The Intelligent Designer

There is also another philosophic movement that has started up recently, called the Unintelligent Design movement.

See information here:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Unintelligent_Design

See also the articles about "Bird Flu: Evolution or Unintelligent Design"

Why on earth would any god use a haphazard process such as a bird flu pandemic to regulate the population of living beings on earth?

A more sensible approach would be that the god just sends down lightning to hit the bad guys (Saddam, etc) and sends down a heavy rain of oil onto the heads of the good guys (George W. Bush and Tony Blair, etc). Since the heavenly god is using unintelligent methods to manage life on earth, surely he is an unintelligent designer. This is the philosophy of Unintelligent Design.

On second thoughts, it seems to me that a really intelligent designer wouldn't send oil raining down on George Bush, it would just send gasoline pouring straight from heaven into the gas tank of my car. Now that would be a really Intelligent Design!

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

Hmmmm....unintelligent design. Something to think about...or not.

[krsna]

Daily there are 5-10 articles including letters to the editor being written about Intelligent Design. Mostly people write against it but polls show that majority of people is USA do not believe in Darwinism.

Here is a nice article giving a synopsis of the whole controversy. There is actually a VERY IMPORTANT court case going on as to what should be taught in the public schools in USA.

Evolution of intelligent design

By Lisa Anderson Tribune national correspondent Sun Oct 30, 9:40 AM ET

Fictional presidential candidate Matt Santos on NBC’s “The West Wing” recently discussed it, as did real-life President George Bush in the White House, not to mention “The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart, more than three dozen Nobel laureates and numerous school boards across the country.


A decade ago most Americans had never heard of intelligent design, or ID. But, in the last year, the term has surfaced repeatedly in politics, media and education as the rallying point for religious conservatives in the culture war over the teaching of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Although polls show about half of Americans still don’t recognize the expression, the background and meaning of ID are focal points of a landmark
1st Amendment case unfolding here in Pennsylvania’s capital.

A very old phrase that gained new currency about a decade ago, ID presents itself as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. It posits that some aspects of the natural world that are not yet explained by Darwin suggest design by an unnamed intelligent agent.

The prime engine propelling the dissemination of ID is the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank whose $4 million budget is heavily funded by conservative Christian donors. Discovery’s Center for Science & Culture, which used to be the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, laid out its goals in a 1999 fundraising document called “The Wedge Strategy.”

Determined to drive a “wedge” into the tree trunk of “scientific materialism,” it said, “Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

John West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture, pointed out that the wedge proposal was a plan, not a scholarly document.

“That document was about more than intelligent design. It was about the larger cultural context and the anti-religious agenda of some people in the name of science,” he said.

Indeed, the document went beyond the scientific debate, extending the argument into the world of politics. It equated Darwin with Karl Marx and others whom it described as viewing humans not as “spiritual beings but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry and environment.”

This materialistic conception “eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art,” the document said.

The Center for Science & Culture’s five-year plan, much of which already has been achieved, called for funding research fellows at major universities, publishing numerous articles and books on ID, generating significant media coverage and getting 10 states to include ID in science curricula.

Discovery says it doesn’t want schools to mandate the teaching of ID, but to “teach the controversy.”

Most scientists say there is no controversy.

Pennsylvania is the first state to see ID included in a school district’s curriculum, but Ohio and Minnesota and at least one district in New Mexico include critical analysis of evolution in their science standards. Kansas is expected to do so this fall. More than 24 state and local authorities have considered similar changes to their science curricula over the last year, according to the National Center for Science Education, a California-based non-profit group dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in public schools.

A week ago, intelligent design made its European debut in Prague, Czech Republic, at an international scientific conference drawing some 700 people from Europe, Africa and the U.S., according to The Associated Press. Many who spoke at “Darwin and Design: A Challenge for 21st Century Science” were from the Discovery Institute, including Stephen Meyer, the Cambridge University-educated director of the Center for Science & Culture.

Of the Discovery Institute’s strategy, Jerry Coyne, a professor in the ecology and evolution department at the University of Chicago, said, “They’re smart people, in general, with respectable academic positions and degrees. . . . It’s their media savvy, combined with their money. And they have learned a lot of lessons from the old creationists, that is to be much less evangelical.”

Critics call theory `Neo-Creo’

Because ID makes no mention of the Bible or the divine, some critics call it “Neo-Creo,” that is, a new version of creationism’s adherence to the Genesis account of creation.

