions, if they are presented in a sufficient quantity.
The disadvantage of the investigations performed lies in the absence of information, regarding the independence of parameters, being analysed, and also in rather long and labour-intensive process of images obtaining, as a result of which it impossible to reproduce the stated experiments exactly.
Whether or no, the experiments conducted by Slovenian researchers shed some light on the problem of influence of various ionic compositions upon its environment, which is a very important factor in diagnostic investigations.
In that way, the question of establishment and determination of an objective and easily reproducible method for investigation of the issues specified, followed by the analysis of a wider range of medico-biological and ecological problems, becomes extremely topical.
The developed methods of putting Gas-Discharge Visualisation (GDV) technique into practice have demonstrated the importance of GDV-graphy for realization of programmes aimed at the research in the given spheres. The investigation of characteristics of gas-discharge luminescence of the liquid-phase objects: microbiological cultures, blood, saliva, biologically active liquids, water and various water solutions’ samples relates to these spheres [Korotkov K.G., 1998]. The analysis of peculiar properties and differences of the liquid-phase objects mentioned, possess a large diagnostic informativeness.
To all appearances, present-day medicine only starts to understand the informational value of blood, and the GDV method might play one of the most important roles in these investigations. In counterpart to investigating physical and phycho-emotional states of sportsmen using GDV method, of no small importance is the investigation of rheological characteristics of blood of sportsmen by means of the same technique (as it is well known, this property of blood differs according to the qualification of a sportsman).
LITERATURE

