The Intelligent Designer

The reply given earlier where Sri Mani Varadarajan presents the scripturally-correct counter argument against "intelligent design" is clear enough.

Sadaputa most certainly fits into the group of persons who Mani was speaking of when he wrote, "Unfortunately, some of this dubious science is even propagated by some Vaishnavas today, when before it was purely the mainstay of extremist Christians."

What upliftment will come for humankind if schoolchildren everywhere are taught that God made the world? When the Taliban in Afghanistan were in control, all the boys who were going to school there learned that God made the world. Were they getting a better education than the children attending atheist schools in China? You can decide that for yourself.

Here it is again:

---

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. [b]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.

[b]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. [b] Unfortunately, some of this dubious science
is even propagated by some Vaishnavas today, when before
it was purely the mainstay of extremist Christians.


[b]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.)

[b]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

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 Vedamust be reinterpreted to fit with the observation. Two ways of knowing simply cannot be in conflict.

Actually, this is the position taken by all the 3 mainstreams of vedanta. Iskcon however, disagrees with this logic - if the veda says the moon is made of cheese and science says the moon is not made of cheese, then science is wrong because scientists have 'imperfect senses'. This is their approach.

Cheers

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

Some of you folks talk like there is settled agreement in material science on things. That would be rather foolish.

Some scientists review certain evidence and assume there is no God. *Michael J. Behe reviews the same evidence and sees proof of God's existence. How is that? Simple. Neither science or philosophy or religion reveal God to anyone. The Lord reveals Himself and the same Lord also cloaks Himself according to the desire of the individual.

From the Lord come both knowledge and forgetfullness.

*Behe is professor of Chemistry Dept. of biological Sciences, Lehigh University.
http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html

Neither science or philosophy or religion reveal God to anyone. The Lord reveals Himself and the same Lord also cloaks Himself according to the desire of the individual.

The same logic can be used to justify the existence of Santa claus. If you do not see him, it is because you are not pure, your desires are carnal, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...

The point is, ID does not belong in science and that has been adequately explained.

Cheers

Many scientists reject evolution

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/100scientists0929.htm http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/ http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=354&cr=69 (right hand side}

This website brings all of the scientific evidence against evolution from numerous scientists in one easy to read online presentation.

http://theunjustmedia.com/darwinism%...rt_history.htm

Due to blind faith in propaganda from commited atheists who promote evolution for philosophical and political reasons the intellectually lazy and easily fooled sector of society accepts evolutionary theory despite their lack of study on the topic. They don't know anything about evolution nor do they know anything about Intelligent Design. They simply accept "argument from authority". They don't realize that they are backing a theory which has been disproven for some time now by numerous scientists who are professionals in every field associated with evolution.

Time to separate the men from the boys.

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

As seen many scientists disagree with the Darwinian theory and the whole atheistic reading of how life began in this world.

They use the same methods, read the same studies and examine the same facts yet reach the conclusion that there must be a Supreme Intelligence behind it all.

The current debate is that the atheists insist their voice be the only one heard on the issue. This reveals their true intent which is to clear the human awareness of any vestige of God consciousness.

Krishna conscious scientists have something most valuable and unique to bring to the table on this one. The fact that life has no begining or ending. And that all the animation of matter that appears before our eyes is simply do to the influence of the lifeforce. Thus something valuable we can offer to raise both sides of the debate.

A great teaching oppurtunity presents itself.

Puritanism (and the Biblical religions) promote material life. Not Krishna-bhakti.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami:

The Puritanic ideal of Godhead is a conception which owes its origin to persons who are elderly although honestly enough anxious to establish the 'Kingdom of God' on this earth. But if you scratch the think coating on the surface of their sage and sober scheme as befitting their age you only detect the rotten arrangement for securing the maximum of sensuous enjoyment even for those very children who are brought up in this 'virtuous' way. If the child is allowed to spoil his health in boyhood, think these righteous people, he will not be in a position later on to enjoy the legitimate pleasures of the grown up man. Unless the young man husbands his resources of sense-capacity he will also be a victim to premature old age. It is a policy of expediency of postponing a small present enjoyment for reaping much larger measure of it through the long tracts of the years to come.

