a philosophical critique of the 2020 book 'Entangled Life: How fungi make our worlds, change our minds & shape our futures'
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
July 14, 2025
Merlin Sheldrake's book "Entangled Life1" is full of unsupported metaphysical nods to the all-powerful nature of a strictly utilitarian-focused evolution. In the course of just a few pages, the author repeatedly doffs his cap to the unbridled powers of random changes in nature:
"Spores evolved to allow fungi to disperse themselves." (p. 30)
"Truffle fungi have evolved to make animals giddy because their lives depend on it. (p. 30)
"Some species of tropical rainforest orchid have evolved to mimic the smell, shape, and color of mushrooms to attract mushroom-loving flies. (p. 35)
If you say so, Merlin.
None of these claims comes with an annotation, of course. This is apparently because evolutionary metaphysics is considered non-debatable these days and so no longer in need of any proof. Everything came about for utilitarian purposes and there is no meaning or poetry or spirituality in life: case closed.
This is precisely how the metaphysical belief in God used to function in the scientific world: it was taken as a given that things came about purposefully, through a kind of teleology, and it was considered impious to attempt to dispute that metaphysical assumption. Today, the privileged metaphysics has changed, but it remains as dangerous as ever to question the status quo presumptions.
The proof of the metaphysical nature of Sheldrake's bald-faced assertions about the omnipotence and omnipresence of evolutionary powers can be seen by performing a thought experiment. Merely replace the phrase "had evolved" in the book with the phrase "was created by God" and the reader would be none the wiser. In either case we are told nothing concrete except that the author has a certain metaphysical belief when it comes to the origins of life, one that he believes in so completely that he does not feel the need to defend it. Such hat-doffing to materialist theory is what Michael Behe calls "the pretense of knowledge" in his 2019 book "Darwin Devolves: the new science about DNA that challenges evolution.2"
A sibling of mine once challenged me on this, asking me, "Yes, Brian, but how else COULD the world of plant, fungi and animal life have come about except by blind, meaningless evolution?" I did not miss a beat in responding to that challenge as follows: "That is the whole problem, my friend. A metaphysical view is not justified merely because our avowedly nihilistic and atheistic materialists can imagine no alternative theories with which they are comfortable. What we have here is a lack of imagination disguised as 'proof'."
Please note this important but nuanced distinction:
I am not saying that Sheldrake's metaphysics is wrong: merely that it IS metaphysics and it should be treated as such. It should be discussed in detail in a philosophically oriented tome, not mentioned repeatedly without references as an all-purpose and all-powerful explanation for every innovation on the biological front. In this annotation-free name-dropping on behalf of a presumably omnipotent metaphysics, Sheldrake is essentially telling his readers (over and over again, lest they fail to get the message): "Remember, reader: there is only one way to see all this diversity of nature about which I am writing here: namely, as something that could not have been other than it is, as the necessary utilitarian result of a mindless and fundamentally pointless process. In other words, we should ideally cease to marvel at Mother Nature entirely, knowing that it could not have been otherwise."
This might be a hard sell for indigenous people, but then the west has always approached their world with a cynical eye toward exploiting its riches in the name of that ruthless utilitarianism for which evolutionary theory stands.
Of course, suggesting that evolutionary theory is metaphysics is the ultimate sin in science, and well-heeled groups are doing all they can to outlaw that viewpoint and to defame its supporters as troglodytes. Yet no less a philosopher than Thomas Nagel pushed back against this dogmatic bullying of Darwinian critics in 2012 with his tellingly titled book: "Mind and Cosmos: why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false." In this gauntlet tossing Swan Song, Nagel reacts as follows to the scientific establishment's trashing of "intelligent design" researchers like Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and David Berlinski:
"Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair." --Thomas Nagel, from Mind and Cosmos: why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false, p. 103
This has obvious connections to the subject of drugs, by the way. We have placed mind and mood medicine in the hands of materialist science, a science that embraces passion-scorning behaviorism and sees the individual as a chemically determined widget under the influence of a mindless evolution. It is this world view that has turned me into a patient for life by denying me common-sense godsends that could cheer me up in a trice and instead shunted me off onto dependence-causing medicines whose use is "justified" by reductionist metaphysics, the same reductionist metaphysics embraced by evolution boosters.
This is a very fraught topic, however, philosophically speaking. Whenever I fail to declare my full unqualified faith in evolutionary theory, I seem to be lying in the same bed with my enemies on many other important subjects, as, for instance, Behe's books are championed by the agenda-driven Washington Times, which champions the insurrectionist mindset and the drug-war mentality of substance demonization. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that I am not saying that evolutionary theory does not have potential explanatory power -- merely that our state of ignorance about life is far too profound viz. ultimate causes for us to opine ex cathedra and annotation-free about how life came about, a hubris that Sheldrake evinces on every other page of his otherwise literally down-to earth analysis of the world of mycelium.
When it comes to theories like evolution, I share the view of David Bohm as put forth in his 1980 book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order":
"All theories are insights, which are neither true nor false but, rather, clear in certain domains, and unclear when extended beyond these domains.4"
If this makes me a heretic, then persecute at will! Fortunately, I am one of the few philosophers in the world who is in a position wherein he has nothing to lose by being honest.
The book "Plants of the Gods" is full of plants and fungi that could help addicts and alcoholics, sometimes in the plant's existing form, sometimes in combinations, sometimes via extracting alkaloids, etc. But drug warriors need addiction to sell their prohibition ideology.
"When two men who have been in an aggressive mood toward each other take part in the ritual, one is able to say to the other, 'Come, let us drink, for there is something between us.' " re: the Mayan use of the balche drink in Encyc of Psych Plants, by Ratsch & Hofmann
All drugs have positive uses. It's absurd to prohibit using them because one demographic might misuse them.
Besides, why should I listen to the views of a microbe?
Chesterton might as well have been speaking about the word 'addiction' when he wrote the following: "It is useless to have exact figures if they are exact figures about an inexact phrase."
Saying "Fentanyl kills" is philosophically equivalent to saying "Fire bad!" Both statements are attempts to make us fear dangerous substances rather than to learn how to use them as safely as possible for human benefit.
It's a category error to say that scientists can tell us if psychoactive drugs "really work." It's like asking Dr. Spock of Star Trek if hugging "really works." ("Hugging is highly illogical, Captain.")
I'm interested in CBD myself, because I want to gain benefits at times without experiencing intoxication. So I think it's great. But I like it as part of an overall strategy toward mental health. I do not think of CBD, as some do, as a way to avoid using naughty drugs.
Almost every mainstream article about psychology and consciousness is nonsense these days because it ignores the way that drug prohibition has stymied our investigation of such subjects.
I hope that scientists will eventually find the prohibition gene so that we can eradicate this superstitious way of thinking from humankind. "Ug! Drugs bad! Drugs not good for anyone, anywhere, at any dose, for any reason, ever! Ug!"
The book "Plants of the Gods" is full of plants and fungi that could help addicts and alcoholics, sometimes in the plant's existing form, sometimes in combinations, sometimes via extracting alkaloids, etc. But drug warriors need addiction to sell their prohibition ideology.