Anagnostatos G.S. In: High Dilution Effects on Cells and Integrated Systems. Eds. C. Taddei-Ferretti, P.Marotta. Vol.3. Singapore: World Scientific, 1998.
Benveniste J., L. Kahhak, D. Guillonnet. Specific remote detection of bacteria using an electromagnetic / digital procedure. FASEB Journal (13:A852(abs). 1999
Berenyi E., Szendro Z., Rozsahegyl P., Bogner P., Sulyok E. Postnatal changes in water content and proton magnetic resonance relaxation times in newborn rabbit tissues. \\ Pediatr. Res. 1996. V. 39. P. 1091-1098
Blough N.N.,Micinski E.,Dister B.,Kieber D.,Moffetty J. Molecular prove systems for reactive transients in natural waters. /Mar. Chem. 1990, 30(1-3), p.45-70
Boltzmann, L. Wissenschaftliche Abhandungen (ed. Fr.Hasenohrl) Barth, Leipzig (1909).
Brilluen L., Science and Information theory, Moscow, FIZMATGIZ 1959
Cagnon T.A., Rein G. The biological significance of water structured with non-hertzian time reversed waves. J. US Psychotronic Assoc. 4, 26-31, 1990
Chandler D., Introduction to modern statistical mechanics, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1987)
Clegg J.S. Properties and metabolism in aqueous cytoplasm and its boundaries. // Am. J. Physiol. 1984. V. 246. P. R133-151
Conte R.R., Berliocchi H., Lasne I. Theory of High Dilutions. Applications to Life. Economica, Paris, 2000.
Conte R.R., Berliocchi H., Lasne I., Vernot G. Theorie des Hautes Deilutions et Aspects Experimentaux, Polytechnica, Paris, France, 1996.
Conte R.R., Lasne I. Theory of High Dilutions and Experimental Aspects. An Overview. Biomedical Therapy, v. 17, N 3, 1999.
Davenas E., F. Beauvais, J. Arnara, M. Oberbaum, B. Robinzon, A. Miadonna, A. Tedeschi, B. Pomeranz, P. Fortner, P. Belon, J. Sainte-Laudy, B. Poitevin, and J. Benveniste. Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE // Nature, Vol. 333, No. 6176, pp. 816-818, 1988
Endler P.C., W. Pongratz, G. Kastberger, F.A.C. Wiegant, J. Schulte.The effect of highly diluted agitated thyroxine of the climbing activity of frogs. Veterinary and Human Toxicology (36:56-59). 1994
Endler P.C., W. Pongratz, R. van Wijk, K. Waltl, H. Hilgers, R.Brandmaier. Transmission of hormone information by non-molecular means. FASEB Journal (8:A400(abs)). 1994
Frank H.S., Wen W.Y. Discuss Faraday Soc. V. 24, p. 133, 1957
Garner C., Hock N. Chaos theory and homeopathy. The Berlin Journal on Research in Homeopathy, 1 (4/5), 236-242, 1991.
Gibbs, J.W. Elementary principles in statistical mechanics, Yale University Press, New Haven (1902)
Ho M.-W. The rainbow and the worm. 1993. Singapore: World Scientific
Hyman R., Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time, Journ. of Experimental Psychology, 45 NO.3 188-196 (1953)
Isaacs E. D., A. Shukla, P. M. Platzman, D. R. Hamann, B. Barbiellini, and C. A. Tulk. Covalency of the Hydrogen Bond in Ice: A Direct X-Ray Measurement //Physical Review Letters — Volume 82, Issue 3, pp. 600-603, 1999
Karvarainen A., “Hierarchic concept of matter and field”. NY. 1995
Korotkov K. Aura and Consciousness: New Stage of Scientific Understanding. SPb 1998.
Kronberg K.J. Magnetic water treatment de-mistified. July 1999. http://gcea.com/treatment.shtm
Kukuy L., Gudakova G. GDV Technique application for the evaluation of treatment effects for the patients of cardiological and surgical departments. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference for Medical and Applied Bio-Electrography “Kirlionics98”. 1998, St-Petersburg.
Lewis A. E., Biostatistics, Reinhold, New York, 1966
Michikazu Hara, Takeshi Kondo, Mutsuko Komoda, Sigeru Ikeda, Kiyoaki Shinohara, Akira Tanaka, Junko N. Kondo, Kazunari Domen, Cu2O as a photocatalyst for overall water splitting under visible light irradiation.// Chemical Communications, (003), 357-358, 1998
Proceedings of the International Congress (1999) editor Korotkov K.
Rein G. The in-vitro effect of bioenergy on the contermational states of human DNA in aqueous solutions. J Ac. & Electrotherap. Res. 20, 173-180, 1995
Rein G., Tiller W., Spectroscopic evidence for force-free and patential-free information storage in water. Proc. Int. Sympos on New Energy, Denver, CO, 365-370, 1996
Schiff M.. The Memory of Water. Homeopathy and the battle of ideas in the new science. Thorons. San Francisco. 1995
Senekowitsch F., P.C.Endler, W. Pongratz, C.W. Smith. Hormone effects by CD record/replay. FASEB Journal (9: A392(abs)). 1995
Shannon C.E., The mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Techn. Journ., 27, 379-423; 623-656 (1948).
Shigeru Ikeda, Tsuyoshi Takata, Takeshi Kondo, Go Hitoki, Michikazu Hara, Junko N. Kondo, Kazunari Domen, Hideo Hosono, Hiroshi Kawazoe, Akira Tanaka. Mechano-catalytic overall water splitting // Chemical Communications, (020), 2185-2186, 1998
Skarja M., Berden M., Papuga P., Jerman I.. Indirect instrumental detection of ultraweak supposedly electromagnetic radiation from organisms. BION, Institute for Bioelectromagnetics and New Biology,Slovenia, 1998
Skarja M., Berden M., Papuga P., Jerman I.. Instrumental measuring of different homeopatic dilutions of KI in water. BION, Institute for Bioelectromagnetics and New Biology,Slovenia, 1998
Skarja M., Berden M., Papuga P., Jerman I.. The influence of ionic composition of water on the corona discharge around water drops. BION, Institute for Bioelectromagnetics and New Biology,Slovenia,1997
Skarja M., Berden M.. A possible physical basus for the healing touch (bioterapy) evalueted by high voltage electrophotography. BION, Institute for Bioelectromagnetics and New Biology,Slovenia, 1997
Smith C.W. In: High Dilution Effects on Cells and Integrated Systems. Eds. C. Taddei-Ferretti, P.Marotta. Vol.3. Singapore: World Scientific, 1998.
Smith C.W. Measurements of the Electromagnetic Fields Generated by Biological Systems. Neural Network World. 5: 819-829, 1995.
Stonier T., Information and the internal structure of the universe, New York, Springer (1990)
Thomas Y., M. Schiff, M.H. Litime, L. Belkadi, J. Benveniste. Direct transmission to cells of a molecular signal (phorbol myristate acetate, PMA) via an electronic device. FASEB Journal (9: A227 (abs) 1995
Tsai C.J. and K.D. Jordan, “Theoretical Study of Small Water Clusters: Low-Energy Fused Cubic Structures for (H2O)n, n=8, 12, 16 and 20,” Journal of Physical Chemistry 97, 5208-10 (1993)
Tsai C.J. and K.D. Jordan, “Theoretical Study of the (H20)6 Cluster,” Chemical Physics Letters 213, 181-88 (1993)
Woodham A., Peters D. Encyclopedia of Complementary Medicine. Dorling Kindewrsley. London. 1997.
Yaglom A.M., I.M.Yaglom, Probability and Information, Moscow, FIZMATGIZ 1960
Zar J. H.. Biostatistical analysis. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englwood Cliff, N.J., 1984
Бойченко В.А., Сапогин Л.Г. Инженерно-физический журнал, т. 33. С. 350, 1977
Boychenko V.A., Sapogin L.G. Engineering-physical magazine. 1997. v. 33. p.350.
Бульенков Н.А. Периодические диспирационно-модульные структуры «связанной воды» – возможные конструкции, определяющие конформации биополимеров в структурах их гидратов. // Кристаллография. Т. 35, с. 155-159, 1988
Bul’yenkov N.A. Periodic disperation-modular structures of “bound water” possible states determining conformations of bio-polymers within the structures of their hydrates. // Crystallography. 1988. v. 35. p. 155-159.
Вакс В.Л., Домрачев Г.А., Poдыгин Ю.Л., Селивановский Д.А., Спивак Е.В. Диссоциация воды под действием СВЧ излучения. / Изв. ВУЗов, Радиофизика, 1994, 37(1), с.149-154
Vax V.L., Domrachov G.A., Rodigin U.L., Selivanovsky D.A., Spivak E.V. Dissociation of water under the influence of UHF radiation. / Proceedings of Institutes of Higher Education, Radiophysics. 1994. 37(1). p. 149-154.
Воейков В.Л. “Особенности протекания процессов с участием активных форм кислорода в водных системах, обеспечивающие их вероятную роль рецепторов и усилителей влияния изкоинтенсивных факторов среды на биологические системы”. Препринт МГУ 1999 .
Voeykov V.L. Characteristics of processes with active forms of oxygen participation in water systems, providing their possible role as receptors and amplifiers of influence of environmental low-intensive factors upon biological systems. Preprint MSU. 1999.
Воейков В.Л. Гомеопатия и фундаментальные законы физики и химии. Глава “Вместо предисловия”. В кн.: А.В. Липин “Ветеринарный практикум.по гомеотоксикологии.” М.: Готика, 1997
Voeykov V.L. Homeopathy and fundamental laws of physics and chemistry. // Introduction for Lipin A.V. Veterinary practics on homeotoxicology. M.: Gotika. 1997.
Воейков В.Л., Решетов П.Д., Набиев И.Р. и др. “Физико-химические методы изучения биополимеров и низкомолекулярных биорегуляторов” П/ред. и с предисловием акад. Иванова В.Т.. М.: Наука. 1992
Voeykov V.L., Reshetov P.D., Nabiev I.R. et. al. Physico-chemical methods of investigation of bio-polymers and low-molecular bio-regulators. Edit., foreword by Acad. Ivanov V.T. M.: Nauka. 1992.
Воейков В.Л.«Физико-химические и биофизические обоснования структурно-энергетической специфичности живых организмов, обеспечивающей их высокую чувствительность к низкоинтенсивным факторам внешней среды». 1998
Voeykov V.L. Physico-chemical and biophysical grounds of structural-energetic specificity of living organisms, providing their high sensitivity to low-intensive factors of the environment. Preprint MSU. 1998.
Гланц С. Медико-биологическая статистика. М: Практика. 1999
Домрачев Г.А., Родыгин Ю.Л., Селивановский Д.А., Усовершенствованная методика хемолюминесцентного определения малых концентраций Н2О2 в воде. / Высокочистые вещества, 1991, N5, с.187-189
Domrachov G.A., Rodigin U.L., Selivanovsky D.A. Advanced methods of chemoluminescent determination of small H2O2 concentrations in the water. / High-clean matters. №5. 1991. p. 187-189.
Домрачев Г.А., Селивановский Д.А., Диденкулов И.Н., Родыгин Ю.Л., Стунжас П.А.. Температурные характеристики эффективности сонолиза и интесивности сонолюминесценции воды./ ЖФХ, 1999, в печати.
Domrachov G.A., Selivanovsky D.A., Didenkulov I.N., Rodigin U.L., Stunzhas P.A. Temperature characteristics of effectiveness of sonolysis and intensiveness of water sonoluminiscence. / Physical chemistry magazine. 1999.
Домрачев Г.А.,Родыгин Ю.Л.,Селивановский Д.А. Механохимически активированное разложение воды в жидкой фазе. / ДАН, 1993, 329(2), с.186-188
Domrachov G.A., Rodigin U.L., Selivanovsky D.A. Mechano-chemically activated decomposition of water in liquid phase. / DAN. 1993. 329(2). p. 186-188.
Домрачев Г.А.,Родыгин Ю.Л.,Селивановский Д.А., Стунжас П.А. Об одном из механизмов генерации пероксида водорода в океане. В кн. “Химия морей и океанов”. М.: Наука, 1995, с.169-177
Domrachov G.A., Rodigin U.L., Selivanovsky D.A., Stunzhas P.A. About one of the mechanisms of generation of hydrogen peroxide in the ocean. // Chemistry of seas and oceans. M.: Nauka. 1995. p. 169-177.
Домрачев Г.А.,Селивановский Д.А. Роль звука и жидкой воды как динамически нестабильной полимерной системы в небиогенном происхождении кислорода и возникновении жизни на Земле. Институт Металлоорганическоой химии АН СССР. Препринт 1/90, Горький, 1990
Domrachov G.A., Selivanovsky D.A. The role of sound and liquid water as a dynamically unstable polymer system in non-biogenic origin of oxygen and beginnings of life on Earth. Institute of Metal and Organic Chemistry of AS USSR. Preprint 1/90. Gorky. 1990.
Зенин С.В. Водная среда как информационная митрица биологических процессов. Первый Международный симпозиум “Фундаментальные науки и альтернативная медицина”. 22-25 сентября 1997 г. Тезисы докладов. Пущино, 1997, с. 12-13
Zenin S.V. Water medium as an informational matrix of biological processes. First international symposium “Abstract sciences and alternative medicine”. 22-25 September 1997. Theses of reports. Puscheno. 1997. p. 12-13.
Зенин С.В. Возникновение ориентационных полей в водных растворах. // Журнал физ. химии. 1994. Т. 68. С. 500-503
Zenin S.V. Origination of orientational fields in water solutions. // Physical chemistry magazine. 1994. v. 68. p. 500-503.
Зенин С.В. Гидрофобная модель структуры ассоциатов молекул воды. // Журнал физ. химии. 1994. Т. 68. С. 634-641
Zenin S.V. Hydrophobic model of structure of water molecules’ associates. // Physical chemistry magazine. 1994. v. 68. p. 634-641.
Леви А., Сикевиц Ф. Структура и функции клетки. М.: Мир. 1971
Levi A., Sinkeviz F. Structure and functions of a cell. M.: Mir. 1971.
Лященко А.К. Структура воды и водных растворов, релаксационные процессы и механизм воздействия миллиметрового излучения на биологические объекты. «Биомедицинская радиоэлектроника». № 2, с. 17-22, 1998
Lyaschenko A.K. Structure of water and water solutions, relaxational processes and mechanism of influence of millimeter radiation upon biological objects. Biomedical radioelectronics. №2. p. 17-22. 1998.
Лященко А.К., Ефремов П.В. 11-й Росс. Симп. «Миллиметровые волны в биологии и медицине. Сб. докл. – М. ИРЭ РАН, 1997
Lyaschenko A.K., Efremov P.V. 11th Russian Symposium “Millimeter waves in biology and medicine”. Digest of reports. M.: REI RAS. 1997.
Маргулис М.А.. Звукохимические реакции и сонолюминесценция. М.: Химия, 1986
Margulis M.A. Sound-chemical reactions and sonoluminescence. M.: Chemistry. 1986.
Насонов Д.Н. Некоторые вопросы морфологии и физиологии клеток. Избранные труды. М.-Л. Изд-во АН СССР. 1963
Nasonov D.N. Some questions of morphology and physiology of cells. Selected works. M.-L. AS USSR publ. 1963.
От эффекта Кирлиан к Биоэлектрографии. Сб. статей п/р проф. Короткова К.Г. и др.СПб, «Ольга», 1998
From Kirlian effect to Bioelectrography. Edit. by Prof. Korotkov K.G. et.al. SPb. Olga. 1998.
СВЧ-радиация в медицине. Сб. статей п/р акад. Девяткова Н.Д. и проф. Бецкого О.В. в двух томах. М., ИРЭ АН СССР, 1991
UHF-radiation in medicine. Digest of reports edit. by Acad. Devyatkov N.D. and Prof. Bezkogo O.V. in 2 v. M. REI AS USSR. 1991.
Хорн Р. Морская химия (структура воды и химия гидросферы). М.: Мир. 1972
Horn R. Sea chemistry (structure of water and chemistry of hydrosphere). M.: Mir. 1972.
Чернавский Д.С., Хургин Ю.Т., Шноль С. Э. О кооперативных (когерентных) явлениях в биологических макромолекулах (концепции «когерентных возбуждений» и «альбумин-машины». Препринт № 185, ФИАНб, 1986
Chernavsky D.S., Hurgin U.T., Shnol’ S.E. About co-operative (coherent) phenomena in biological macromoleculas (conceptions of “coherent excitations” and “albumen-machine”). Preprint. №185. PIRAS. 1986.

