The Intelligent Designer

[theist]

The Intelligent Designer
BY: GADADHARA DASA


Oct 8, USA (SUN) — Recently there has been a debate over whether God is the creator of the universe or that the creation is formed by combination of chemicals, a chance occurrence if you will. The scientific group who supports a "theory" called Intelligent Design (ID) says that there is an intelligence behind the creation. There must be intelligence behind something so complex and intricate which works so perfectly.


The anti-Intelligent Design scientific group argues that the (ID) group is pushing the old Creationist theology and that there is no science in something that requires faith.


They say there is no place in science for religion. "Creationism, intelligent design and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science," The National Academy of Sciences said in an assessment in 1999.


At a news conference, president Bush commented on whether or not ID should be taught in schools, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas. The answer is yes."


The origin of a thought?


Back in the 1920s Einstein came up with this theory called "The Theory of Relativity" and it started out like any scientific theory does. It was an idea, a thought. Then he did the research and then he did experiments and math equations and came to a conclusion. "The Theory of Relativity" would not have been a theory at all if it wasn't for Einstein. The idea, the thought, originated from him. We won't look at the details of the theory, just that this theory has an origin and that origin is Einstein.


This can be said of anything. Everything has an origin. Just like a automobile, someone wanted to create a certain type of automobile, so he thought about it, and then began to get people together to design it and after a while it was manufactured.


The origin of anything and everything is always traced to "someone." But who is that "Someone."?


It is stated in the Bhagavad-gita:


aham sarvasya prabhavo
mattah sarvam pravartate
iti matva bhajante mam
budha bhava-samanvitah

TRANSLATION
"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."


What Einstein used for his "Theory of Relativity" is generally called "modern science". There are many different kinds of sciences: the science of cooking, the science of painting, the science of astrology, the science of music. The purpose of these sciences is to know the subject better, to master the subject matter. The purpose of modern science, in this case, is to understand the universe and its workings.


The problem with "modern" science today is that the scientist has imperfect senses. How can they really prove anything? In the day time you can not see the stars in the sky, but at night you can see them. A small child who has never seen stars in the sky may argue in the day time, "there are no stars in the sky", but an older person with experience and knowledge will tell the child that you can only see them at night. Human eyes have imperfect vision.


In a room conversation with Srila Prabhupada in New Delhi, 12-11-71, he explains this nicely.

Prabhupada:


(bhakti-yogena manasi)
samyak pranihite ’male
apasyat purusam purnam
mayam ca tad-apasrayam


"The materialistic person, they have only one experience: this cosmic manifestation. Beyond this they have no other vision. Their senses are imperfect. Just like the astronomers, they have got big, big telescope, many other instruments. They want to see through the eyes how many stars are there, how the planets are moving, and whatever imperfect knowledge they receive, by that little knowledge they advertise themselves as great scientists. But they do not calculate that "We are trying to see the stars and planets with powerful binoculars. That means our eyes are imperfect."


And what is the guarantee that the instruments which they’re using, they are also perfect? Because that machine, that binocular, is also made by a person who is imperfect. So what is the guarantee that by seeing through binocular or microscope, the conclusion arrived, it is perfect? What is your answer? Your eyes are imperfect, that’s a fact. Otherwise, why you are using binocular, microscope? Eyes are imperfect. Originally your eyes are imperfect. Now, eyes or other senses, it does not matter. Sense is sense. So you are manufacturing a machine, some instrument, by the same imperfect senses, then what is the guarantee that this machine, this binocular, if you see through the binocular, the knowledge is perfect? What is your answer?


Devotee: Can’t be perfect.


Prabhupada: Answer? Any one other?


Devotee (2): Perfect knowledge cannot be received with imperfect senses. Only through perfect senses can perfect knowledge be received.


Prabhupada: Therefore it should be concluded that the so-called scientists, astronomers, they are all imperfect, and they are passing off the scientists as learned. So you can challenge them, "What is the guarantee that your knowledge is perfect?’’


Actually it is not. They do not know how the stars are moving. They are always imperfect. Simply putting some theories. They say all this, Darwin’s theory and this theory, that theory. They are simply speculating on imperfect senses, and therefore they’re cheating, because the conditioned soul has got a tendency to cheat others. If one can cheat others, he thinks himself as very intelligent.


The conditioned souls, they commit mistake, they are illusioned, they cheat, and their senses are imperfect. This is the, the four condition. Therefore, if we receive knowledge from the conditioned soul, there is no possibility of getting perfect knowledge. If by nature you are cheater, then how I can expect fair dealings? It is to be understood that we cannot have any fair dealings with this conditioned soul. And he’ll protest.


