By Caitanya Caran Das
|
SPIRITUAL SCIENTIST A Cyber Magazine for Those Who Think Vol 1 Issue
10 |
Biological Mythology & Social
Disaster
Once the philosopher Maxim Gorky was explaining the glorious achievements
of modern science to the Russian peasants, “By the power of the latest
technology, humans can now fly in the sky like the birds ?.and swim in the water
like the acquatics?” That was the time the World War I clouds were looming
ominously on the horizon. Weapons with greater and greater destructive potency
were coming up and were arousing widespread fear about the future of the human
race. One of the more intelligent peasants therefore retorted, “But humans are
unable to live like humans on the land. Can science do anything about that?”
Maxim Gorky was left speechless.
Cut-throat competition, concrete jungle, corporate warfare, survival of the
fittest. Such words, though commonplace in modern vocabulary, indicate a
disturbing trend that has marked the modern times, a trend that has concerned
and alarmed thoughtful people all over the world – a deep and abiding decline in
the humane aspect of the human being. Morality, nobility, ethics, selflessness,
compassion, humility, love – the ornaments that distinguish a human being from
an animal are no longer considered of any value. In fact there presence is often
seen to be a sign of weakness and their absence a sign of strength. People
sometimes put on a façade of these qualities just to further their selfish
goals. Samuel Butler summed up this trend as early as 1902 in his
Note-Books, “Man is the only animal that can remain on friendly terms
with the victims he intends to eat until he eats them.” This applies not just to
the animals that humans maintain in the slaughterhouses, but also, in a
figurative sense, to the way humans deal with others of their own species.
HOW DID THE MESS BEGIN?
This trend began with an upsurge of materialistic and atheistic values in the
medieval times. When Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution in
1859, this seemingly scientific theory marked the beginning of the end of
humanity (in the qualitative sense).
Evolutionary theory teaches that the first living organism developed from
non-living matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into
different kinds of living beings, producing ultimately all forms of life that
have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all this is supposed to have
happened without any intelligent designer.
This litany, having assumed the status of revealed truth, is elaborated in
countless text books, paperbacks, slick science magazines and television
specials complete with computer generated effects. As a reasonable explanation
for the origin of humans, the story certainly works. And the evolution theory
does seem to be based on factual observation, and the scientific method. But is
it?
The evolution theory has two basic propositions:
- The original life emerged from chemicals &
- Primitive life forms evolved into all the variety of living organisms that
we see today.
Let us see what the testimony of the facts is about
these propositions:
Did Life Emerge from
Chemicals?
There is no evidence of living organisms coming from dead matter; all life
comes from previously existing life. A living man and woman come together to
produce an offspring; after they die, the chemicals that constitute their bodies
cannot beget life. A dead person cannot be cloned, the seed of life has to be
taken from him while he is alive.
Practically speaking, at this stage of scientific knowledge most of the
important chemicals found in the living cell including the gene can be
synthesized in the chemical laboratory. And those in the forefront of
microbiology and biochemistry have made a vigorous effort to put all the
necessary chemicals together and prepare the first synthetic life in the test
tube.
There are however no life symptoms visible when all these chemicals are
combined. Even without taking so much trouble to synthesize all these chemicals,
scientists can actually isolate the necessary chemicals from an already living
body and then recombine them. If life were a chemical combination, scientists
could actually make life in the test tube by assembling all these important
chemicals. But they cannot do this.
Despite great scientific discoveries and achievements, the bright hope
for understanding life in molecular terms seem to be losing ground and many
prominent scientists in various fields are beginning to doubt the validity of
this concept. In the `Biology Today?, Nobel-prize-winning chemist Albert Szent
Gyorgyi remarked, “In my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms
and electrons, which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life ran out
through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am now retracing my steps?”
Biologist Francis Hitching goes even further, “To put it at its mildest, one
may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts among even those who
teach it. ? It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how
lifeless chemicals came alive?”
DID ONE SPECIES EVOLVE INTO
ANOTHER?
Books and museums the world over portray the evolution of one species
into another. But what does the record of the rocks say?