Chapter 1.

The Scientific Worldview and Christian Consciousness

I am sure that I would not be far wrong in stating that the concept of a “Christian” psychology would puzzle many people. Admirers of the real or imagined achievements of 20th century science probably would insist that in order to be considered scientific, psychology must be guided by the principles of objectivity and impartiality, especially concerning the functions of the human mind, one of nature’s most complex phenomena. From this point of view, many readers would hold that applying the adjective “Christian” to psychology would automatically annul psychology’s legitimacy as a scientific domain. “Science,” according to Steven Jay Gould, Harvard professor of Biology and History, “simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God and His possible superintendence in nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply cannot comment on it as scientists.” [16 p.119] In Gould’s opinion, shared by many contemporary scientists, science cannot be linked to religion, because science is concerned only with “objective” reality and is based only on material explanations deduced from the Laws of Nature. Science can be based only on these natural laws (and not on God for example) and cannot address moral questions.

Not only atheists and agnostics but also scientists who are deists undoubtedly would object to the legitimacy of a “Christian” psychology. Although deists assign the role of First Mover to an abstract Higher Power, which initiated the movement of the universe and maintains it according to certain immutable natural laws, deists would similarly be disinclined to label scientific anything associated with doctrinal religion, especially the doctrines of a particular religion. Even theists, who believe that God continues to manifest Himself in the world (and theoretically could choose to violate His own laws), insist on the idea that God does not interfere with the Laws of Nature. In other words, most contemporary scientists believe that science should mind its own business and ignore the Creator whose activities take place in an entirely different plane!

Therefore, everyone who thinks that science and religion (especially Christianity) are separate and function independently of each other would find it extremely difficult to admit the possibility that any science – whether it be psychology, or biology, or physics – could be “Christian.”

However, we hold a different view, which we will attempt to defend despite the seemingly convincing historical evidence of the dangers of combining religion and science. As proof of the disastrous consequences of mixing religion and science, many proponents of the separation of religion and science cite the Medieval conflict between the geocentric and heliocentric views of the universe or the more modern, early 20th century controversy over teaching Darwinism in the American schools, which led to the famous Scopes “monkey trial” in the U.S. Nevertheless, a closer look at these two historical episodes shows that they: 1) are not equally significant; and 2) do not conclusively prove that the scientific and religious worldviews are mutually exclusive or incompatible.

One should keep in mind that when the Catholic Church disputed the theory of Copernicus and Galileo, the Church was choosing to support one of two opposing “scientific” theories. At that time the Church had chosen to support the Ptolomeic theory on the basis of “scientific” facts; and it had the support of the most authoritative astronomers – both those contemporary with and those preceding Galileo and Copernicus. In addition, the Catholic Church subsequently understood and acknowledged its error. Concerning Darwin’s theory, one can say that beyond the “monkey” trial’s dramatic, superficial clash between “reactionary” religious fanatics and “progressive” scientists, there lay a much deeper disagreement on the origin of man. This conflict involves two fundamentally opposing views. Today, one can state with some assurance that many contemporary biologists would no longer defend the scientific truth of Darwin’s “hypothesis” on the origin of man — especially, its mechanics of operation — as confidently as their early 20th century colleagues did.

The essence of the dispute between the Christians and the Darwinists runs a lot deeper than the superficial aspects that public opinion judged to have been won by the Darwinists. The dispute illustrates the extent to which 20th century science had seriously encroached upon providing answers to questions that were formerly the preserve of religion. Scientists began to assert that only “pure science” could give definitive answers to questions concerning the Beginning of the world and its End; the origin of life and of man; and the purpose of man’s existence. Some scientists had ready answers to these questions — answers that not only ignored Holy Scripture but starkly contradicted it.

Russian readers of this article might assume that Soviet science’s sharply anti-religious bias was an inevitable result of the Soviet state-supported materialist approach to education, which for decades was dangerous to oppose. Unfortunately, this is not the whole story. Not only Soviet “scientific atheists” but also many leading Western scientists completely discounted the religious viewpoint. As the well-known biologist Douglas Futuyama wrote in his textbook “Evolutionary Biology”:

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx’s materialistic theory of history and society and Freud’s attribution of human behavior to processes over which we have little control, Darwin’s theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism — of much of science, in short, that has since been the stage of most Western thought.”

The mass media incessantly repeated similar views to a wide audience. Against this media barrage, it was difficult to hear the voices of those scientists as well as philosophers of science who were convinced that science, religion, and philosophy offered three different approaches to ascertaining the same thing – man’s purpose in the world and the meaning of his existence. “Our consciousness demands an over-arching, ultimate purpose,” wrote famous Russian philosopher V.S. Solovyev (1853-1900), “because it is obvious that the worthiness of specific, short-term human goals can be determined only in relation to general, ultimate goals for which the specific, short-term goals are the stepping stones. Thus, if we deny a general, ultimate purpose, specific, short-term goals lose value and meaning, leaving man at the mercy of his lower, animal nature.” [12. p. 140]

As if in counterpoint to this passionate appeal of the great Russian philosopher, we have the matter-of-fact, “scientifically” argued statement of George Gaylord Simpson, the founder of one of the most popular scientific beliefs – “Synthetic Theory of Evolution”:

“Although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic, or, in the proper sense of the sometimes abused word, materialist factors. They are readily explicable on the basis of differential reproduction in populations (the main factor in the modern conception of natural selection) and of the mainly random interplay of the known processes of heredity. Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” [21. p. 344-345]

Of course, such ruthless but logical deductions drawn from the prevailing scientific theories are not often so plainly stated. Instead, the “religiously tolerant scientists” and the “scientifically tolerant believers” have preferred to divide their spheres of interest. In essence, they have divided the world in two. Unfortunately, although this division occurs between individuals and in individual minds, the unhealthy psychological effects of this division also are felt by society as a whole.

The conceptual poverty resulting from this division was remarked by one of the most brilliant scientists of this century, Edward Schroedinger, the founder of wave mechanics. He wrote:

“I am amazed that the scientific picture of the real world is so conceptually poor. The picture includes masses of factual information; it puts all our experience in astonishing order, but it is completely silent about what is really closest to our hearts, to what is really important. It does not say a word about red and blue, about bitter and sweet, about pain and ecstasy; it knows nothing about beauty and ugliness, good and bad, or about God and eternity. Sometimes science pretends it has answers to these questions, but the answers are frequently so ridiculous that they cannot be taken seriously.” Cited in [20. Chap. 2].

So, we are left with the following three choices. We can: 1) accept the fruits of the tree of science and ignore the questions of how the tree originated, why it bears fruit, or whether these fruits are beneficial for today’s or tomorrow’s generations; or 2) ask ourselves whether it would be better to refuse these fruits and retreat from the current reality (which is, to put it kindly, so “barren”) into one’s own private world and isolate oneself completely; or 3) explore yet another choice, that is, attempt to understand whether contemporary science, that is, the scientific worldview as promulgated by the 20th century, is the Truth? Let us follow this third path and hope that it allows us — or some of us — to be convinced that science and religion are not “incompatible” and that a “Christian” psychology is not an unnatural linkage but has as much right to exist as, say, “secular” psychology.

1. Scientists and Religious Belief

We cited a passage above from D. Futuyama’s textbook on Darwinist evolution in which he stated that materialism and mechanical forces — in fact, atheism — have been the basis of Western science ever since science became part of Western thought. This assertion, however, is far from accurate. Science began expanding in Western thought in the 17th century, although it appeared in its specific form even earlier. But it should be noted that until the second half of the 19th century, scientific literature regularly included references to God and a Divine Design. These citations were not merely pro-forma, hypocritical bows to public opinion or Church authority, as atheists (“scientific”) philosophers and historians of science would have us believe. These citations represented the scientists’ genuine, consciously held, convictions. In fact, the greater the scientist was, the firmer was his belief in an Omnipotent Creator.