The whole world is full of conditioned living entities. They’re conditioned. Conditioned means under the control of the material nature. Gunaih karmani. There are different types of conditioned souls. Some of them are good conditioned soul, some of them are passionate conditioned soul, some of them are rascal conditioned soul. So good conditioned soul means that, er, "(indistinct) that I have become very much learned, I have studied so many books, so now I am perfect.’’ There is little goodness, because he has studied, he, he has labored, but still he’s conditioned soul, because he has no perfect vision. Vimukta-maninah.


A Morning Walk With Srila Prabhupada on 12-03-73


Dr. Singh: The scientists argue that before Darwin’s biophysical type of evolution could take place, there had to be what they call prebiotic chemistry, or chemical evolution.


Srila Prabhupada: Yes. And the term "chemical evolution" means that chemicals have an origin, and that origin is spirit, or life. A lemon produces citric acid, and our bodies produce many chemicals in urine, blood, and bodily secretions. This is proof that life produces chemicals, not that chemicals produce life.


Dr. Singh: Scientists say that once the seed of life is present in the cells, then the living entity automatically develops and functions.


Srila Prabhupada: Yes, but who gives the seed? In the Bhagavad-gita (7.10) Krsna answers this question. Bijam mam sarva-bhutanam viddhi partha sanatanam: "O son of Prtha, know that I am the original seed of all existences." And later (14.4):


sarva-yonisu kaunteya
murtayah sambhavanti yah
tasam brahma mahad yonir
aham bija-pradah pita


"It should be understood that all species of life, O son of Kunti, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed-giving father." Giving Credit to the Primal Creator.

Forgive me for saying so, but this sort of science-bashing is a little dangerous. For example, someone who is not positioned in KC yet can read this article and be completely unattracted to anything Vedic thereafter, arguing that such denial of scientific know-how is blind. From a KC point of view it is understandable, but from a non-KC view it is more like an anti-scientific rant. The gap, i feel, is beginning to widen between the atheistic (POTENTIALLY Krsna-conscious community) and the current spiritual community. That, i think, is sad.

G.

[theist]

Where do you find bashing G? The limitations of the atheistic theories must be pointed out or everyone will remain a "potential devotee" forever.

Intelligent design must be a begininng posititon in Krsna consciousness.

[theist]

Famous Atheist Now Believes in GodOne of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence
The Associated Press

NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."


Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.

The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.

The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.

This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press.

Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.

Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew's reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big deal."

Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.

A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.

Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all.

Another landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists.

Devotee (2): Perfect knowledge cannot be received with imperfect senses. Only through perfect senses can perfect knowledge be received. Prabhupada: Therefore it should be concluded that the so-called scientists, astronomers, they are all imperfect, and they are passing off the scientists as learned. So you can challenge them, "What is the guarantee that your knowledge is perfect?’’

Per this kind of logic, no one should accept anything.

The novice should not subscribe to KC as he - due to his imperfect nature - is incapable of making the right decision about his welfare. If the novice should not accept the scientist's statement for the above reasons, then for the same reasons, neither should he accept the preachings of a religion person!

Also, I fail to understand the logic (due to my imperfect nature?) behind "Eyes are imperfect, that is why you use binoculars". By similar logic, ears are imperfect, which is why we use speakers. In a perfect world, there would be no speakers and everyone can hear all sounds at all times regardless of distance. Incomprehensible, but interesting...

Cheers

[theist]

It is like someone whose sight is severly limited to only three feet in front of them. Through some therapy they learn to see four feet in front of them. Now they have a little bit more knowledge of what is before than they had previously but what is that when compared to the expanse of the universe.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Faith=I will die one day
No Faith=I may die one day
Faith in God= I am servant of Krishna
No faith=God doesn't exsist.

Without Faith you have nothing.

[Gaea]

Hi Theist

I finally got myself a login name instead of signing all my posts "G"... other guests are posting and multiple guests can cause confusion.

The limitations of the atheistic theories must be pointed out or everyone will remain a "potential devotee" forever. Intelligent design must be a begininng posititon in Krsna consciousness.

I agree. But method is very important.

Where do you find bashing G?

Perhaps i should first define what i mean by bashing though - anything that attempts negate the science and scientific methods by using logic/language that is totally ok by a KC stand-point (and therefore is true) but from an atheistic point of view sounds like what is really is, ie religious (exactly what they are not attracted to). I don't mean any disrespect here by the way - It's just that i've come across this alot, coming from a scientific background to a spiritual "awakening" (tho it actully hasn't quite happened yet!!). Trying to prove scientists wrong by spiritual tactics, e.g. scripture, is like an englishman trying to explain the intracacies of quantum mechanics to a japanese pauper - the spiritualist will rarely get through to a spiritual pauper unless they start talking the same language.