They view its secular language as a tactic to skirt the Supreme Court’s 1987 decision finding creationism a religious belief and banning it from public school classrooms as a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.

Proponents of ID particularly criticize the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection, by which all life, including humans, evolved from a common ancestor over some 4billion years, according to Darwin’s theory, which most scientists laud as the cornerstone of modern biology.

Every major U.S. scientific organization and the aforementioned group of Nobelists dismiss ID and say there is no credible controversy over evolution. They consider ID a new bottle with a high-tech label for the old wine of natural theology, creationism and scientific creationism, serial concepts based to some degree on the biblical account of creation.

ID is “creationism in a cheap tuxedo,” according to Leonard Krishtalka, director of the Kansas Museum and Biodiversity Research Center at the University of Kansas in Lawrence.

Not so, said William Dembski, a Discovery fellow and leading ID proponent, who directs the Center for Science and Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.

“Creationism was consciously trying to model the science on a certain interpretation of Genesis. You don’t have anything like that in intelligent design,” said Dembski, who holds doctorates in mathematics from the University of Chicago and in philosophy from the University of Illinois and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary.

`Watchmaker’ argument

Long before evolution, creationism or ID, there was natural theology, a popular concept based on reason and observation rather than Scripture.

In his 1802 book “Natural Theology,” British theologian and philosopher William Paley made his famous “watchmaker” argument. Paley said that if one stumbled across a watch, one rationally would conclude it was designed. So, too, he said, one can look at aspects of nature and infer that they had a designer and that the designer is God.

But after Darwin’s 1859 publication of “On the Origin of Species,” Dembski said, “The sense that you needed a watchmaker disappeared. The watch could put itself together.”

More than a century later, Richard Dawkins, Oxford University’s Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, played on Paley’s analogy to champion evolution in his 1986 book, “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design.”

After Darwin’s publication, the term “creationism” arose in opposition to the popularity of so-called Darwinism. It asserted the biblical account of creation. But creationism suffered damaging ridicule after Tennessee’s Scopes “Monkey Trial” in 1925.

Eventually, it morphed into “scientific creationism.” Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, advanced the concept. It makes scientific claims for the six-day creation account in Genesis, an Earth age of less than 10,000 years, the simultaneous creation of all things, Noah’s global flood and the non-evolutionary creation of humans.

Scientific creationism points to gaps in the fossil record, geological evidence of the effects of global flood and examples in nature that give the appearance of design, such as the human eye, as refutation of evolution. It has many supporters: In a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 53 percent of adults surveyed said “God created humans in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.” And polls consistently show a majority of Americans favor teaching both evolution and creationism.

But after the Supreme Court ruling in 1987, creationism couldn’t be taught in public schools.

And it was around that time that the current ID movement began to emerge. It uses a term attributed to British philosopher Ferdinand C.S. Schiller. In his 1903 book “Humanism,” he wrote, “It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design.”

Whether ID is a scientific theory or a religious belief is at the heart of the 1st Amendment case Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District in central Pennsylvania, the apparent inspiration for “The West Wing” script earlier this month.

Parents of Dover students sued the district and school board over a requirement that 9th-grade biology students be informed of ID as a scientific alternative to evolution. The parents, who claim that ID is creationism in disguise, contend that such a requirement is religiously motivated, thus violating the constitutional separation of church and state and the Supreme Court’s ban on creationism in public schools.

Attorneys for the school district argue ID is not a religious belief but a valid scientific theory and that the school district intended only to expose students to views critical of and differing from evolution. The case, in its sixth week, may influence how biology is taught in public schools around the country.

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

Listening to the radio this morning I heard our ex-president Jimmy Carter give an interview. He is out peddling his new book.

He stated that he was a reborn evangelical Christian. The Intelligent Design came up. He blames those promoting ID as the cause of the discord in public schools between those teaching science which doesn't speak of God and those that want to acknowledge the Lord as the Creator of all that be.

He mention that on one hand he believed in God but on the other he was trained as a nuclear scientist and he insists religion has no place in science.

This is the position of the fool. And this man was president. Leader of hundreds of millions.

This position seems impossible for me to imagine. If you accept God as being behind the creation how can you possibly divorce Him from the actions of creation?

