Human devolution - A vedic alternative of Darwin's theory

It was quite a presentation of Drutakarma prabhu at ISKCON, Montreal, this evening.

The topic was "Human devolution: A vedic alternative of Darwin's theory".

It is not an easy task to preach his theory all over the world where people are not so krishna conscious and also what makes the scientists to think over. His extensive research and his devotion towards his work is overwhelming, indeed.

For more information you might go to this website:

www.humandevolution.com

The dedication is impressive, indeed, but one has to wonder whether it is truly righthly placed and whether the cause is necessary.

I have to agree with Madhavaji here.. there seems to be a fundamental disconnect with those that preach 'scientific' topics, and scientists.

Scientists _by definition_ start with the assumption that there is no God, no Deus ex machina. Preachers assume 'God exists, and His creation is glorious and divine'. Can you see the fundamental disconnect?

Scientists are concerned with purely material issues. How can you introduce spirituallity into it at all?

The problem I see is that the scientist has no faith to uphold when researching evolution. They can cooly review the facts, submit research to peer review, and explore the material aspects of life on this planet.

The preacher, however, needs evolution to be false for his religion to be true. This leads to oh so many issues. Denial of research, bending of facts, and the omnipresent conspiracy theories. They wind their faith so tightly with the falsity of evolution that they fail to see the forest for the trees. In this situation, no matter what _evolution MUST BE FALSE_, else my faith is false... and anything can be used for justification in this situation.

I'm not sure this is quite an accurate statement. A scientist's work need not presume "there is no God." Rather, it must presume, "God's existence or nonexistence is irrelevant to my investigations."

Again, I'm not sure that your statement is quite precise enough. A scientist is typically investigating a hypothesis. As such, the scientist has a kind of "faith" (albeit rather malleable depending on observation) in that hypothesis.

A preacher needs no such thing. A Chaitanya Vaishnava, for example, starts with the premise, "Chaitanya Vaishnavism brings its practitioners into the most intimate relationship with Divinity, thus most effectively fulfilling the soul's temporal and eternal aspirations."

As such, the question of evolution is not so much incompatible with Chaitanya Vaishnavism as it is irrelevant. Evolution may or may not be "true" as science. If "false" as science, it fails on its own merits. If "true" as science, it remains a truth of a far lesser importance than the truths of rasa.

I tend to think that most of the anti-Darwinism has roots rather in our Christian background than in anything much theological. None of the theories I know of negate the existence of God, or even attempt to do so. As you say, Vamsidas, they are simply not concerned with the issue. The big bang and the story of human evolution are merely attempts at explaining how things came into being, not to address the ultimate why. Therefore, scientists and theologians dwell in essentially separate domains, and need not seek for conflicts.

Say, if I were to present the course of creation and appearance of the elements described in the Bhagavata, from the appearance of the primeval sound onwards without going into how pradhAna transforms into prakRti and begins to specify itself, would I be challenging the existence of God per se? No, I woudn't. I would just be presenting a theory on how the elements came about, without addressing the issue of God at all.

As for whether the scientists begin with the premise that God does not exist, I do not believe that is a premise as such. It just simply isn't relevant in their approach until one gets to the point that God becomes a plausible hypothesis in explaining the nature of any given phenomena. Even then, the question is not whether God exists or not, as something inherently transcendent cannot be empirically validated, but rather the question is whether God's existence and intervention or guidance is a plausible explanation on the functional why of the phenomenom, and whether it is the only plausible hypothesis.

Say, the big bang -- does it negate the concept of God? No, it does not. The big bang is as far as you get when you rewind the tape based on available information, projecting the course of events backwards as far as it goes. Why did all that mass of energy, eventually unfolding into the matter that filled the space, suddenly burst forth? What preceded the event? I do not recall ever reading a scientist presenting definite claims, or even a hypothesis, on the issue.

Read me a little closer... no Deus ex machina, meaning exactly what was said, the existance or non-existance of God is irrelevant. However, at this point arn't you basically propounding a Deist standpoint? Madhavaji brought up that most of this battle against evolution seems to come from our Christian background, and I have to give this a 'hear, hear'.

Science rejects the supranatural, and religion begins with it. How can one comment on the other? I think at best 'religion' can temper science, bring issues of morality & ethics to science, but if I'm taking a field trip to mars, I think I'll go to NASA for directions instead of the Fifth Canto of SB


Stephen Hawking amongst others has done some research into this. I don't think he proposed any type of God for his answer... (google for 'imaginary time')




According to Popper, a scientific theory must be falsifiable. Given this condition, religion, especially of the revealed variety can have very little dialog with scientific theory. How can you 'falsify' Krsna's rasalila? Science can be falsified. You can present facts that can counter the scientific theory, and render it null and void. This is what I mean when I say the preacher's faith becomes invested in evolution being false, the sun being closer than the moon, etc. They are looking to falsify a scientific theory in order to prove their faith. The scientist may have 'hope' that their theory is 'the right one', but I would not call it 'faith', especially religious faith...

I personally don't understand some vaishnavas obsession with disproving evolution and man coming from monkeys. Hanuman was a monkey and his love for God was as good as any mans and so what's the problem?

Just wanted to say... Bajarangabali ki jaya!

Bolo Siyaavara Raamacandra ki... Pavana suta Hanumaana ki...

What to speak of even the spiders in Rama lila had unflinching devotion and love for Him as they kicked but specks of dirt into the ocean to help Rama to build His bridge.

Frank Fools Crow, ceremonial leader of the Teton Sioux said all the animals in creation have a deep love and passion for Wakan Tanka (Great Spirit) and it was only man who had forgotten.

Maybe this is one of those self fullfilling prophesies of those who aren't very evolved tend not to believe in evolution.

I don't believe there must be a conflict between science and religion since they deal with different realms of experience. The conflict occurs when religionists want to take scripture in a literal, fundamentalist manner and present ancient "science" as a competitor to current science or when scientists come from a secular, materialistic perspective and rule out the existence of God.

There is an excellent book When Science Meets Religion by Ian G. Barbour which shows how using different models the two can be reconciled. Many scientists are not opposed to God's existence and role in creation. The ways science and scripture explain creation may differ, but both can benefit by a partnership. I certainly accept the scientific world view and a spiritual world view. It is when, for example, Christians want to teach "creationism" in the schools as an alternative to the big-bang and evolution that that there is a problem.

"In addition, in 1996 when NBC aired its special The Mysterious Origins
of Man, hosted by Charlton Heston, and featured the book, establishment scientists felt so
threatened by this program that they lobbied the Federal Communications Commission to
censure and fine NBC for airing it (read the complete story in Forbidden Archeology's Impact)."

From www.devolution.com

If Drutakarma is gonna play the Charlton Heston card, then let's bring out the Susan Sarandon.