So, with that defined, here's what i find a little bashing:

The problem with "modern" science today is that the scientist has imperfect senses. How can they really prove anything? In the day time you can not see the stars in the sky, but at night you can see them. A small child who has never seen stars in the sky may argue in the day time, "there are no stars in the sky", but an older person with experience and knowledge will tell the child that you can only see them at night. Human eyes have imperfect vision. And what is the guarantee that the instruments which they’re using, they are also perfect? Therefore it should be concluded that the so-called scientists, astronomers, they are all imperfect, and they are passing off the scientists as learned. So you can challenge them, "What is the guarantee that your knowledge is perfect? ...conditioned soul...

I don't know if i've explained myself properly here, but i just get the feeling that if religion is to reach out to the scientific masses then the spritualists must bring themselves down to a language that is understood by scientists - and then upliftment can begin. Talking from a higher platform will just push scientists away because (1) they have huge egos and (2) they care little for God and God-like things (even if you are talking from a truthful standpoint).

Do you feel this way also?

G.

[theist]

Nice to have a name to put to your posts. yes it is a lot easier for conversation.

Intelligent design is exactly what you are asking for. It is pointing to God within their own discipline.

What I hear Prabhupada saying in his works is that he is challenging these so-called scientists who declare that science proves there is no God. Actually science proves there is God.

A funny but good example is one of the first, if not the first, Russian cosmonaut who went into space(Yuri Gorin?) was asked if he saw God when he went into space, he said no therefore some seized upon that as proof there is no God. LOL

An honest scientist will admit his limitations but so many of them are ego driven and think they have disproved God and are misleading the world. These pompus asses we must challenge.

Atheist are ego maniac fools. Agnostics are honest. It is their consclusions that really are to be challenged.

[theist]

Krishna-kanti: The doctors are marveling at the complex nature of the human brain. They are amazed.

Prabhupada: Yes. Yes. But they are rascal. It is not the brain that is working. It is the spirit soul that is working. The same thing: the computer machine. The rascal will think that a computer machine is working. No. The man is working. He pushes the button, then it works. Otherwise, what is the value of this machine? You keep the machine for thousands of years, it will not work. When another man will come, put the button, then it will work. So who is working? The machine is working or the man is working? And the man is also another machine. And it is working due to the presence of Paramatma, God. Therefore, ultimately, God is working. A dead man cannot work. So how long a man remains living? So long the Paramatma is there, atma is there. Even the atma is there, if Paramatma does not give him intelligence, he cannot work. Mattah smritir jnanam apohanam ca [Bg. 15.15]. God is giving me intelligence, "You put this button." Then I put this button. So ultimately Krishna is working. Another, untrained man cannot come and work on it because there is no intelligence. And a particular man who is trained up, he can work. So these things are going on. Ultimately comes to Krishna. What you are researching, what you are talking, that is also Krishna is doing. Krishna is giving you in... You, you prayed for this facility to Krishna. Krishna is giving you. Sometimes you find accidentally the experiment is successful. So when Krishna sees that you are so much harassed in experimental, "All right do it." Just like Yasoda Ma was trying to tie Krishna, but she could not do. But when Krishna agreed, it was possible. Similarly, this accident means Krishna helps you: "All right, you have worked so hard, take this result." Everything is Krishna. Mattah smritir jnanam apohanam ca [Bg. 15.15]. Everything is coming from Krishna.

Svarupa Damodara: They say, "Krishna didn't give me the proper steps how to do the experiments."

Prabhupada: Yes, he gives you. Otherwise how you are doing it. Whatever you are doing, that is by Krishna's grace. And when you are still favorable, then Krishna will give you more facilities. Krishna will give you facility, will favor you, as much as you desire, not more than that. Ye yatha mam prapadyante tams tathaiva... As much proportionately you surrender to Krishna, the intelligence will come. If you fully surrender, then full intelligence will come. It is stated in the Bhagavad-gita. Ye yatha mam prapadyante tams tathaiva bhajamy aham [Bg. 4.11]. Wet? (Asking about the ground)

Svarupa Damodara: No. Little wet, but not much.

Prabhupada: Krishna says, "You fully surrender. I give you full protection." Aham tvam sarva-papebhyo mokshayishyami [Bg. 18.66]. He will give you full intelligence. [break] <...these facts in Krishna consciousness. That will be our great success when the scientific world will admit. Let them admit simply. Then our Krishna consciousness movement will (be) great success. You simply admit, "Yes, there is God and mystic power." Then our movement is very successful. And that's a fact. Simply talking like a nonsense amongst the nonsense, that is not a very great credit. Andha yathandhair upaniyamanah [SB 7.5.31]. One blind man is leading other blind man. What is the value of such? They are all blind. And so long one remains blind and rascal, he does not accept God. This is the test. As soon as we see that he does not accept God, he is blind, rascal, fool, whatever you can call. Take it for granted, however, whatever he may be. He's a rascal. On this principle we can challenge so many big, big chemist, philosopher, whoever comes to us. We say, "You are demon." The other chemist came, you brought him, that Indian?

