“As the author is careful to say, “Genesis of the Cosmos” is concerned with the creation of the physical universe. The scientific method is based upon induction with respect to data which is derived from empirical observations which can be measured or somehow quantified. Scientific theories must conform to the way the universe appears (to scientists), regardless of any underlying, non-empirical presuppositions.
Science, therefore, has nothing to say about Consciousness Itself (aka “Cosmic Consciousness”). Unburdened by the scope-restricting limitations of the scientific method, however, ancient mythology and cosmology have, by contrast, a great deal to say about Consciousness Itself, despite the inherently paradoxical nature of such an undertaking. The unifying concept and commitment of ancient Egyptian culture, for example, is expressed by their word “Maāt”, which signifies both Cosmic Order and Harmony and Consciousness Itself.
Any effort to correlate modern scientific theories of “creation” (or matter/energy) with ancient worldviews is necessarily concerned only with Cosmic Order and Harmony but not with Consciousness per se. This is as it should be, so even though I am pointing out a limitation in all such correlations, this inherent limitation should not be taken as a criticism. On the contrary, I applaud LaViolette for drawing our attention to this very limitation. I interpret his silence concerning Consciousness as merely the appropriate posture of a scientist talking about science.
The underlying theme of “order out of chaos” and the assumption of an all-pervasive, uncreated ether leads to an apparent contradiction or confusion which I will try to clarify. LaViolette views the ether as an “etheric substance” having the properties of uniformity, entropy, chaos, and disorder. This initial state is also characterized by “perfect symmetry”; hence, perfect symmetry is identified with chaos and disorder. This seems a queer and contradictory juxtaposition. A uniform field is not disordered or chaotic as we normally understand these terms, and calling it perfectly symmetrical doesn’t seem quite right either.”
RAJA ARASA RATNAM 