The spurious Brahmacharya ideal as misconceived by its worldly supporters embodies this Puritanic outlook. The Scriptures, indeed, enjoin that every one should serve Godhead from the womb. This is the real meaning of Brahmacharya. The ascetic practices that have come to attach themselves to the conception were interpolated into the Scriptures in order to ensure worldly values by this form of the empiric method. The scheme requires that the laws of the growth of the physical and mental bodies should be observed and followed. Nature is regarded as the kind mother who favors only those of her children who cultivate the filial habit of prying into her secrets. Nature is supposed to be unable to avoid divulging her secrets to her inquisitive children although she is well aware that her children will exploit this knowledge for troubling herself by harnessing her to their service. In other words it is also assumed to be the duty of the kind mother to consent to put herself in chains in order to minister to the sensuous appetites of her worthier children. Nature is assumed to be able to do good to her children only by submitting to be the victim of their lust.

- from Batasura, by Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Prabhupada

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

The connection between the above post and intelligent design.

[krsna]

The storm of debate around Intelligent Design is gathering force, and the winds are blowing in all directions. Scientists, religionists and educators have been squaring off directly in the courts of law and public opinion, while philosophers and spiritualists are becoming more actively involved.


The media has also emerged as a key participant. Reporters and journalists are taking aim at one another, criticizing the various journalistic stances apparent in media coverage on the Intelligent Design debate. While the majority of news headlines promote the debate as a culture war between the scientists and the Christians, other media pandits have been highly critical of their peers for over-simplification of what is, in fact, a complex issue. As Shiva das stated, most people (including many news writers) are completely unfamiliar with the points of fact in the debate, and have instead formed general opinions based on 'argument from authority'.


Mainstream religion journalists are constantly challenged to simplify subjects that are inherently complex. They want to highlight conflicts that are of interest to their readers, while at the same time drawing parallels they hope will demonstrate a balanced viewpoint. This type of journalism is the antithesis of Brahminical commentary.


A shining example of this can be seen in recent news coverage of the Dalai Lama's entrance into the Intelligent Design debate.


In October, the New York Times published an article by George Johnson which examined opinions held by the Dalai Lama and the Pope on evolution. Johnson writes, "Neither of these men believes that a religious text, whether the Bible or the Diamond Sutra, should be given a strictly literal reading. Yet they share with evangelicals an aversion to the notion that life emerged blindly, without supernatural guidance. Particularly offensive to them is the theory, part of the biological mainstream, that the engine of evolution is random mutation."


Not surprisingly, Johnson did not attempt to comment on the philosophical conflicts inherent in the assertion that sastra should not be taken literally. Not having an understanding of parampara or the tests of guru, sadhu and sastra, it would be more than difficult for one to intelligently critique what the Pope and Dalai Lama appear to say on that matter.


Johnson went on to discuss comments made by the Dalai Lama in his new book, "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality". Johnson reports that in the book, "the Dalai Lama laments what he calls "radical scientific materialism," warning that seeing people as "the products of pure chance in the random combination of genes" is an invitation to nihilism and spiritual poverty. "The view that all aspects of reality can be reduced to matter and its various particles is, to my mind, as much a metaphysical position as the view that an organizing intelligence created and controls reality." Both, he suggests, are legitimate interpretations of science."


Again, Johnson aims for the middle ground of 'balanced journalism' by focusing only on the surface aspects of the "science vs. religion" debate. He ignores - or perhaps doesn't recognize - the apparent contradiction in terms represented by the Dalai Lama's comments against nihilism. Wouldn't a Buddhist complaining of nihilism seem to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Unfortunately, Johnson's article stops short of that philosophical inquiry.


