Comments Posted By isvara
Displaying 1 To 3 Of 3 Comments
The question is not that, as a philosophical construction, it is possible to fuse faith in God and faith in evolution. Of course, in principle, it is possible. But our question is that it is true or not that evolution happened in the past at all. If evolution did take place, then God‚Äôs existence undoubtedly remains a philosophical possibility. But if there was no evolution, then God‚Äôs existence is a certainty beyond all doubt. Although today evolutionism is the ruling paradigm, science could not prove evolution in the last one hundred and fifty years. And our spiritual lineage takes the opposite side and describes the complete design and complete creation of species in their presently known form.
It is true that fundamentalist Christian explanations do not give a complete and perfect answer to the question of origin, because they do not know the repeated ‚Äúdevolution‚ÄĚ process that involves higher beings in the universe. But there is a common point of the traditional Christian and the traditional Vaishnava explanation of creation. All of the species were designed by the Highest Being and these species appeared on the Earth closely in their present forms. This traditional interpretation is antagonistic with every version of evolutionary speculation.
Athough you are a devotee it seems to me that you have become influenced by the contemporary, strong evolutionary propaganda. But our research shows that the evolutionary paradigm to be highly deficient, leaving many features and behaviours of animals unexplainable, and so we do not feel the need to change the divinely revealed Vaishnava theology and purports of our previous acaryas to satisfy those attached to evolutionary theories. We recommend you read our book and consider seriously the cases in question, and you may come to a similar conclusion.
Thank you very much for your kind attention.
Isvara Krsna das
co-author of Nature‚Äôs IQ
Comment Posted By isvara On 15.07.2009 @ 17:44
You wrote that you would like to read something more than ‚ÄúDarwin is dogma, we reject it‚Äú. I inform you with great joy that beyond the second and third canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam there are many books like that in the contemporary Vaishnava literature. For example the books of H. H. Bhaktisvarupa Damodara Maharaja, H. G. Sadaputa prabhu, the book of H.G. Drutakarma prabhu: ‚ÄúHuman Devolution,‚ÄĚ the book of H. G. Nanda-nandana prabhu (Stephen Knapp): ‚ÄúHow the Universe was Created and Our Purpose In It‚ÄĚ or our ‚ÄúNature‚Äôs IQ‚ÄĚ published recently. If someone reads these books he or she will see that they are not based on blind and irrational resistance, but they support the detailed Vaishnava origin concept by logic and by common sense, and this way they are the most contributive to human understanding. So yes, we can show another ‚Äúmechanism‚ÄĚ by which the species appeared in the universe.
Surprisingly you state that the Bhagavatam does not speak about multiple creation events. This is simply not true. There is a creation at the beginning of the life of Brahma and at the beginning of every day of Brahma. Moreover there are partial creations at the beginning of each manvantara (please see eg. the Bhag. 4.30.48), including the region of our Earth.
You said that evolution seems more in tune with observable phenomena (the fossil record). But it is possible to successfully evaluate the fossils from the angle of Vaishnava world view. The annihilations at the end of long cosmic time periods can be seen as ‚Äúmass extinctions‚ÄĚ. At the same time the existence of ‚Äúliving fossils‚ÄĚ shows, that the forms of species have not changed in the last tens of millions of years. The absence of billions of ‚Äúmissing links‚ÄĚ also does not support the evolutionary approach, nor does the existence of anomalously old fossil evidence. So the complete picture of the fossil record supports the idea that living beings were created in their complete form.
You mention that the evolutionary explanation of the development of species through natural forces is not a priori atheistic. That is true and obvious. We did not state the opposite nor in our book nor in the review on the Dandavats. It is common sense that there are basically two types of evolutionary thinking: a theistic and an atheistic approach. But at the same time we have to be aware that although not every evolutionist is an atheist but practically every atheist is an evolutionist.
Comment Posted By isvara On 15.07.2009 @ 17:43
Dear Sita-pati prabhu!
I have read your post regarding the ‚ÄúNature‚Äôs IQ‚ÄĚ book with surprise. I was also surprised by seeing your other articles and videos on your homepage, where you try to defend the evolutionary world view.
Because some of your comments are irrelevant, I guess that you have not read our book. You suggested that our book was written in a ‚Äúone dogma versus another‚ÄĚ style, but this is not the case at all. The IQ book presents a hundred special inborn animal instincts described by scientists (ethologists) in the last few decades. We ask the question that if the contemporary science is able to explain the origin of these behavioral patterns by evolutionary logic. With my co-author, Bhagavat-priya prabhu (Balazs Hornyanszky)–who is a bio-engineer–we analyzed dozens of cases and concluded that satisfactory scientific answers do not exist, and because of logical reasons, probably will not exist. In the last chapter of the book we present the Vaishnava description of creation as a realistic alternative.
I recommend you read the example of the mallee fowl bird‚Äôs strange incubation technique on the www.naturesiq.com webpage. I ask you to offer an evolutionary explanation for it, in complete harmony with the Darwinian logic and the known facts related to this complex behaviour. (If you need I can offer a scientific bibliography about this extraordinary incubation method.) Since in particular cases, evolutionists often cannot apply their philosophy, and since the Vaishnava scriptures and the opinion of our founder-acarya do not support their overstatements, so there is no need to embrace the crucial parts of their ideas.
You wrote that it was not enough to refute the scientific theories because ‚Äúscience is wrong because it‚Äôs based on sense perception‚ÄĚ. But for those, who has strong faith in sastra it is enough argumentation, because this is our basic epistemological approach. Sabda is superior to pratyaksa and anumana. But of course we wrote our book to those, who do not have–or do not have enough–faith in the Vaishnava literature. We try to show for them that even empirical facts and unbiased thinking better support the non-evolutionary origin of living beings.
Comment Posted By isvara On 15.07.2009 @ 17:41