On Insects:
“The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects.”-
Encyclopaedia Britannica
“There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects
looked like.” – The Insects
On Fish:
“To our knowledge, no ?link? connected this new beast to any previous form of
life. The fish just appeared .” – Marvels and Mysteries of Our Animal World
On Reptiles Becoming Mammals:
“There is no missing link (that connects) mammals and reptiles.” – The
Reptiles
On Apes:
“Modern Apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere . They have no
yesterday, no fossil record.” – Science Digest
From Ape to Man:
“No fossil or other physical evidence directly connect man to ape.” – Science
Digest
“The human family does not consist of a solitary line of descent leading from
an ape like form to our species.” – The New Evolutionary Timetable
Zoologist Harold G Coffin concludes: “To secular scientists, the fossils,
evidences of the life of the past, constitute the ultimate and final court of
appeal, because the fossil record is the only authentic history of life
available to science. If this fossil history does not agree with evolutionary
theory-and we have seen that it does not-what does it teach? It tells us that
plants and animals were created in their basic forms. The basic facts of the
fossil record support creation, not evolution.” Astronomer Carl Sagan candidly
acknowledged in his book `Cosmos?: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with
the idea of a Great Designer.”
No one has been able to demonstrate the change of species. Breeding and
mutation lead only to variation within species, not a change of species. And
they are characterized by the “rubber band effect”; species with variations, if
allowed to mate naturally for a few generations, revert to their original
characteristics.
When Darwin observed the morphological features of humans and apes, it
seemed plausible to him and the people of his times that apes might have by
gradual change in bodily structures become humans. But subsequent studies in
biology, especially anatomy, have shown that there are vast differences in the
internal structure of organs of humans and apes. IT is claimed that natural
selection and chance brought about evolution but how they could have caused
comprehensive changes in internal organs came about is a complete mystery. Thus
the more scientists are studying the various species, the more they are
realizing how improbable the evolution of one species into another is.
Saying that an ape evolved into a human by random changes and natural
selection is like saying that a 586 computer changed by itself into a Pentium
gradually. A child being unaware of the complex internal structure of the
computer may consider the idea plausible, but a hardware engineer would die
laughing at the idea. And if the idea were true he would be the first person to
lose his job!
Evolution is taught of as a fact today, but nothing could be further from the
truth. Biologist Paul R.Erlich in `Process of Evolution? calls the theory of
evolution as “biological mythology”.
DOES IT MATTER?
Many people feel that whether humans had a chemical origin or a divine origin
doesn’t really matter; their problems at work, at home and in their minds appear
to be of far greater importance. But we would like to propose that most of the
problems that haunt modern man are caused by a blunder at this first step.
Humanity’s understanding of how it came about determines its goals, values and
attitudes. “If I came from matter, material enjoyment is the goal of my life.
And because my predecessors survived and prospered only due to their expertise
in savage competition and warfare, I too have to do the same to succeed in life.
Beg, borrow, steal, even kill, but get money and enjoy life.” “But if my
identity is spiritual and God is my eternal loving Father, going back to His
kingdom becomes the goal of my life. And I should therefore curb the animal
within me and be caring, virtuous, magnanimous and devoted to God.”
Most of the world’s problems are due to a decline in character and
morality in humanity. Mahatma Gandhi stated, “There is enough in this world for
everyone’s need but not enough for one man’s greed.” Statistical surveys show
that the earth can easily feed the entire world population and much more if the
vast tracts of land that are currently used for producing non-essential cash
crops like tobacco, drugs, tea, coffee, etc are used for producing essential
food-grains. This is just a simple example to show how greed and not shortage is
the real cause of the problem of world hunger. The same principle is applicable
to all the problems of the world.
Evolutionary theory teaches that savage warfare and exploitation
promote the highest good. It thus creates and fuels the greed that causes the
problems of the world. Martin Luther King Jr commented in Strength to Love
about the modern world scenario, “We have guided missiles and misguided
men.”
(Continued in the next issue)
This article is based on the latest book that ISKCON Youth Forum will be
releasing by July end –
PASS THE FINAL EXAM
Glimpses into the next issue??