For example, Russian scientists consider M.V. Lomonosov, the founder of Russian science, to be an undisputed authority. His opinion about the relationship between science and religion is more than of passing interest; it is vitally important, because Lomonosov consciously held strong Orthodox Christian beliefs. “Science and religion,” he wrote, “are sisters or daughters of the same Heavenly Creator. They can never be at cross-purposes. Who out of petty vanity or the need to parade his cleverness would dare to sow discord between them? On the contrary, Science and Faith complement and reinforce each other. Rational, good people must look for ways to illuminate and dispel any superficial family disputes.” In a similar vein, he commented:

“The Creator gave the human race two books: He revealed His majesty in one and His will in the other. The first book is this visible world, which He created so that man could gaze upon the grandeur, beauty, and harmony of its construction and, in accordance with the depth of his gifts, perceive God’s omnipotence. The second book is Scripture. It contains the Creator’s blessing for our salvation. The great teachers of the Church are the interpreters of the prophets’ and the apostles’ divinely inspired books. Physics, mathematics, and astronomy and other similar evidence of God’s activity in the world may be equated to the apostles, prophets and church teachers of the second book. Both books give testimony not only to the existence of God but also to His unspoken blessings. It is a sin to sow weeds and discord between them.” [11, p 496-497].

If someone objects that over the past 250 years science has progressed beyond such outmoded and “naïve” opinions as Lomonosov’s, I would refer him to the words of the great 20th century scientific thinker, V.I. Vernadsky, who has been rightly called the Lomonosov of the 20th century. Vernadsky held Lomonosov’s opinions in high regard, noting: “The range of Lomonosov’s ideas is clearer and more comprehensible now at the beginning of the 20th century than his ideas were in the middle of the 19th century.” [6: p 257]. Vernadsky also noted: “He [Lomonosov] was ahead of his time and seems close to being our contemporary in terms of the tasks and objectives that he set for his scientific research.” [ 5: p 3].

Lomonosov was not the only renowned scientist whose deep faith in God inspired his creative genius. Isaac Newton wrote: “This amazing system of sun, planets, and comets could only arise as a result of the design and will of a rational and benevolent Higher Power.” [20: p 14]. Similarly, Karl von Behr, one of the most authoritative biologists of the 19th century and the founder of embryology as a science, defined the goal of science as follows: “We cannot fathom the basis of Creation by means of our mental faculties alone. We can only intuitively feel that such a basis exists. The task of the naturalist is to use observation to discover the means by which this Creation came into being and is still coming into being, because it continues, of course, to the present day. The true object of study of the natural sciences is the history of Creation in all its detail whether large or small.” [1: p 102]. William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) believed that if a scientist were to think with a truly open mind, his occupation with true science would inevitably lead him to a belief in God. Anyone who objectively examines the work of Copernicus, Kepler, Farraday, Pasteur, Humboldt or Mendel can see that the source of their inspiration was their faith in a wise and benevolent God.

So Futuyama is not telling the whole story when he alleges that the contemporary Western version of science has prevailed from the start. However, it is true that for the last hundred years or so, official science as taught in the universities has been based on a mechanistic and materialist view of nature. But the question is: Do these more modern philosophic doctrines form the natural foundation of science or are they deviations from science’s true purpose as envisioned by Lomonosov and Behr?

2. The Definition and Origin of Science

Regardless of their orientation, most science historians agree that science got its start in West Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. However, let us examine briefly what is meant by the word “science.” Why shouldn’t Ancient Egyptian astronomy and geometry, Chinese medicine, or the works of the ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle, Pythagoras and Archimedes be regarded as science? If we use an even broader definition of science, we could include pure applied sciences, in particular medicine and technology, as well as philosophical constructs of the world. The science that arose in Europe in the Middle Ages has a special characteristic that distinguishes it from previous approaches to knowledge.

According to the definition of the Canadian philosopher and logician William Hatcher, European science (or simply “science” since it is the same worldwide) is a method of learning about the real world, which includes the tangible reality perceived by man’s senses as well as the invisible reality that can be understood by constructing verifiable models of that reality.” [17: p 19-59] Based on this definition, the primary difference between what we call science today and former, similar expressions of the human spirit, including intellectual constructs (philosophical, analytical) of the world as well as spiritual (religious) insights into the essence of matter and phenomena, is the “scientific method.”

Hatcher’s definitions closely resemble those of V.I. Vernadsky, Alfred Whitehead, and other leading scientists who have reflected on the nature of their profession. This definition explains why science emerged at a particular place and time. It helps us define what ought to be considered to be scientific; in particular, it allows us to separate scientific truths from pseudo-truths; and it allows us to conjecture as to the future form that science may take.

First let’s look at the origins of science. V. I. Vernadsky wrote: “Science originated in religion, as have all spiritual manifestations of human personality.” [3: p 204]. But science did not originate from religion in general but specifically from Christianity. The Bible and the writings of the Holy Fathers laid a firm basis for believing in a purposeful, interconnected, rational world that was not infinite but had been created (and was therefore finite). It was not part of a senseless, chaotic cycle but was moving in a stream of created time towards a foreordained goal. Many people — whether 1000 or 2000 years following the birth of Christ — have believed that Christianity provides them enough knowledge to agree with Tertullian: “After Christ we have no need to speculate; after the New Testament, we have no need to search.” [cited in 12: p 764]. Nevertheless, there have always been numerous “curious doubters” who have continued to search for the Truth by using reason. Towards the end of the first millenium, this led to the emergence of scholasticism – the practice of using reason to perceive Divine Truth.

One of the early scholastics, John Scott Eriugena (circa 810-877) stated that, since authority is based on reason, then reason must be higher than authority (and not the reverse). Therefore, authority should always seek to be in accord with reason, but reason should not submit to authority. His successor Pierre Abelard (1079-1142) found many contradictions in the Bible and writings of the early Church Fathers. He concluded that the “internal contradictions of the authoritative sources stimulate doubts; doubts stimulate study; study reveals the truth.” Scholasticism was based on what seemed to be reliable postulates. From the start it was a “strong, bold, chivalric science, fearing nothing, attacking questions that may have vastly exceeded its strength but not its daring.” [8: p 271]. But Abelard’s postulates, like all other constructs of the human mind, turned out to be only part of the Truth.

The abstract philosophizing of the scholastic “researchers” often led them to draw spurious conclusions like the following: “The muscles of man’s backside were created larger to allow him to sit in a chair and contemplate the greatness of God.” “The branches of the apple tree hang low to the ground to allow man to reach the fruit, etc.” Logic based on incorrect or poorly chosen first premises can be used to prove anything a priori. Although scholasticism got its start by challenging the authority of the interpreters of the Bible, it ended up by being used as a tool to justify any action, even criminal actions, of the Catholic Church. When scholastics converted the partially true postulates of Abelard (who himself was later persecuted by the Church) into absolute formulas, human thought seems to have fallen to an even lower level than before the emergence of scholasticism. It was just at this point, at the beginning of the 17th century, that an intellectual revolution took place. The method of analyzing life by engaging in pure speculation and applying the rules of logic was overturned in favor of studying the cause and effect links between empirical facts. In this way science was born over 400 years ago and began to develop rapidly.

The psychological basis of science (just as of the scholasticism that preceded it by 100 years) originated in the eternal, irrepressible striving of man’s reason to explain the design of the “Universe, which is God’s domain”(Galileo). The emergence of the new scientific approach was stimulated by the obvious failure of purely speculative (rational) methods of explaining this design. Science came to be recognized as the basic means of learning about the structure of the world. People began to base their knowledge on empirical observation and experiment rather than on books alone.

Because science had emerged in reaction to the excesses of scholasticism, science’s basic orientation was skeptical of metaphysics, that is, of purely theoretical speculation on invisible causes and forces acting on Nature. Likewise, it was skeptical of the idea of final causes (causa finalis), which the scholastics had borrowed from Aristotle. This is particularly evident upon examining the basic empirical (more exactly, inductive) methods first formalized by the English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626). This method stipulated: 1) an exhaustive collection of facts; 2) exclusion of elements that did not invariably recur in the phenomenon under observation; and 3) explanation of the phenomenon based on a full investigation of all the accompanying facts and on the phenomenon’s direct causes. Thus, final causes were rejected. It was only permitted to use methods acting upon our sense organs (causa materialis of Aristotle) and direct observation of the causes of that action (causa efficiens). Bacon and his followers were extremely hostile to a search for final causes. All of this necessarily left its mark on the development of science.

The natural alliance between experimental science and technology also influenced the course of the development of scientific ideas. Increasingly sophisticated devices and instruments – barometers, thermometers, microscopes, telescopes, chronometers, etc. — were required to refine and extend the capabilities of man’s sense organs. Talented human minds and hands invented such marvelous instruments that people’s awe of this technology began to replace their awe of Nature. Fascinated by technology, people soon transposed their perceptions of mechanical order to Nature and began to view the Universe as a huge machine constructed and set in motion by a Creator. One more step – and man began to compare his creative potential with God’s. Subsequently, the transition to viewing Man as God was made comparatively easily.