As Srila Prabhupada writes in his Purport to Bhagavad-gita 2-26:


"There is always a class of philosophers, almost akin to the Buddhists, who do not believe in the separate existence of the soul beyond the body. When Lord Krsna spoke the Bhagavad-gita, it appears that such philosophers existed, and they were known as the lokayatikas and vaibhasikas. These philosophers maintained that life symptoms, or soul, takes place at a certain mature condition of material combination. The modern material scientist and materialist philosophers also think similarly. According to them, the body is a combination of physical elements, and at a certain stage the life symptoms develop by interaction of the physical body and chemical elements. The science of anthropology is based on this philosophy. Currently, many pseudo religions--now becoming fashionable in America--are also adhering to this philosophy, as well as to the nihilistic nondevotional Buddhist sects."


As we consider the media response to the Intelligent Design debate as expressed by the Johnson editorial, we can see the impossibility of effectively dealing with such a complex issue by attempting a surface treatment.


In "The Universe in a Single Atom", the Dalai Lama also wrote: "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."


Here, the Dalai Lama expresses a fundamental belief in empirical knowledge that is devoid of the spiritual absolute. Those who are following the Intelligent Design debate and are influenced by such 'arguments from authority' will certainly become further bewildered. If one becomes convinced that life comes from life -- while at the same time becoming convinced that sastra is open to interpretation and science is more absolute than tattva - has any progress been made?

Buddhism doesn't concern itself with "creation".

Buddhism is about finding release from samsara.

Intelligent Design theory and Science will never disprove any of the basic tenets of Buddhism. The basic premise of Buddhism is that all life involves suffering and we need to attain release from suffering.

According to the Dhammapada, when Sakhyamuni Buddha met the creator Brahma he said to him that Brahma is under an illusion, since he sees himself as a creator. Buddha said, you are impelled to act by other feelings and forces, and those forces are controlling you. You are a creator, but you are not God.

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

Buddhist still accept intelligent design as being behind the cosmic manifestation. Yet they don't accept that intelligence as belonging to an eternal God.

So at one level the Buddhists and theists are united, both against the random chance nonsense that is presently being taught. At some point soon after that we part company.

But let us make best use of the unity and get the education system to open up and not turn this into a debate for against each others teachings.

Personally I would like to see the whole public school monopoly broken up in the name of freedom of thought.

quote:
"Buddhist still accept intelligent design as being behind the cosmic manifestation. Yet they don't accept that intelligence as belonging to an eternal God"

NO.

Buddhists most certainly do not think the world has been created through "intelligent design".

PATICCASAMUPADA ( usually translated as "dependent origination"), is the word that Sakhyamuni Buddha gave to explain how the world or nature has been "created". Simply put, a number of factors working together cause things to come into existence. That is, there is no single cause but multiple causes that cause things to arise in the world. Thus, Buddha's teaching is perfectly in accord with neo-Darwinism which says life has arisen through the combination of various chemicals, heat, gases etc.

see results here:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=paticcasamupada

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

I assume you are the same nameless being (or non-being sorry as you might prefer that) wrote this about Brahma being the creator.

According to the Dhammapada, when Sakhyamuni Buddha met the creator Brahma he said to him that Brahma is under an illusion, since he sees himself as a creator. Buddha said, you are impelled to act by other feelings and forces, and those forces are controlling you. You are a creator, but you are not God.

So he acknowledges Brahma as the creator in referrence to the variegateness of this universe which is what is under discussion.

As far as his being impelled to act by other forces and feelings that is certainly where the theist would abandon Buddhism.

As I said above:

"Buddhist still accept intelligent design as being behind the cosmic manifestation. Yet they don't accept that intelligence as belonging to an eternal God.

So at one level the Buddhists and theists are united, both against the random chance nonsense that is presently being taught. At some point soon after that we part company..."

Unless you think Brahma did not creat with the use of intelligence your attempt to merge Buddhism with Darwinism fails.

Simply put, a number of factors working together cause things to come into existence. That is, there is no single cause but multiple causes that cause things to arise in the world. Thus, Buddha's teaching is perfectly in accord with neo-Darwinism which says life has arisen through the combination of various chemicals, heat, gases etc.