BIOLOGICAL MYTHOLOGY AND SOCIAL DISASTER –
II
Torn between the Brain and the Heart
He (the modern man) is thus forced to live a divided existence: his heart
longs for spiritual fulfillment; his intellect throttles him.
A World of Orphans
From a spiritual point of view, atheism is patricide; the atheist is by his
intellect and reason, murdering his own father God.
Tyranny of the Modern Age
The well-known evolutionist Loren Eiseley conceded, “After having chided the
theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the
unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own.”
The Spiritual Scientist
Dr Benito F Reyes wirtes in his Scientific Evidence for the Existence of the
Soul, “The duty of all true science is to know him (a human being) thus, as a
very son of a very God;
|
Scientist Investigating Reality from the Higher Dimensional |
Pamho, agtSP!
The books and articles from IYF are very nice. But I would like to very humbly suggest a few things to the IYF. All the 3 points below are in regard to this article by Caitanya Caran Prabhu, but the third one is also in general about the texts IYF publishes.
1. Evolutionists will argue that the theory of evolution just doesn’t deal with the origin of life issue. Evolution first begins when life is here. Therefore to say that evolution theory fails because it can’t explain how life arose from matter simply doesn’t make sense to them.
2. As far as I know Darwin never said that apes evolved into humans. Most evolutionists today also doesn’t claim that. What most of them claim is that apes and humans have a common ancester – common descent.
3. There are no up to standard references in the books of IYF. At least here in western Europe we need to put proper references when we make such papers. We would fail any university tests if we delivered a paper with references like in the books from IYF. The books are very nice and all, but in a serious debate on the internet about evolution with hardcore evolutionists they are more or less useless, because there are no up to standard references. In one of their books it is said that there are bacteria that can live in fire – no references are given. I tried it out in a debate on the net some years back and made a fool out of my self. In another book it is said that once a seemingly normal baby lived. But after two months it died, and they found it had no brain, just some fluid – again no references. I wrote the IYF about these two cases, but never got an answer. I can’t understand this since their audience is almost only university students. How is it that these student just accept these things when there are no references? They don’t here in Western Europe. I wonder if any of the guys from IYF ever tried to debate a hardcore atheist or evolutionist. If they do they will find that it’s a good idea to refine both their arguments and the way they present them. All this is said with a lot of deep respect for all the nice service IYF is doing. They are surely very good devotees and preachers. There’s just, in my humble opinion, some room for improvement – especially when it comes to references in their books.
Ys, Ajita Krishna Dasa
Pamho, agtSP!
Actually I would also like to comment upon 3 other things.
4. Caitanya Caran Prabhu uses a lot of “appeal to authority” in his text. But what kinds of authority it it good to refer too when we preach? For example Caitanya Caran Prabhu mentions Francis Hitching who is highly controversal. You can read about him here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Francis_Hitching
Even if what he says is true then no evolutionist will take it seriously. And the evolutionists can mention at least 100 Ph.d’s who will say Hithing is wrong. Of course me must refer to some controversal people some times, but the focus, in my humble opinion, has to be on their scientific research. We should not just publish their claims unsubstantiated. Just because a controversal creationist says…
“To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. ? It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how
lifeless chemicals came alive?”
…isn’t proving anything or impressing intelligent people. I don’t mean to sound rude, but it’s simply a fact. Try it out for yourself on the internet if you think I’m wrong.
5. Caitanya Caran Prabhu writes:
“Biologist Paul R.Erlich in `Process of Evolution? calls the theory of evolution as “biological mythology”.”
I might be wrong here, but a little research on the net seems to make clear that he doesn’t say that. When he refers to something being “biological mythology” he seems to be specifically referring to vestigal organs and embryology. You can find the quote here:
http://mbbc.us/creation/shame.htm
(The very last quote on the page)
But Paul R. Erlich apparently doesn’t say that evolution as a theory is “biological mythology”. He might have some controversal claims about it, but he doesn’t deny it’s true. Look here for example:
http://www.ihc.ucsb.edu/events/event_files/past/oldersite/ehrlich/ehrlich.html
So my point is that we should be very careful how we use quotes. Technically this is called “misrepresentation” and “quote mining”. To mine for quotes that fits our agenda, ignoring the ones that don’t is a fallacy of “selective reading”. But to also misrepresent them is an unforgivable sin in science. So we should be very careful.