We casn notice that Srila Prabhupada often spoke of the science of Krishna consciousness. Krishna consciousness is not just some sentimental state of mind that old ladies experience on Sunday morning or before bingo.

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

You’re so correct!

These experts cannot separate the illumination from the light.

God is the cause of all causes - so without doubt science too - is a part of God – scientific understanding is only part of an ‘equation having one sum’ – God.

For example – as you know - the erroneous ideas which maintain that humans evolved from apes is clearly wrong – there isn’t a single real scientific evidence to support it – in fact - the fossil record clearly shows sudden appearance and sudden disappearance of species. It shows not one intermediary life form.

The process of creation wasn’t materialistic evolution – there is a supernatural creator – in the scriptures it states that material forms arise from non-material forms – the process of creation is dependant on the activity of a Creator.

Prabhupada says that science - is mostly useless.

I see in the Bible - a warning to science. In the book of Revelation [18.23] it is said that they will not repent of their Pharmacia – which is clearly – mad science – NOT drug use.

When the vision was given to John - it was seen by him that these scientists would look like sorcerers practicing witchcrafts – and - seeing all that mad science does - it’s not difficult to understand this point – through the eyes of this ancient visionary. Modern science would look like witchcrafts to an ancient visionary.

For one example – the mad science experts have genetically modified chickens - so they no longer have the maternal instinct – imagine – why would they do this?!

Isn’t that the sort of thing that Revelation 18.23 speaks of in using witchcrafts - to control things?

As for Mr. Carter – he is pretty much a hypocrite!

I look back so many years ago and I see one policy in particular – one issue where he could have initiated a good impact and - he failed.

Instead billions of dollars are still wasted each year and - thousands of lives are disrupted – how you ask – well Mr. Carter campaigned [in part] on the platform of legalizing marijuana – he pretended to care about this inequitable law that caused a serious waste of police and judiciary resources and - Mr. Carter promised change – then - after he was in the post of president – Mr. Carter relented to the various lobbies and - he pushed the war on marijuana - even deeper!

He lied to get votes then - he abused those who thus believed in him and voted for him – he betrayed so many people!

Our leaders need to be people prudent. The unabashed war on drugs is one important area where we see a lack of people prudence. The war on drugs - is a war on people.

The science that Mr. Carter so defends - clearly showed enough evidences that marijuana use - is less harmful than alcohol use – but - due to great pressure from various lobby groups [and more?] – Mr. Carter chose to ignore that evidence - after citing it to get elected.

That foolish decision made at a time when the serious increase in use of chemical drugs like crack coke heroin and crystal met-amphetamines was becoming epidemic [and it now is epidemic] – all these rotten CHECMICAL substances were growing in [ab]use - even as his term in Washington started – with such limited police resources to combat these CHEMICAL DRUGS – Mr. Carter never made good on the PROMISE to legalize marijuana – to at least free those police and judiciary resources - to combat the other factually seriously dangerous chemical substances.

In my opinion the illicit ‘drug’ issue is one point which shows how qualified a ‘modern’ enlightened leader is [or isn’t as the case may be] – if a leader of peoples cannot make broad-minded time and circumstances determinations and decisions - then - what business do they have taking the post of leader?

I hope that at some point Mr. Bush sees these past mistakes and makes the right adjustments – there is still hope for balance.

Mr. Jimmy Carter [no disrespect intended] is a sentimental ‘never was’ ‘never could-be’!

Let us not forget that Woodrow Wilson [and his Sedition Act of 1918] was a democrat!

Also - this “trained as a nuclear scientist” is smart enough to do the math - to smash atoms – but not bright enough to know these other things?

What kind of “nuclear scientist” is Mr. Carter?

“Following such conclusions, the demoniac, who are lost to themselves and who have no intelligence, engage in unbeneficial, horrible works meant to destroy the world.” [BG 16.9]

Is he helping to make earth better and safer – or opposite that? What did he do as president to make our lot better?

Finally – he’s smart enough to smash atoms and - to have hooked his way into the post of president – but he’s not smart enough to see that the evangelical slant is a complete delusion? Interestingly calculating…

YS,

BDM

Is Sri Ramanuja Acharyya a Vaishnava?

Sri Ramanuja Acharyya wrote that even if you could prove that a person (God) created this universe, it wouldn't necessarily mean that there might not be another universe somewhere else that was created by another god. So according to Sri Ramanuja Acharyya it is meaningless to try and assert that God created the world and that everyone must follow the scriptures that God gave to the world, since everyone will follow there own nature anyway - some having faith and love for God and others being indifferent to God and following the dictates of their desires.