The path of this “scientific” philosophy took about 300 years to complete. Rene Descartes’ (1596-1650) ideas were the starting point. He regarded the universe as a perfect machine, existing apart from non-corporal, non-material spirit. These ideas formed the basis for dualism – a concept that led researchers to regard themselves as objective observers of phenomena and of objects that existed independently of the observer:

“Based on a purely objective relationship to individual, specific questions of scientific research and working from within a scientific framework, the researcher applies the same point of view to all knowledge – to the whole world. The result is the “fantasy” that the scientist is able to critically observe as a whole all the natural processes that occur outside him.” [3. p. 198]

These ideas formed the basis of religious deism. The culmination of this “scientific” philosophy was the canonization of Darwin’s theory of evolution, or — more exactly – of the idea that chance governs the world. (“Chance – is the only source of everything that is new and creative in the biosphere,” wrote Nobel Prize winner J. Monod, “pure chance, only chance, absolute but blind freedom – this is what forms the cornerstone of the fantastic building of evolution. Chance is the only concept that fits the facts of observation and experience. Man finally knows for sure that he is alone in the indifferent expanse of the universe.”) [18. p 99]

In speaking about this “scientific” philosophy, it must be noted that many scientists like J. Monod, who have reached the height of their profession, have contributed substantially to creating this philosophy. Most likely, their view can be explained by the characteristics of the scientific method as well as by the human mind’s tendency towards abstraction. When the human mind looks at everything in existence, it is able to concentrate only on certain aspects, certain elements — while ignoring the whole. This mental proclivity is necessary, but it is necessary only due to the limited nature of the human mind, which cannot comprehend all of reality at once and is forced to concentrate on one thing at a time at any given moment. It is obvious that, given the conditional need for abstraction, one cannot obtain unconditionally genuine results.” [12. p 328]

Father Pavel Florinsky called special attention to the dangers of this human limitation. In his words: “It is extraordinarily difficult to impress upon our semi-educated intelligentsia (including many “professors”) the illegitimacy of the extrapolations upon which their so-called knowledge is based.” [14. p 197]

But in the late 19th century, these “illegitimate” extrapolations proliferated. Due to the growing differentiation and specialization of science, this type of speculation became the rule. Because the urge to “grasp all at once the fullness of reality” could not disappear, this gave rise to scientists’ attempts to pass off as the whole truth that portion of the truth that fell within the scope of their research.

How true is the truth of scientific knowledge? To what degree can we trust what comes out of the scientists’ mouths concerning the structure of the world or the problems of mankind?

3. Special Characteristics of the Scientific Worldview

In the early 20th century an article by adademician V.I. Vernadsky titled “The Scientific Worldview,” appeared in the journal “Problems of Philosophy and Psychology.” Some of Vernadsky’s ideas bear repeating, because they are not heard in today’s scientific community. He said:

“The scientific worldview refers to the concept that phenomena may be subjected to scientific study. It refers to a defined relationship to these phenomena in which each event is placed within the framework of scientific inquiry and must conform to the principles of scientific research. Component parts of an event may be combined into a harmonious whole to reveal a complete picture of the Universe – governing everything from the movements of the heavenly bodies to the functioning of the tiniest organisms, including the transformations of human societies, past phenomena, logical rules of thought, and mathematical laws of form and number. The scientific worldview also encompasses theories or phenomena evoked by its struggle with or influence on other societal worldviews. Finally, undoubtedly, it is permeated by man’s conscious, purposeful striving to broaden the boundaries of his knowledge and to gain a clearer understanding of his surroundings.” [3. p. 202]

In the same article he noted:

“It is common to hear that anything scientific is true — that science expresses pure and unchanging truths. But that is not so. Only minute portions of the scientific worldview have been irrefutably proved and can be labeled as scientific truths. Only certain portions — certain collections of facts that have been strictly and carefully observed — can be said to correspond fully to reality; nevertheless, their significance and their relationships to other natural phenomena have been explained differently in different epochs. What is perceived as being true and accurate is closely connected to the structure of our reasoning. The scientific worldview does not provide us with a picture of the world as it really is. [3. p 197]

He added:

“The foundation of the scientific worldview is the scientific method. Just as art is inconceivable without its own forms of expression; just as religion does not exist without a set of commonly held beliefs and means of expressing spiritual experience; just as philosophy has it rational methods of probing the human mind and human nature; there cannot be science without a scientific method. This scientific method may not always be the instrument which is used to construct the scientific worldview; but it is always the instrument that is used to verify that worldview.” [3. p 202]

So science differs from other ways of understanding the world mainly due to its scientific method; although, as Vernadsky emphasized, this method alone is not sufficient to construct a scientific worldview or identify a scientific truth. This may sound contradictory. As has been noted, empirical facts form the foundation of scientific work – whether those facts are gathered by experiment or by observation of natural phenomena or based on literary or historical sources. But before we gather these facts, we must define our purpose in collecting the data. We often hear it said that scientists gather facts to prove or disprove a theory. But that is a half-truth. As Vernadsky pointed out: “The sources of the more important aspects of the scientific worldview arose outside the sphere of scientific thinking – they were ideas that were external to science” – from religion, philosophy, social life, or art. Only after these spheres generated the question could scientists begin to collect and analyze the data needed to answer the question. In addition, to be scientific, independent observers must find the facts to be more or less repeatable or consistent. Each scientific discipline developed its own method of collecting, analyzing, and evaluating the reliability of its data. The answer to the question posed at the beginning of research is whatever “explains” the phenomenon, that is, the answer is an hypothesis or a theory (differing from each other only quantitatively, not qualitatively), that can unite facts into a general, comprehensible picture.

This approach would seem to be the same as the inductive method that was suggested by F. Bacon, but the actual course of scientific developments has shown that this resemblance is only superficial. As V. Hatcher notes, rules for formulating a successful, productive hypothesis or theory do not exist. Any given collection of data is always limited, and can, in principle, be explained in an infinite number of ways, because theories link the facts into a whole concept by combining any number of arbitrary suppositions and conclusions. True, the fewer the suppositions, the easier it is to verify them and the more productive the hypothesis. The most productive theory is the one that has generative power – the one that can not only link previously unexplained facts and predict outcomes but also can direct the scientist towards studying new phenomena and facts.

A scientist usually cannot explain how he comes up with these generative theories. The legendary stories about Newton’s “apple” or Mendeleev’s dream are examples. It is also impossible to explain scientifically why the same generative, theoretical “explanations” of the same aspects of reality (even when the data vary significantly in quantity and kind) are often put forward simultaneously and independently by scientists of different nationalities, cultures, or religions. The history of science provides many such examples. “When we discover something new and unknown, we always discover to our amazement many precursors to these discoveries.” [6. p. 259]

One way or another, facts alone are never enough to establish a theory. It is at this point that the scientific method steps in to organize the methods of evaluating and verifying the various theories and hypotheses. These methods are constantly being improved and naturally are different in the various scientific disciplines. One method is to collect additional data. Another is to verify the natural consequences of the theory, including whether or not the theory is logical (this is where the experience gained by scholastics is useful). Nevertheless, scientists can never be sure that over time additional facts will not be found that do not fit the theory or that someone will not invent a logical or mathematical proof that will overturn the theory. Therefore, as paradoxical as it may seem, within the framework of science, science can only “prove the inadequacy” or fallacy of scientific theories, but science can never “prove the infallibility” (truth) of any given theory. This paradox, however, is only apparent, because a theory, as noted above, is only a provisional explanation that points beyond the facts that were used to construct it.

What is the role of scientific hypotheses and theories? Vernadsky wrote: “The basic meaning of hypotheses and theories (as end products of science) is ephemeral. Despite their enormous influence on scientific thought and work at any given moment, they are always more transitory than irrefutable elements of science; they are not scientific truths that endure centuries or millennia”. However, Vernadsky developed a concept that is not sufficiently appreciated even today to describe scientific truths that do “endure.” He described the “empirical generalization.”

4. Empirical Generalizations as Scientific Truths

The “empirical generalization,” according to Vernadsky, is a category that fundamentally distinguishes the sciences from other expressions of the human spirit. The “empirical generalization” is an undisputed scientific conclusion regarding reality or a component of that reality. An “empirical generalization” is always specific and refers only to particular phenomena or events that were intuitively or logically isolated from a total world construct. These deductions, statements, concepts, conclusions, can be challenged only by criticizing the reliability of the data used to support them. They cannot be refuted for logical or philosophical reasons. Therefore, in the form of “empirical generalizations,” science offers knowledge that must be generally accepted.

Since its existence, science has given us a limited number of empirical generalizations of the highest reliability. For example, it has given us the statements that “the Earth is round” and that “planets go round the sun.” The “empirical generalization” can confirm philosophic or religious concepts, or it can contradict them. However, in contrast to philosophic and religious systems, whose descriptions of the world are often mutually contradictory, science presents a unified whole. Even though new scientific branches are constantly emerging like shoots from a powerful trunk, the old sciences continue to exist and develop, and they all continue to form parts of one scientific “organism.” Despite the new hypotheses and theories that constantly arise to challenge the existing constructs in their own or other scientific fields, the fundamental conclusions of science – the “empirical generalizations” – cannot contradict each other.