6. The quote from Paul R. Erlich is from 1963. Most evolutionists will laugh when we use so quotes that old. With all the scientific development that has been going on since 1963, will the evolutionists say, how can the quote from Paul R.Erlich be taken seriously? That position seems, at least in this case, fair to me. So I think we should look for more up to date material to substantiate our views.
Hare Krishna Prabhu,
I have to agree with Ajita Krishna Dasa. I think it would be better to use quotes in context with footnotes for authenticity/credibility. For instance, you use a quote from biologist Francis Hitching out of context and without a footnote. We can’t tell where it’s from. I could just as easily use a quote out of context from Francis Hitching’s that says “Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact…. the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms” (The neck of the Giraffe p.4). I think it would be better to provide the reader with proper references in order to validate your theory. You also seem to neglect that most of your references and quotes are from people or publications that do support evolution in some form or another.
Leaning heavily on quotes from scientists and creationists who obtain knowledge through a flawed process isn’t approved (as far as I know) by our Acarayas. It shows a lack of faith in Srimad Bhagavatam when we seek support from mundane science and their methods to debate darwinian evolution. I think what you’re trying to put forth is worthy, but maybe you should try relying more on scripture for your answers.
Hare Krishna!
Hare Krsna
PAMHO. AGTSP.
I agree with most of the points in comments #1 and #2.
Regarding item#6 in comment#2
6. The quote from Paul R. Erlich is from 1963. Most evolutionists will laugh when we use so quotes that old. With all the scientific development that has been going on since 1963, will the evolutionists say, how can the quote from Paul R.Erlich be taken seriously? That position seems, at least in this case, fair to me. So I think we should look for more up to date material to substantiate our views.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My comments:
Two prominent founders of modern science, Newton and Einstein were strong believers in God. To apply the same argument,one can say that since Newton and Einstein were from previous centuries, their opinion does not count as so much of scientific development happened since then.
Another thing Prabhuji, Do you really belive in so much of scientific development especially in the context of evolution and archaeology? Have you read the book “Forbidden Archaelogy” by a devotee scientist? He details in there with standard references how scientists and archeaologists selectively choose data to be compatible with evolution theory.
When you point out IYF doing “selective reading”, be cognizant of the fact that archeaologists and evolutionists are fudging the data to suit evolution theory.
Hari Bol
#4
Pamho, agtSP! Thanks for asking these questions. You’re right that it would be a fallacy to say that the age of a certain proposition has something to do with it’s truthvalue. But it’s a general rule in any philosophical debate that you have to defeat the strongest version of your opponents argument. So my point is just that if we refer to scientific data or interpretation of scientific data, we should at least think about the possibility that what we are referring to might be disproved or considered disproved by newer science, and if it is then we should take the proposed new scientific data or interpretaton of scientific interpretation into consideration in our argumentation. In this way our position will be stronger. If I hear a 45 year old claim in a field like evolution where so much has happened then I want to know what happened during the 45 years, so that I’ll better be able to evaluate the 45 year old claim. Caitanya Caran Prabhu doesn’t give his readers that opportunity, and I think his case could have been stronger and get more positive attention by it’s non-devotee audience if he did. I hope you understand what I mean now. I agree it came out in a rather wrong way.
It’s not that I believe so much in science, and I know evolutionists are commiting “selective reading” more or less all the time. But two wrongs doesn’t make one right”.
So I’m just talking strategy here: Be updated, attack the strongest version of your opponent argument with the strongest possible version of your own argument.
Ys, AKD
#3
Dear Prabhu! I agree with the first part of your post. But I’ll make a comment on the following:
“Leaning heavily on quotes from scientists and creationists who obtain knowledge through a flawed process isn’t approved (as far as I know) by our Acarayas. It shows a lack of faith in Srimad Bhagavatam when we seek support from mundane science and their methods to debate darwinian evolution. I think what you’re trying to put forth is worthy, but maybe you should try relying more on scripture for your answers.”