Only those who God has revealed himself to can appreciate his existence. Others cannot. (Caitanya Charitamrta Madhya 6.81)

In this way, Sri Ramanuja Acharyya was opposed to the idea that we should "preach that the world was created by God" and instead he said that those with a little faith should instead avoid these arguments and engage in Bhakti.

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

Is Sri Ramanuja Acharyya a Vaishnava?

Vaisnavas are not to be so tightly stereotyped. Some preach some do not.

Sri Ramanuja Acharyya wrote that even if you could prove that a person (God) created this universe, it wouldn't necessarily mean that there might not be another universe somewhere else that was created by another god.

And we say this is actually the case and these god is called Brahma and other universes have there Brahma's as well. But then we say beyond all these Brahma's there is Govinda, the Primeval Lord, the one Cause of all causes. We say there is no limited to Krsna's manifested universes. So that objection is not very strong in my view.

I am taking your word for it that Ramanuja made such an argument for I don't know anything about him myself.

[quote]


So acording to Sri Ramanuja Acharyya it is meaningless to try and assert that God created the world and that everyone must follow the scriptures that God gave to the world, since everyone will follow there own nature anyway - some having faith and love for God and others being indifferent to God and following the dictates of their desires. [/quote

Well I see that Srila Prabhupada has done exactly that and I would not call his work meaningless. Krsna means all-attractive. He can attract the minds of all through their own interests. The artist can learn to appreciate and approach Krsna through art. The musician through music. The warrior through war and the empirical scientist through his own scientific observations.

Jivas can be influenced to change directions. That is marginal energy. not that once a life direction is set in motion it can never be altered. No by force of course but through intelligence and attraction to God. Supersoul does that and if we are fortunate He will engage us in the process of drawing jivas towards Him.

Only those who God has revealed himself to can appreciate his existence. Others cannot. (Caitanya Charitamrta Madhya 6.81)

Yes, so? If someone is dead set against accepting God leave him be. There are plenty that are innocent in that they are undecided, the honest agnostics, so we can speak to them.

In this way, Sri Ramanuja Acharyya was opposed to the idea that we should "preach that the world was created by God" and instead he said that those with a little faith should instead avoid these arguments and engage in Bhakti.

I disagree. I believe we should preach it vigorously. But that doesn't mean speaking to walls of dead stone. Find the innocent.

Are you suggesting that Krishna does not empower preachers and that such empowered preaching is somehow not Bhakti?

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Quote:

Is Sri Ramanuja Acharyya a Vaishnava?

Reply:

Gee - from what I hear he is…

Quote:

Sri Ramanuja Acharyya wrote that even if you could prove that a person (God) created this universe, it wouldn't necessarily mean that there might not be another universe somewhere else that was created by another god.

Reply:

Have ya heard about Brahma? How many Brahma’s are there? One? Many?

Why does the Brahma of this universe have only four faces?

Of course no matter whom these Brahma’s are and - what universes you’ll find them in – they are all directed by God - in the process of creation.

Lord Krishna is the Primary Creator – the Vedas are quite clear about this.

Is Brahma scientific in his creative approach? There is plethora of evidences confirming he is - intelligent design is another way of saying that there is a creator – an intelligence behind the process of creation – but we do not know what that ‘process of creation’ is. Thus it is often mentioned that the process of creation is scientifically proven - as evolution and - that it must be God behind that process.

There are problems with the evolution model as mentioned in my other posting – the fact is there are no evidences of one species evolving into another.

Brahma creates eight million four hundred thousand basic species of material forms – from the single viral cell on up to subtle beings like himself – each form is gradually less conditioned than the other – indeed it might appear to a materialistic researcher that the fossil record shows one species arising out of a previous – but that isn’t the case – all these forms are created as is and – it is soul that ‘evolves’ through these forms – up and down.

There is more to this point of course – but that is the basic vedic outline.

Quote:

So according to Sri Ramanuja Acharyya it is meaningless to try and assert that God created the world

Reply:

That opinion takes leave of the Vedic version – now whether one can assert that he is really a personalist or not - is thus debatable.

Quote:

and that everyone must follow the scriptures that God gave to the world, since everyone will follow there own nature anyway - some having faith and love for God and others being indifferent to God and following the dictates of their desires.

