When you dismiss Darwin as dead in the water, citing only a book by Bruce Lipton, when you claim that no serious scientist is on board with random mutation, you make it seem like your intended audience is strictly new-age folks. I want you to appeal to more rigorous intellectuals and scientists as well, people who understand Darwin enough to understand a real critique of neo-Darwinian theory. Ken does this too–we get these beautiful, cogent arguments about developmental psychology and spirituality next to these blunt dismissals of ideas that most of the scientists I know still believe, even the most systems/complexity/epigenetics-hip ones.

There is a similar problem with your 5th force idea. You’d have to work harder to extend it credibly into biological evolution. The systems-thinkers I know believe that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is probably driving the movement toward biological complexity, as in Sagan’s Into the Cool. If you want to say that it’s love, don’t just assert it. Give us an argument for love as more parsimonious than entropy so we can see what you’re taking into account.

Sell it to the scientists too!