“Empirical generalizations” are, in essence, unchangeable facts – and not hypotheses or theories. Hypotheses and theories, along with logic, math, and scientifically gathered data, are important milestones on the path towards establishing an empirical generalization. Empirical generalizations are not axioms or postulates that are, as a rule, used to construct theories that are self-evident truths. Empirical generalizations are not self-evident and must always be verified against reality. One can say that the purpose of science is to broaden the circle of empirical generalizations.

Unfortunately, the concept that unchanging scientific truth can be ascribed only to empirical generalizations has not entered the consciousness of the scientific community, let alone society as a whole. Instead, the scientific community frequently presents hypotheses and theories that have varying degrees of reliability as if they were scientific truths. This confusion not only does not contribute to the authority of science, it often leads both society and science into confusion. An example of such confusion is the question of biological or global evolution.

5. The Dramatic History of the Idea of a Goal-Directed Development

Does the world both as a whole and in its components form part of a gradual, progressive, goal-directed process or does it reflect only cyclical or chaotic change? Our knowledge of the religious doctrine about a Creation that marks the beginning of time (that is, a finite Universe) is what gives us the framework even to pose this question. Two answers to this question have gradually developed.

The first answer is based on a literal reading of the Bible. It asserts that God created the world in six days and that the Earth and its creatures are only a few thousand years old. Until the end of the Middle Ages, no one seriously doubted this answer. However, by the early 18th century, natural science had collected enough facts to challenge the conviction that nature and man had been created according to God’s plan or that Creation had occurred in such a short span of time and to assert that it had, in fact, taken much longer. More and more facts supported the idea that the course of natural history was not limited to individual acts of creation in which matter was formed out of nothing and then evolved into a harmonious and expedient whole. The creation of this Universe would not make any sense unless its “products” were able to go on perfecting themselves and were given the necessary freedom of choice and action to do so.

This leap in the development of human thought was expressed in the work of K. Linnaeus and especially J. Buffon. The former classified living organisms in order to better understand natural systems, which would in turn allow scholars to identify the basic principles describing the structure of the visible world. Linnaeus was unable to create this classification system (nor has it been created since his time but for reasons extending beyond the scientific difficulties involved); however, based on his research, the conclusions he drew about the organization of the visible world confirmed the Christian belief in the orderly workings (design) of divine Providence.

In contrast to Linnaeus, Buffon tried to investigate Nature from a dynamic, not a static, perspective. He was the first to point out the role that “time” plays in the formation of the universe. The order of the universe remained constant over an enormous expanse of time. Although the appearance of past “phenomena” completely changed over time and has little in common with today’s external world, the modern world is nevertheless genetically linked with the past. Only this approach could be used to explain many significant characteristics of Nature. After Buffon, it was impossible to limit one’s study of Nature’s multiple and varied phenomena only to the present. One had to find evidence of the past in the present and explain the relatively tiny span of present phenomena in relation to centuries-old events lost in the infinite mists of time. [pp 205-206]

Although European scientists had to overcome the opposition of the clerics, the arguments of the scholastics, and the proponents of a mechanistic worldview, to establish the idea of Nature’s wholeness — its order in space and the regularity of its development over time — Lomonosov incorporated these ideas into Russian science right from the start. He noted:

“Look at the marvelous vastness of the whole visible world as well as at its parts. Don’t we see the connective bonds that permit individual elements to work for the benefit of all? The mountain heights and valley depths work together to allow water to be channeled into streams and river systems. The air flows over the earth and absorbs moisture that is gathered into clouds. Why? The moisture is carried to distant lands where it descends as rain and snow to replenish the depleted rivers and vegetation. There is not any element in the world that exists only for itself in isolation.” [9. Vol. 5. pp. 320-321]

In the following passage, we can see Lomonosov’s view of the Creation in regards to time:

“People are wrong if they think that the world we see has remained the same since it was created. This kind of thinking is harmful to all sciences, including our understanding of the natural world. Some people find it easy to regard themselves as philosophers by memorizing and repeating one sentence: ‘This is the way God created it’ instead of delving deeper into the reason for things.” [9. Vol. 7 p. 574]

Thus, in the mid-eighteenth century the scientific worldview began to include the concept of time as a factor in natural processes – a period of time that extended not only beyond man’s lifetime but also beyond mankind’s whole history. Later, the label “evolutionary idea” came to be used as a means of linking a vast number of changes over time occurring in various unrelated spheres. It was this foggy version of evolution that entered the social consciousness of the latter half of the nineteenth century. However, the proponents of all these evolutionary theories were basing their ideas on a goal-directed Creation.

At the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, long before the appearance of Darwin and his followers, the idea that directional changes in Nature were occurring over vast stretches of time was discussed by many leading scientists and philosophers, such as J.B. Lamarque, J. Cuve, E.J. St Hilaire, L. Oken, F.V. Schilling, et al. Among these the Russian academician K.E. von Behr occupies a pre-eminent place. His name commands the greatest respect in world science. V.I. Vernadsky called him a “great sage.” F. Engels put him on a par with Lamarque and Darwin. German scientists regarded him as the “Nestor of Zoology.” Darwin observed that “all zoologists have the greatest respect” for Behr. This respect is based on Behr’s undisputed authority as the founder of the science of embryology and on general admiration for his encyclopedic knowledge in practically all spheres of biology, as well as on his irreproachable reputation as a scientist and as a person. Therefore, it is interesting to acquaint oneself with Behr’s view of evolutionary processes, since his opinions were based on the same data that Charles Darwin used half a century later to form his theory of evolution. It is important to ask this question because, despite the vaunted respect for Behr, many of his works have been deliberately ignored or misrepresented. There have even been attempts to portray him as holding atheistic views.

In 1834 at the Physics and Economics Society of Koenigsberg, Behr gave a lecture titled, “General Laws of Nature as Manifested in All Natural Processes,” which he republished thirty years later in St Petersburg with hardly any revision. The re-publication was stimulated by the public outcry over Darwin’s theory of evolution. In the introduction to his new edition, Behr wrote:

“I am far from complaining about the attention being given to Darwin’s so-called “theory.” But the fact of the matter is that any natural scientist who, like me, has been around for a few years, knows that the question of whether species stay the same or change over time has been raised numerous times, and several bold hypotheses have been proposed. Why Darwin’s hypothesis (and that is what it must be called because, as even he admits, he does not have precise proof) should be raising such an uproar is a mystery to me. It is as if people were feeling themselves to be liberated from a pressure suspended over the knowledge of organisms.”
[ 1. p. 93]

A note of pique is clearly detectable in the great scientist’s words. His sense of offense is understandable. Contrary to Darwin, who advanced a theory (more exactly a hypothesis) of evolution that still needed to be proved, Behr had formulated an “empirical generalization” concerning these same evolutionary processes over thirty years earlier. His generalization was never refuted but was continuously reconfirmed by subsequent researchers, including Vernadsky over 100 years later. What was Behr’s “empirical generalization”? Based on his own considerable experience, Behr examined a mass of data in the fields of geology, paleontology, botany, zoology to discover whether he could find any general laws in the history of the earth’s life processes. In the scope of his research Behr included: the history of individual organisms, the history of the development of species as a direct consequence of the reproduction of individual organisms, the history of genus, the history of plant and animal kingdoms from the earliest geologic epochs. He concluded that all these transient stages of development, as well as the development of organic life as a whole, showed common tendencies: early life forms were larger, clumsier, denser with matter; in general, they were more “material” than later forms. Later forms were more highly organized and more active. This process clearly accelerated as the animal forms approached our era. Slower-moving organisms were always superceded by livelier ones; vegetative life forms were superceded by forms that had more spiritual qualities. [1 p 115]. Finally, Behr came to the era when man appeared on earth. Over thirty years before Darwin, Behr examined the possibility that man was descended from apes by “natural means” – that is, in modern terminology, by “random mutations.” He rejected this possibility, because he thought it lacked enough basis in scientific fact. Furthermore, Behr came to the conclusion that when man appeared, the natural history of the Earth, in terms of the appearance of ever increasingly organized life forms, had ended, and that “human history” was beginning. He concluded that “over the course of this human history, man had begun to demonstrate the power of his “spiritual life” – to overcome matter, to tame natural forces, and to turn all of life to his purposes. More recently, with the advent of book printing, man’s spiritual life had begun to collect its spiritual resources into a unified whole.” [1 p 120] Thus, based on the facts Behr concluded that: “The whole history of Nature is the history of the victory of spirit over matter.” [ 1. p. 120]

Behr considered this idea to be the “basic idea of Creation” and the general law of Nature, which has appeared throughout all processes of development. Behr commented on this law as follows:

“In every case, as soon as the Natural Sciences rise above the examination of individual details, the sciences are led to the same basic idea. How can anyone conclude (as often happens) that scientific study inevitably leads to a belief in materialism? Of course, matter is the clay that moves the understanding of the natural world forward, but matter is only the foundation of this knowledge. How else would our understanding find material over which to assert its ascendance? For example, we can demonstrate even in regards to the development of a chick in the egg that the exchange of elements in it is dependent on the more highly organized contribution from its mother . . . . And man himself never ceases to change. But no one would state that he is different from the person who perceived and thought and hoped and inhabited his body twenty years ago. His consciousness tells him that he is the same person (the same “I”) despite the fact that none of the “atoms” of his body remains the same. Only his form stays the same. What we are seeing is a constant transformation of matter in service of the spirit, which remains as spirit but is always moving forward. In other words, we are seeing in human beings the history the same movement forward that we can trace in the history of Creation.”