Prabhupada wanted us to preach to scientists in their language. This is one step in preaching. You leave scriptures out if needed and you just talk sense data and logic. This is a way of saying “OK! You don’t accept our scriptures! Fine! Then we will show that we can defeat you even on your premises!” Then when they are defeated we give the Bhagavatam alternative. It’s very powerful. But I would like to emphazise that it’s only ONE approach to preaching. You can also just start by insisting on Bhagavatam as an absolute source of knowledge and take it from there. But with that approach it’s very difficult to get into the universities and to reach today so called intelligent people.
An important note though: Whatever we do with science we should never contradict our scriptures, and we can give evidence for their authenticity also – if it’s seems appropriate in the specific preaching context. This is my humble contribution.
Ys, AKD
I have to say this:
I would very much like to applaud Caitanya Caran Prabhu for his very important service in making the Spiritual Scientist. He’s doing invaluable service and I would like us all to give him as much encouragement as possible to continue. And even thoough I’m not qualified to do so I’ll humbly ask him to take my points into consideration, because I’m sure it can make his articles even more powerful than they are now. So I want my points to seen as constructive things to consider. Not as an attack againt HG Caitanya Caran Prabhu who’s doing so much good service with his newsletter.
HG Caitanya Caran Prabhu KI JAYA!!!
Ys AKD
Hare Krishna Prabhu,
Thank you for your humility and contributions to this thread. I think preaching to scientists in their language is a bit different then using scientific data in support of our philosophy. There’s plenty of science in Srimad Bhagavatam. I agree that it would behoove devotees who do this type of preaching to be up to date on the data, but after all is said and done, it always comes back to Srimad Bhagavatam. Thank you. Hare Krsna!
Prabhus, particularly Caitanya Caran,
Several devotees over the past 3 decades have developed brilliant arguments and strategies to address scientific issues. For a student to immediately develop his or her own arguments without reference to the authorities may be presumptuous. Good devotee students are as familiar with the works of devotees like Sadaputa, Drutakarma, Svarupa Damodar, and others as with the works of scientists like Newton, Darwin, Liebnitz, Bayes, and so on.
Moreover, the study of strategy is essential. Simply to present arguments is not enough. For lessons about strategy, look to the lives of Svarupa Damodar Swami, and Srila Prabhupada.
Having said that, Prabhupada indicated that we should fight with materialistic science regardless of how imperfect or immature our presentation might be. (From a recorded conversation/ Venice Beach) So, keep it up!
ys, Dayananda
Ajita Krishna prabhu: These articles on evolution will have little to no effect on scientists who have full faith in evolutionary theory. What these articles can do is have an effect on others. As someone who has some experience within the intelligent design debate on the most prominent blogs dedicated to that debate (uncommondescent.com = the main intelligent design blog, pandasthumb.org = the main anti intelligent design blog) I can tell you with absolute certainty that scientists who have full faith in evolution have heard all of the arguments against evolution from the leading experts in the field. All to no avail. They do not view the debate as a scientific debate. They view the debate as a cultural battle between oppressors and liberators. They see themselves as noble souls out to defend humanity from fanatical religious people whose goal it is to impose their religious agenda on society. Any scientific evidence which has been brought forth which exposes evolution for the sham it is has been relentlessly attacked in various ways (always consisting of nothing but a series of logical fallacies). They disregard any evidence which contradicts evolution as being of minor consequence and something which they will have a good answer for in the future. There is no good evidence against evolution when you make up your mind that evolution is true no matter what.
Some people cannot accept anything but evolution if that is their karmic destiny. Krishna is in control over whether or not people believe in God or God’s control over nature. If it is someone’s karma to remain ignorant then nothing can enlighten that person, they will believe nonsense and reject the obvious if that is their destiny. There are countless solid scientific arguments against evolution and every single argument for evolution is quite easily proven to be nothing but nonsense. Yet there are countless highly qualified scientists who vehemently defend the indefensible as if their lives depend on it. And in fact in many ways they do. The education establishment is very atheistic and pro evolution. Countless careers and reputations are tied to the “truth” of evolution being maintained. If a scientist or teacher voices doubt over evolution he puts his job and reputation in jeopardy (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 and also http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/05/updates-on-privileged-planet-astronomer.html)
#8
Thank you too. I don’t know if I should view your post as an argument against mine? I agree that we have to come to Bhagavatam at one point, preferably as soon as possible. But I don’t agree that using our scriptures as the basis of our arguments in the beginning of a debate/preaching is always (although it is many times) the best strategy. I think it depends on were the ones we talk to are.
