In the end, why do I think that Aquinas is right and Dawkins is wrong? Partly because the world is so beautiful. Natural selection explains the origin of species most satisfyingly. But it doesn’t explain why they are so beautiful. And what about those uncountable millions thoughout the ages who have claimed an intensely meaningful personal relationship with the ground of existence? This experience has been corroborated so many times, you would have thought that people who swear by peer review would have paid heed. If, as seems to be the case, it is impossible to talk about mother nature except in terms of a personal creative force, then perhaps, if language is to mean anything at all, the difference between Dawkins and Aquinas is not really very great.

Our current scientific model claims that the universe was, until rather recently, a lifeless collection of particles bouncing against each other and obeying predetermined and mysterious rules. This view holds that life harbors consciousness — a concept poorly understood by science — but it is of little relevance in describing the universe.
and

This brief synopsis of biocentrism is just the iceberg’s tip. To grasp its connotations is to abandon the shaky foundation underlying our historical understanding of the universe. The 21st century is predicted to be the Century of Biology, a shift from the previous century’s focus on physics. It seems fitting then to begin the century by employing biology to unify all sciences. Let’s stop leaning on the purely theoretical, such as imaginary strings, and instead start with a much simpler idea, the roots of which are buried in all of us.

Might make for an interesting read.

HT: Bioethics.com.