“How did matter fall under the domination of spirit? This is a general mystery that we encounter everywhere we look. This mystery cannot be explained by our reason — as long as we ourselves are engaged in this ongoing struggle with matter. I don’t know why this striving has been placed in us, but I hope that the mystery will be explained when the struggle finally ends.”

He added:

“Doesn’t this mystery, which jumps out at us everywhere we look, protect us from another imaginary danger? Natural Science, people often say, destroys Faith. How cowardly and small-minded! Human error is temporary — only truth is eternal. Man’s ability to think as well as his faith are as intrinsic to him as his arms and legs. Birth – is just a re-enactment of the Creation. Man’s Faith is his special advantage over the animals, which clearly show signs of cognitive ability. Why should man give up his advantage over the animals? Only his Faith enables him to direct his spiritual strength to its pre-determined sphere. Thinking cannot stop the spirit from going where it is headed. If thinking takes a wrong turn, it won’t be long before the error is detected.” [1. pp. 120-121]

We are not used to hearing such conclusions from today’s scientists, but Behr’s opinion, based on his objective, strict scientific analysis of the facts, offers strong support for the idea that science does not contradict the fundamental principles of Christianity but, on the contrary, may offer us a much deeper understanding of them.

Of course, the opponents of this point of view would say that 150 years have passed since Behr formulated his law, and science has advanced since then. In their view, Darwin’s theory of evolution completely negated any talk of purpose in Nature, let alone any possibility of purpose in evolutionary processes. Many prominent scientists agree with the words of the well-known botanist A.L. Taxtadjian:

“The ‘Origin of Species’ is the decisive phase of one of the greatest conceptual revolutions in the natural sciences. The most important aspect of this revolution is the replacement of the teleological idea of evolution as a goal-directed process by the idea of natural selection, based on the stochastic (random) interactions of organisms among themselves and with their environment.” [13. p. 489]

Here again we must return to the structure of the scientific worldview. Behr’s law differs from contemporary evolutionary theories, which stem, in one way or another, from Darwin’s theory of “natural selection,” in that Behr’s law is an “empirical generalization.” Therefore, his “generalization” can be overturned only by finding facts that contradict it in the area of time and space to which the generalization applies. Contemporary evolutionary theories are constructs of human reason invented to “explain” a particular phenomenon, and these theories ignore many facts as well as other scientists’ conclusions. If this is true, one must ask whether today’s scientific arsenal includes any facts that can overturn Behr’s “generalization”?

It is difficult to find anyone who brings a broader command of the sciences and humanities to the study of natural history than V.I. Vernadsky. Although Behr’s frequent citation of religious dogmas may cause some to accuse him of being insufficiently objective, this same criticism cannot be leveled at Vernadsky. In the last article he wrote before his death in 1943 (titled “Some Words on the Noosphere”) he described his working principles as follows:

“I adhered to empirical grounds. As much as I could, I avoided seeking to prove theoretic constructs and tried to base my theorizing only on scrupulously proven scientific and empirical facts and generalizations. I made use of a minimal number of working scientific hypotheses.” [4. p. 114]

He was one of the first scientists to define the scientific worldview and the role that empirical facts, hypotheses, theories, the scientific method, and empirical generalizations (the summit of scientific knowledge) have in the formation of this worldview.

Vernadsky bequeathed to us a number of highly significant “empirical generalizations,” each of which cannot help but have a powerful influence on future research as well as on many other aspects of the human spirit. The first of these generalizations was his concept of the “biosphere” as a special envelope around the Earth. This envelope’s characteristics differed sharply from the Earth’s other envelopes by the highly organized nature of the biosphere’s living matter – – the sum total of the living organizations populating the biosphere. In other words, innumerable scientific facts attest to the fact that the biosphere is a unified whole – that the biosphere consists of myriad living and dead (inert, in Vernadsky’s words), organisms that mutually interact to create their forms, to maintain their existence, and to facilitate change. The organization of the biosphere is sustained by “living matter.” “However,” wrote Vernadsky, “the organization of the biosphere is not that of a mechanism. It differs from the organization of a mechanism in that it is constantly coming into being and exhibits direction in time.” [3. p. 19]

In effect, Vernadsky’s second “empirical generalization” is almost identical to Behr’s General Law of Nature manifesting itself in all processes of development. True, Vernadsky’s formulation of this generalization sounds a little drier and dispassionate:

“The appearance [of a rational thinking being] is connected to the process of evolution of life. Although this process halts now and then, it never backtracks but continues forward in one direction — to ever greater refinement and perfection of the nervous system, in particular, the brain. Lasting over 2 million years this evolutionary process (whose trajectory can be plotted; in other words, its course exhibits direction) inevitably led to the creation of the brain of man.” [3. p. 238]

However, in referring to the “evolutionary process,” Vernadsky was far from sharing Darwin’s hypothesis concerning the smooth, incremental course of evolution. He noted: “Over the course of geologic time we see leaps in the development (growth) of the central nervous system (brain) . . . After the brain (central nervous system) is developed, we do not observe evolution to go backwards, only forwards.” [3. p. 239]

Vernadsky especially took note of the most recent huge leap that we are all witnessing:

“The 20th century’s explosion of scientific thought was prepared by the whole preceding biosphere and has its roots in its huge edifice. The process cannot halt or go backwards; only its pace may slow. The noosphere is the biosphere, infused with scientific thought and prepared by a process extending over the preceding billions of years and culminating in Homo sapiens faber. The noosphere is not a temporary, transient geological phenomenon. The biosphere inevitably, one way or another, sooner or later, will evolve into the noosphere. In other words, the events needed to make this process happen (as opposed to events that impede this process) will occur in the history of mankind.” [3. p. 40]

If this were Vernadsky’s only statement on this topic, we could conclude that he too narrowly extols the role of scientific knowledge in establishing the noosphere — at the expense of other expressions of the human spirit. But, of course, that is not so. He also believed that “the elimination or curtailment of any aspect of human consciousness had deleterious effects on its remaining aspects. Any shackles on man’s activities, whether in the arts, religion, philosophy, or social domain, inevitably has negative, even catastrophic, effects on science. Neither science nor the scientific worldview exists independently of all other fields of human endeavor; . . . all these aspects of the human spirit are necessary for the development of science. They are the nourishing environment from which science draws its life force – the atmosphere for conducting scientific inquiry.” [2. pp. 50-51]

Finally, here is another of Vernadsky’s most significant “empirical generalizations.” Contrary to the above-mentioned generalizations that “official” science merely ignores, “official” science a priori denies the following empirical generalization. It is as follows:

“A sharp divide exists between the biosphere’s living, natural bodies and their constituents (living matter) and associated parts (biocensoses, biologically inert bodies) – and the biosphere’s inert, natural bodies (such as, minerals, crystals, rocks, etc in their infinite variety).” [3. p. 168]

By this Vernadsky means that although a living body can turn into inert matter, there has never been a scientifically proven case in which inert matter spontaneously turned into living matter. From the 1920s until his death Vernadsky wrote a number of little known works in which he constantly introduced new facts supporting this “generalization.” These facts clearly testify that organic life is a special form of the appearance of matter and energy and that physical and chemical laws deduced from the study of inert (dead) bodies may be extrapolated to organic life to only a limited degree.

Vernadsky observed that the statement that “life begets life” (omne vivum e vivo) made in 1668 by the Italian scientist and physician F. Redi has never been disproved despite an enormous number of experiments and observations directed at proving the possibility of the spontaneous appearance of life. The number of these experiments has accelerated since the mid-1950s. The fact of the matter is that without incontrovertible proof of a “spontaneous” birth of a living organism, all assertions that further evolutionary progress may be attributed to “natural causes,” that is, to random mutations and “natural selection” during a struggle for survival, hang in mid-air.

Despite never-ending promises by prominent scientists to present this proof, none has done so. In 1953 Stanley Miller, the founder of the empirical school in chemical evolution, conducted an experiment that seemed to support the well-known hypothesis of academician Oparin concerning the “natural origin of life.” However, after 40 years of research, he admitted rather dryly: “The problem of the origin of life is a lot more complicated than I and most other people thought.” [19. p. 117] This statement was made despite the tremendous progress over these past decades in those very sciences – physics, chemistry, and molecular biology — focused on solving the problem.