#10
Pamho, agtSP! It seems like you assume that I think these texts will have an effect on hardcore evolutionist. I don’t. I follow the Intelligent Design debate closely myself – on uncommondescent. com, idthefuture.com, evolutionews.org, discovery.org and more and I’m actively involved in a devotee made webpage about ID called intelligentdesign.dk. We work together with some Christians and we communicate with some of the people from Discovery Institute. I’ve also debated hardcore atheists on a daily basis for 7 years in the internet, so I know there’s no way of convincing them. It a complete waste of time and energy. The only reason to do it is to sharpen ones verbal sword and because innocent people follow the debates. Still it’s dangerous because of the hateful rhetoric and very negative energy. It’s impossible not to become affected. Therefore I stopped this myself and are now only writing articles and blogging about atheism. I can’t advise anyone to get into debating atheists without taking precautions. Anyway, my point is just that we have to present our science in the best possible way – which means following giving elaborate references, be careful not to misrepresent, be as up dated as possible etc.
Hare Krsna
PAMHO. AGTSP.
In my humble opinion, we should study writings, lectures of Sripad Maharaj(Svarup Damodar Swami) when he communicated with scientific community. He had a Ph.D in some branch of Chemistry and Srila Prabhupad assigned him the task of preaching to scientific world. I google search on Mahraj’s name and found only one website which has some material. Anyone knows if Maharaj’s work is available online. Please post urls.
I agree with another poster who says something like “We do not need rigid scientific references if our target audience is students and common people. Scientists are not going to jeoprdize their livelihood by rejecting evolution theory.”
Interestingly, as per one survey mentioned on cbs radio, 75% of US medical doctors believes in God and encourage patients with catastrophic illnesses to pray to God.
Hari Bol
your servant
Pamho, agtSP!
“I agree with another poster who says something like “We do not need rigid scientific references if our target audience is students and common people.”
I think it’s especially important to give “rigid scientific references” if we are preaching to students. Common people is another thing. But stil, why not have the reference? Just a simple note about the author, the book or article and the page. So it’s possible to check it.
As a person with a background in the natural sciences, including courses specifically about evolutionary biology, I have to say that I have never found the arguments given by devotees to counter evolutionary theory as at all convincing. If I did not have a little practical experience of Krishna consciousness, I would have thought this whole movement ridiculous. The idea that began to change my mind was the practical feeling of hopelessness if there were no God, which was eventually followed by finding Krishna through Bhagavad-gita As It Is. I recall learning that Darwin felt quite hopeless and depressed near the end of his life. That says a lot to me.
From what I’ve seen, devotees rely too heavily on outdated sources (or undated sources, as in the above article), and many do not seem to understand contemporary views of evolutionary theory. If I see a reference to a scientific paper that is 20 years old, my natural reaction is to dismiss it as obsolete. Srila Prabhupada criticized empirical science many times for the fact that what is accepted as knowledge is always changing. If we at all hope to be effective in arguing with scientists, my view is that we must apply this teaching and present Vedic knowledge in relation to actual contemporary science. However, my experience is that arguing tends to push people away more often than not.
As I see it, we have two basic approaches in the matter of preaching to people with faith in modern science:
One is for those who want to preach in this arena to study the most current scientific theories sufficiently to understand them at least as well as the scientists who propound them. In other words, to study Krishna’s inferior, deceptive energy, and associate with scientists in their arena. I would consider that a gamble with a pretty high chance of failure. There is not only the risk that one’s preaching will not convince them, but moreover there is a significant risk of gradually forgetting Krishna. One would have to be extremely expert to have much positive influence this way.