Reply:

No matter the scriptures in question – they all assert that God [a person] is the creator – the semantics may vary but - they all assert that God is the Creator.

Those who ‘follow the dictates of their desires’ and ‘follow their own nature’ are - as Krishna says:

But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures do not attain God consciousness. For the doubting soul there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next. [BG 4.40]

Arjuna said, O Krishna, what is the situation of one who does not follow the principles of scripture but worships according to his own imagination? Is he in goodness, in passion or in ignorance?

The Supreme Lord said, according to the modes of nature acquired by the embodied soul, one’s faith can be of three kinds—goodness, passion or ignorance. Now hear about these.

According to one’s existence under the various modes of nature, one evolves a particular kind of faith. The living being is said to be of a particular faith according to the modes he has acquired.

Men in the mode of goodness worship the demigods; those in the mode of passion worship the demons; and those in the mode of ignorance worship ghosts and spirits. [BG 17.1-4]

Thus under these circumstances one accepts his particular authority - in which to repose his ‘faith’ – of course - those properly situated as Krishna’s servants are beyond these modes of material nature.

In terms of those in the mode of passion – the mentioning that they ‘worship the demons’ – that mustn’t be misunderstood to mean ‘spirit demons’ – [that is covered under the mode of ignorance] – the demons that Krishna here mentions are – humans.

If one places his faith in a human thinking him to be an authority - in his own right – that is the mode of passion.

People who place implicit faith in science and scientists – taking scientific information as the ‘all in all’ – are in the mode of passion.

Their understanding is critically materialistic in its approach – they submit that there is no evidence for the soul etc., and - they generally change their views every few years.

Krishna says:

They say that this world is unreal, that there is no foundation and that there is no God in control. It is produced of sex desire, and has no cause other than lust. [BG 16.8]

Don’t get me wrong – science has its place – but it’s not the center.

So in terms of the mode of passion - ordinary people - who may take to the many revelations of science - are essentially as dependant on ‘faith’ – as are those who read scriptures. The difference is that the object of faith for the readers of scriptures isn’t static – He’s the Supreme Dynamic – the object of faith for followers of science - is a dry speculative process - quite static – not dynamic – an impersonal process - not a person.

Check into some books by the devotees - M. Cremo and R. Thompson – they are very bright and are scientifically Krishna Conscious.

I think that our goal aught to be to bring the various scriptural creation narratives together and – to try to present these points - from a genuine scientific perspective.

Quote:

Only those who God has revealed himself to can appreciate his existence. Others cannot. (Caitanya Charitamrta Madhya 6.81)

Reply:

That is true – but we are talking about science – you say that if we are not careful science will spoil the faith of people on these topics - when it takes these points about creation by God and makes it look like myth.

However – if we accept that there is a God - then we accept that there are answers to these questions.

I agree that we have limited time to deal with ending the round of births and deaths – so wasting time on this is dangerous – however – if we are talking to people and they seem to reject God over this creation issue – then - we have to know how to answer.

AS you note – when God reveals Himself - someone can see Truth – but it’s Sukriti - Bhakti from a Bhakta - that initiates the whole process…

Quote:

In this way, Sri Ramanuja Acharyya was opposed to the idea that we should "preach that the world was created by God" and instead he said that those with a little faith should instead avoid these arguments and engage in Bhakti.

Reply:

The problem then isn’t these arguments – the problem is ‘little faith’ – this is rectified by knowing that there is a proper understanding of shastra – we choose to take the authorized statements of scripture and accept them – or not.

People who resign to their doubts on one level and continue to try to feign to others ‘an understanding’ - [on the topic] - becomes conflicted. That of course is the nature of the noted scientific breakdown …

YS,

BDM

Yesu Bhaktan,

you say "we should preach it vigorously".

you also say this about Sri Ramanuja Acharya "I don't know anything about him myself"

Well, if you don't even know who Ramanujacharya is then you are certainly not qualified to preach to anyone at all.

First become a student, then become a teacher. Find a genuine Guru you can take initiation from, someone like Ramanuja, and surrender to him. Then preach. But don't preach about things you don't understand, such as Krishna Consciousness.

For your information Sri Ramanuja was probably the most incredible preacher of Krishna bhakti the world had ever seen, prior to the birth of Mahaprabhu Sri Chaitanya.