Why does the question of the origin of life seem to be so critical? Vernadsky, who accepted the scientific truth of the principle that “life begets life,” understood that one of the possible deductions from this principle is that life had to be created by a living God. Nevertheless, Vernadsky always strove to keep the idea of Divine Design out of his scientific approach. An alternative to the concept of Divine Design has been the concept of the eternal existence of living matter, and, therefore, of Nature. In the 1930s the hypothesis of an eternally existing universe was generally accepted; however, today science accepts the “empirical generalization” that the universe had a beginning – a “Big Bang.” The hypothesis that organic life has always existed is becoming less accepted. It remains only an alternative hypothesis, which is now methodically being rejected by “pure science.”

Why do advocates of “pure science” insist on excluding the possibility that a rational Will or Force is directing the course of natural and human historical processes — in which, as Vernadsky’s generalization would have it – man plays a central role in our contemporary geologic era? No doubt a Christian psychology could explore this urge to exclude God as a possible explanation for life. As opposed to secular psychology, Christian psychology’s natural duty and obligation is to apply the concept of “man created in the image and likeness of God” as well as the concepts of sin and human passions as a means of understanding Nature and the manifestations of human consciousness. What are the reasons given by secular scientists to justify their limitations on the permissible sources of scientific knowledge? Usually they cite as fact that the evolutionary process, including man’s origin on Earth, has been proven and that natural selection of the fittest, as discovered by Darwin, forms the basis of this whole process.

A detailed examination of all the questions raised by the debates surrounding the moving forces, factors, and forms of biologic evolution is not within the scope of this article. However, concerning Darwin’s theories, it is worth making the following point: Although Darwin really did discover a law governing the evolution of any complete structure, the vector of his evolutionary process is pointed in the opposite direction from the vector of development of the biosphere, and its living matter, and nature as a whole. Darwin’s evolution does not lead to higher organization but to greater separation of mutually linked and interdependent individual beings out of general formlessness – in other words, it leads to the opposite direction of what is occurring. [7. p. 29]

Often the advocates of “pure science” insist that unique, rare phenomena, as well as indications of supra-sensory “imaginary” realities must be excluded from research. This problem has existed from the moment science was born and has undergone continuous debate. Despite the objections of these scientific “fundamentalists,” instances of seemingly isolated occurrences can be studied. For example, at one time the French Academy refused to consider the possibility that there were “stones falling from the sky” – meteorites. The Academy refused to allow that there was any basis for the existence of such stones, because they were reported only occasionally. Today, as we know, meteorites are accepted as well-known phenomena. A more striking example is the “Big Bang” theory itself. What could be more “rare” than a unique “Big Bang” giving rise to the universe? Ignoring the question of possible causes of the Big Bang, scientists painstakingly study its aftereffects – the evidence provided by its matter and energy. How truly all these theories actually describe reality is yet another question that is connected to refinements in scientific instruments.

Science’s insistence on excluding from research invisible (supra-sensory) realities is based on a misconception. Until recently, when humans flew into space, our sense organs could not offer any proof that the earth was round. Nevertheless, scientific analyses made us accept that it was true. Even though our sense organs tell us that the sun rises and sets, no one doubts the theory that the earth is round. Newton’s Law of Gravity is based on the metaphysical assumption that one mass acts directly on another body at a distance. This theory has been proven in actuality (through practical application — the basic sphere of man’s activity). In the 17th century Huygens and Descartes thought that Newton’s theory was absurd; and Huygens completely rejected any of Newton’s theories that were dependent on it. Newton proved to be correct in the end. Recently when quantum physicists hypothesized and then proved experimentally the possibility of instantaneous (faster than the speed of light) interaction of particles at a distance (theory of non-locality), they no longer had to contend with the vehement opposition of their scientific colleagues.

Finally, Darwin’s theory is based on the concept that all organisms are striving towards ever-increasing propagation of their numbers. Although Darwin was correct in noting that organisms strive to propagate, he failed to take into account that organisms also show the ability to limit their urge to reproduce, when necessary. Furthermore, the more highly developed the level of organization of the organism, the greater its ability to exercise self-control not only in regards to reproduction but also in regards to other basic urges. Secular science prefers to ignore this fact, because recognizing it would contradict the principle of “pure science.” But whose science? Only the science of those who are convinced that the basis of science is “materialism and mechanism”; that the world is governed by impersonal “laws of nature” or “random interactions,” in other words, chance; that man appeared as the result of a “blind and natural (in essence, meaningless) process and stands “alone in the face of a vast, indifferent Universe.”

Are these conclusions of secular science truly “empirical generalizations” or do they reflect the philosophic bias of their authors? We leave the reader to reflect and judge.

Conclusions

Let us return to the question raised in the beginning of this article: “Is there a scientific basis for allowing a discipline like “Christian psychology” to exist?” Let us briefly summarize our main points. Science as a specific sphere for man’s striving for knowledge of himself and his environment is rooted primarily in a Christian consciousness (without denying, of course, other contributory influences). Furthermore, the Christian faith provided many of the most gifted scientists support and inspiration for their creative work. The development of science shows that there are not any strict limitations to the field of possible study – scientists can direct their attention to any portion of visible or invisible reality. Their research is limited only by the sophistication of their methodology and their skill in applying it

The basic, lasting achievements of science — “empirical generalizations” – not only do not contradict the basic dogmas of Christianity, but they are in complete accord with them. Religious neutrality in science is often necessary in conducting actual scientific research, but today this neutrality has devolved into its opposite – an anti-religious, God-phobic ideological doctrine of its own, which limits the possibility of using the scientific method to answer questions of vital importance to man.

The reader is no doubt already familiar with the arguments in favor of secular science. Now that he has been made aware of some arguments for a Christian science, he is in a better position to decide for himself what he believes. Before he does so, however, I would like to cite one more point made by Vernadsky:

“In addition to the constant stream of religious and philosophic ideas and currents that contribute to nourishing science (nourishment that simultaneously demands work in these various spheres of awareness), it is essential to be aware of the reverse process that occurs in the spiritual history of mankind: The growth of science inevitably stimulates a reciprocal expansion of the human spirit’s philosophic and religious awareness. Upon absorbing the data revealed by the scientific worldview, both religion and philosophy are able to penetrate deeper into the recesses of human consciousness.” [3. pp 213-214]

Literature

1. Behr, K.E. Selected Works. Trans. Yu. A. Filipchenko, Leningrad, 1926.
2. Vernadsky, V.I. Selected Works on the History of Science, Moscow, 1981.
3. Vernadsky, V.I. Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomenon, Moscow, 1991.
4. Vernadsky, V.I. A Few Words on the Nousphere in “Achievements of Contemporary
Biology, 1944, Series 2, No 18.
5. Vernadsky, V.I. The Significance of Lomonosov’s Work in Mineralogy and Geology,
Moscow, 1906.
6. Vernadsky, V.I. In Memory of M.V. Lomonosov in “Life Questions,” No 5, 1911.
7. Voeikov, V.L. Darwin’s Theories of Evolution: Truth or Error in “Chemistry and
Life, No 3, pp 29-33, 1994.
8. Granovsky, T.N. Lectures on the History of the Middle Ages, Moscow, 1986.
9. Darwin, Charles. Origin of the Species Through Natural Selection, St Petersburg,
1991.
10. Lomonosov, M.V. Complete Works, Vol 5, 1952; Vol 7, 1954, Moscow-Leningrad.
11. Lomonosov, M.V. Works, Moscow, 1961.
12. Solovyev, Vl. Works (in two volumes), second volume. Moscow, 1990.
13. Taxmajian, A. L. “Darwin and the Modern Theory of Evolution,” in Charles
Darwin: The Origin of the Species through Natural Selection, St Petersburg,
1991.
14. Florensky, P.A. Letters to V.I. Vernadsky, Novyy Mir, No 2, p 197, 1989.
15. Futuyama, D.J. Evolutionary Biology. Sunderland (M.A.), 1986.
16. Gould, S.J. “Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge,” Scientific American, July, 1992.
17. Hatcher, W. Logic and Logos, Cambridge, 1990.
18. Monod, J. Newsweek, 1971, April 26.
19. Scientific American, February, 1991.
20. Shaefer, H.F. Science and the Christian Faith, Berkeley, CA, 1984.
21. Simpson, G.G. The Meaning of Evolution, New Haven, Conn, 1967.

Gerald Pollack and Vladimir Voeikov from Petr Mihailov on Vimeo.

VLADIMIR VOEIKOV from Francesco Bordino on Vimeo.

Biophysical aspects of complexity in health and disease.
International Symposium
Milan, Italy, 27 March 2010