Svarupa Damodara: Hm. Chouri.(?)

Prabhupada: Chouri. (laughing) So I told him that "You are a demon." But he was not angry. He admitted. And all his argument was refuted. Perhaps you remember.

Svarupa Damodara: Yes, in fact, he was telling that "Krishna didn't give me all the procedures, steps, how to do the experiment." He was saying like that.

Prabhupada: Yes. Why shall I give you? You are a rascal, you are against Krishna, why Krishna will give you facility? If you are against Krishna and you want the credit without Krishna, that's not possible. You must be submissive first of all. Then Krishna will give you all facilities. Just like we dare to face any chemist, any scientist, any philosopher. Why? On the strength of Krishna, we believe that "There is Krishna. When I shall talk with him, Krishna will give give me intelligence." This is the basics. Otherwise, from qualification, standard, they are very much qualified. We are common laymen before them. But how do we challenge them? Because we know. Just like a small child He can challenge a very big man because he knows, "My father is there." He is catching the hand of the father, and he's sure that "Nobody can do anything to me."

[theist]

...these facts in Krishna consciousness. That will be our great success when the scientific world will admit. Let them admit simply. Then our Krishna consciousness movement will (be) great success. You simply admit, "Yes, there is God and mystic power." Then our movement is very successful.

And this is exactly the point of Intelligent Design. To see and acknowledge Krishna (God) is the Cause of All Causes and that everything is running on His mystic potency.

Devotees are positioned in a place to lead the Intelligent Design movement. Krsna is the intelligence of the intelligent. He is the Intelligence in intelligent design and He is the intelligence in His devotee who intelligently explains Intelligent Design to others.

On this point theists of varying faiths should join together and cooperate in challenging the atheistic scientists that have infected our public educational system and are slaughtering the minds of the helpless young students put before them.

[Gaea]

n honest scientist will admit his limitations but so many of them are ego driven...

That's exactly it - an ego that tells you you know everything... If you were red specs, everything in the world looks red. if you were yellow specs, everything in the world looks yellow. In the same way, scientists don't want to see God and only the material manifestation therefore that's what they see with their so-called "objective" mind.

Your example of Yuri Gorin is apt - anything and everything that backs up their own theory and belief is made "bigger". The same goes for evidence against theory - i see it all the time, e.g. evidence that goes against human evolution is neatly put away but anything that corroborates their version of events is publicised. This is the history of science. And it's happening right now more than before.

Theist, my original post was the way we approach these people (i.e. the words we use, as well as the subject) - i fear "intelligent design", tho within their own discipline, has now a stigma attached to it and so it's difficult to get a serious discussion with these guys about it. It's so hard to get these people to listen! Even while i'l typing it;s frustrating me!!!

OK, calm down.... breath [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

G.

[theist]

It is often frustrating. And it is not just the scientists themselves. Currently I am engaged with a small group of people on another forum over the issue of school choice. I proposed breaking up the present school system monopoly in favor of a diversity of schools where theists of different types could have their chosen type of education and atheists their's instaead of constant court battles over ID and various creation stories always clashing with impersonal random selection.

I can't even get these leftist nazi's to agree to that in principle. The big scientists have corner the market in people's mind's that only their brand of "truth"is valid. Their's also has all the earmarks of a religious cult with them as the high priests just no conception of God.

Some are just to arrogant and bullheaded to spend time on but there are others.

War is frustrating and this is war. Of course we must pick our battles wisely and in a way that our point of God and His mystic power will be most successful.

[krsna]

from Limits for the Universe by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. in Astronomy



1 Gravitational coupling constant If larger: No stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar life spans
If smaller: No stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production

2 Strong nuclear force coupling constant If larger: No hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable
If smaller: No elements other than hydrogen

3 Weak nuclear force coupling constant If larger: All hydrogen is converted to helium in the big bang, hence too much heavy elements
If smaller: No helium produced from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements

4 Electromagnetic coupling constant If larger: No chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron are unstable to fission
If smaller: No chemical bonding
5 Ratio of protons to electrons formation If larger: Electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
If smaller: Electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
6 Ratio of electron to proton mass If larger: No chemical bonding
If smaller: No chemical bonding
7 Expansion rate of the universe If larger: No galaxy formation
If smaller: Universe collapses prior to star formation
8 Entropy level