In my opinion, there is absolutely no problem in accepting
scientific opinion regarding the origin of species and the
universe, and at the same time being a devout Vedantin and
follower of Sri Ramanuja.

Let me explain why.

The philosophers of Vedanta typically posit three ways
of "knowing" things: (a) pratyaksha -- perception or
direct observation, (b) anumAna -- inference or logical deduction
such as "where there's smoke, there's fire", and
(c) Sabda -- the Vedas.

Each one of these ways of "knowing" are independently
valid (svatah prAmANya). One does not need corroboration
from another source of information in its sphere of
influence.

Each way of knowing (pramANa) operates in its own
sphere of influence. The Vedas and ancillary scriptures
are part of the 'adhyAtma SAstra', meant for understanding
the supra-sensory, such as the nature of the self, the
nature of God, the nature of consciousness, and the
relation between all of these. Obviously, science has
little bearing in this area.

Similarly, pratyaksha and anumAna (i.e., science) is meant
to understand the world that we see and live in. Whatever
is posited by the Vedas and other scriptures has to agree
with scientific observation. Sri Ramanuja makes the brilliant
point that when one's understanding of the Veda disagrees
with knoweldge obtained through scientific investigation, the
scientific observation is preferred; the Veda
must be reinterpreted to fit with the observation.
Two ways of knowing simply cannot be in conflict.
This principle, in my opinion, reflects a unique genius,
and blends the scientific and religious outlooks.

For example, if the Veda says "the moon is made of
green cheese", but our observations indicate that the
moon is indeed not made of such a substance, the Veda
must be reinterpreted to fit our observation. Perhaps
the Veda means something symbolically or metaphorically --
whatever the case, our observation simply cannot be wrong.

Similarly, science simply cannot tell us about God. It
cannot say anything about whether God exists or doesn't
exist, or whether God plays a helping hand in creation,
whether we have free will, whether there is more to life
than bodily experience, or whether God is the ultimate
reality. Science deals only with what we can see, and
what we can deduce from this observation.

Let's analyze the matter further to answer the present
question.

Darwin's theory of natural selection is accepted by
nearly all scientists in some form or another. There are
some so-called scientists who espouse "scientific"
creationism, but most of this theory consists of misquotation
of learned articles and a misunderstanding of the scientific
record. Unfortunately, some of this dubious science
is even propagated by some Vaishnavas today, when before
it was purely the mainstay of extremist Christians.

Should acceptance of evolution, a scientific fact, in any
way affect one's beliefs as a Vedantin? Absolutely not.
There is nothing in our primary shastras that cannot be understood
in the light of commonly accepted science; after all, these texts
are meant to inform us about what we *cannot see* or *reason*
about. (By primary texts, I mean the Upanishads, Gita,
and Brahma Sutras. There are countless secondary texts that
posit illogical and irreconcilable theories of the universe.
But these secondary texts are just that -- secondary.)

Finally, realize that our tradition in particular is a
tradition of experience -- anubhavam. Its foundation does
not lie in a dogmatic assertion of the creation of the earth
at a point of time, or some personality's exuberant vision.
It relies on certain *principle* of life and religious
experience, which are elucidated by the Upanishads, Gita
and Sutras, and reaffirmed and experienced by our Alvars.
These principles neither stand nor fall on the acceptance
scientific evidence about the world around us.

This is one of those issues where the tradition of Vedanta
really stands head and shoulders above the others.

rAmanuja dAsan
Mani Varadarajan

http://www.ramanuja.org

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

Dear guest,

I don't know much about any saint or even God Himself but what little crumb of knowledge I do happen to acquire I plan on sharing with others. If that disturbs you well frankly...I could not care less.

Sri Ramanuja and other acharyas who are in the authorized spiritual successions inaugurated by God are empowered to preach. If we listen to them then we can learn. If we study their writings, their voices will speak to us from the distant past. If we have faith in them we will advance in our practice of devotional service.

First learn. Listen and learn.

Then preach.

But don't think you can preach when you haven't heard the sacred diksa mantra from the lips of realized saint. That kind of "preaching" is not authorized by Sri Krishna.

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

Listen learn then preach. That sounds like good advice. thank you.

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

Intelligent Design Debate
BY: SUN STAFF



Nov 7, DOVER, PENNSYLVANIA (SUN) — Arguments were made before a federa