Although I am not personally a very good example, my hope is in the other option, which is to situate onself firmly in Krishna’s superior energy, keeping in association of devotees with one’s mind focused on Sri Krishna’s lotus feet. In that situation, we can go out in the streets and happily chant Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare, with faith that by pleasing Sri Sri Nitai Gauranga in this way, They will allow the Holy Names of the Lord to gradually transform the minds of atheistic persons. Am I wrong in thinking that by this method, complete success is absolutely guaranteed?
Please forgive whatever offenses I may have made in writing on this subject. Hare Krishna.
Hare Krsna
PAMHO. AGTSP.
Dear Pandudas Prabhu,
Regarding your sentence:
“I have to say that I have never found the arguments given by devotees to counter evolutionary theory as at all convincing. ”
With due respects, have you read the book “Forbidden Archaelogy” by a devotee scientist/archaeologist? He details in there with standard references how scientists and archaeologists selectively choose data to be compatible with evolution theory. Is that book not convincing enough for you?
If any devotee argument is not convincing for you, you are most qualified to put forward your own arguments against evolution theory – in case you do not believe in evolution. You have natural science background and you have Krsna consciousness.
I strongly recommend you to work on this task. IMHO, it is a Vaishanv etiquette not to criticize devotees and show others by own example how to do things in a better way.
Hari Bol
Dear Aspiring Vaishnav prabhu,
Hare Krsna. Please accept my respectful obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I apologize if you felt that my remarks on this subject fell out of the bounds of Vaishnava etiquette. Etiquette is certainly not one of my strong points, but I was just trying to give honest feedback based on my own experiences discussing this subject with people over the past 12 years. I appreciate the devotees’ efforts to share their appreciation of Krishna consciousness through this avenue, but my concern is that it must be done expertly to avoid compromising the Hare Krishna movement’s credibility. I do not think that devotees’ vague references to secondary sources such as Science Digest are helpful. A comparison would be if an archeologist said he read in Yoga Journal that the brahmana class was formerly beef-eating warlords. You would probably be offended by such an assertion, as would I; and people with faith in the modern concept of evolution may be similarly offended if we are not careful. Without clear references, there is not even a solid platform for discussion. This is my point of view, and if I’m mistaken then I hope to somehow be awakened to that fact.
I have read some of Forbidden Archeology, but I loaned my copy to a geologist coworker some years ago, and never saw him or the book again. I personally do not have much of a natural interest in archeology, and I was not able take the time to fully digest the subject matter in the book. About 7 years ago I had gone back to college and tried to discuss this book with a biology professor there, and it only made him scornful of the author, of me, and of the Hare Krishna movement. My other attempts to directly counter the Darwinian-based model of evolution were all met with similar disdain. I believe that preaching is most effective when it begins with a common understanding, and that is difficult when evolution is the issue. In retrospect, I concluded that confronting scientists on the subject of evolution may not be the best approach.
The main point I was trying to convey with my recent comment here was that my experiences have lead me to believe that people will be more receptive to a change of paradigm like this if they have already developed some appreciation for Krishna consciousness. Sharing Krishna consciousness is our essential goal anyway, I would say. I would never have bought or attempted to read Forbidden Archeology if not for my faith in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, and I can only begin to accept the validity of views such as this because of that faith. The only way I have been able to personally reconcile my faith in Srimad Bhagavatam with the observations in nature supporting the modern evolutionary theory is with the understanding that material nature is deceptive by design. If our goal is to promote the hearing and chanting of the Hare Krishna mahamantra, Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare, why not focus on that more directly? If someone hears Sri Krishna’s names chanted with faith and love, there is automatic benefit. On the other hand, many people may be turned away from the Hare Krishna movement by worldviews that drastically contradict a model of history that is accepted as virtually certain in the scientific community, unless they already have firm faith in the chanting of Hare Krishna, etc.
It strikes me as oddly paradoxical that my attempt to emphasize the value of publicly chanting Hare Krishna over other methods of preaching is taken negatively as criticizing devotees, but it does fit into a pattern of what I feel are my good intentions often being misunderstood. I hope that we do not have to be so cautious with each other that it inhibits friendly discussion of preaching strategies. Again, I apologize for my inevitable offenses in sharing my views and pray that I somehow develop the taste for chanting Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare in a mood that is pleasing to Sri Krishna and His devotees.