He considers the evolutionist doctrine to be a major philosophical and scientific error. Schumacher argues that the evolutionist doctrine starts with the perfectly reasonable explanation of change in living beings, and then jumps to using it as an explanation for the development of consciousness, self-awareness, language, social institutions and the origin of life itself. Schumacher points out that making this conceptual leap simply does not meet the standards of scientific rigor and the uncritical acceptance of this leap is, for Schumacher, completely unscientific.

He observes that the mere mention of spirituality and spiritual phenomena in academic discussion is seen as a sign of 'mental deficiency' among scientists. Schumacher argues that where there is near total agreement a subject becomes effectively dead; it therefore is the subjects where there is doubt that deserve the most intense research. Schumacher believes in contrast to materialistic science that what is in doubt should be shown prominently, not hidden away or ignored.

He uses the term scientism because he argues that many people, including some philosophers of science, have misunderstood the theory behind instructional science and believe that it produces truth. But the instructional sciences are based on induction; and as David Hume famously points out induction is not the same as truth. Furthermore, according to Schumacher, instructional sciences are primarily concerned only with the parts of truth that are useful for manipulation, i.e. they focus on those instructions which are necessary to reliably produce certain results. But this does not mean that an alternative instruction set won't work, or indeed an alternative instruction set based on quite different principles. For Schumacher, instructional sciences therefore produce theories which are useful: pragmatic truths. By contrast, Schumacher argues that the descriptive sciences are interested in the truth in the wider sense of the word.

These things take place on the finite—experiential—level, not on the infinite.

The authors of The Urantia Book seem to have their own versions of the world’s sacred books. Scriptural quotations in The Urantia Book many times differ from all of our versions of the Bible. This fact is enough to invalidate the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Bible.

to create a certain pattern of illusions or densities in order to satisfy Its own intelligent estimate of a method of knowing Itself

focus or Love

first product of that vibration is what we call the photon, particle of light

This Love then creates by this process of vibration a photon, as we call it, which is the basic particle of light. This photon then, by added vibrations and rotations, further condenses into particles of the densities, the various densities that we experience. Is this correct? Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

love or understanding