Multiple causes with no origin huh? Beyond Brahma you mean right? According to you Buddha told Brahma that forces and feelings were controlling him. Are you now saying gases and chemicals are controlling Brahma? If Brahma is not responsible for the "combination of various chemicals, heat, gases etc." then what is Brahma creator of for Buddha to call him the creator?

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm

Darwin Under the Microscope

Michael J. Behe
Michael J. Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, is the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."

BETHLEHEM, PA Pope John Paul II's statement last week that evolution is "more than just a theory" is old news to a Roman Catholic scientist like myself.

I grew up in a Catholic family and have always believed in God. But beginning in parochial school I was taught that He could use natural processes to produce life. Contrary to conventional wisdom, religion has made room for science for a long time. But as biology uncovers startling complexity in life, the question becomes, can science make room for religion?

In his statement, the Pope was careful to point out that it is better to talk about "theories of evolution" rather than a single theory. The distinction is crucial. Indeed, until I completed my doctoral studies in biochemistry, I believed that Darwin's mechanism -- random mutation paired with natural selection -- was the correct explanation for the diversity of life. Yet I now find that theory incomplete.

In fact, the complex design of the cell has provoked me to stake out a distinctly minority view among scientists on the question of what caused evolution. I believe that Darwin's mechanism for evolution doesn't explain much of what is seen under a microscope. Cells are simply too complex to have evolved randomly; intelligence was required to produce them.

I want to be explicit about what I am, and am not, questioning. The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species.

That's where Darwin's mechanism comes in. "Evolution" also sometimes implies that random mutation and natural selection powered the changes in life. The idea is that just by chance an animal was born that was slightly faster or stronger than its siblings. Its descendants inherited the change and eventually won the contest of survival over the descendants of other members of the species. Over time, repetition of the process resulted in great changes -- and, indeed, wholly different animals.

That's the theory. A practical difficulty, however, is that one can't test the theory from fossils. To really test the theory, one has to observe contemporary change in the wild, in the laboratory or at least reconstruct a detailed pathway that might have led to a certain adaptation.

Darwinian theory successfully accounts for a variety of modern changes. Scientists have shown that the average beak size of Galapagos finches changed in response to altered weather patterns. Likewise, the ratio of dark- to light-colored moths in England shifted when pollution made light-colored moths more visible to predators. Mutant bacteria survive when they become resistant to antibiotics. These are all clear examples of natural selection in action. But these examples involve only one or a few mutations, and the mutant organism is not much different from its ancestor. Yet to account for all of life, a series of mutations would have to produce very different types of creatures. That has not yet been demonstrated.

Darwin's theory encounters its greatest difficulties when it comes to explaining the development of the cell. Many cellular systems are what I term "irreducibly complex." That means the system needs several components before it can work properly. An everyday example of irreducible complexity is a mousetrap, built of several pieces (platform, hammer, spring and so on). Such a system probably cannot be put together in a Darwinian manner, gradually improving its function. You can't catch a mouse with just the platform and then catch a few more by adding the spring. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.

An example of an irreducibly complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller, powered by a flow of acid, that bacteria use to swim. The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works -- a rotor, stator and motor. Furthermore, genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum.

The intracellular transport system is also quite complex. Plant and animal cells are divided into many discrete compartments; supplies, including enzymes and proteins, have to be shipped between these compartments. Some supplies are packaged into molecular trucks, and each truck has a key that will fit only the lock of its particular cellular destination. Other proteins act as loading docks, opening the truck and letting the contents into the destination compartment.

Many other examples could be cited. The bottom line is that the cell -- the very basis of life -- is staggeringly complex. But doesn't science already have answers, or partial answers, for how these systems originated? No. As James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, wrote, "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

A few scientists have suggested non-Darwinian theories to account for the cell, but I don't find them persuasive. Instead, I think that the complex systems were designed -- purposely arranged by an intelligent agent.

Whenever we see interactive systems (such as a mousetrap) in the everyday world, we assume that they are the products of intelligent activity. We should extend the reasoning to cellular systems. We know of no other mechanism, including Darwin's, which produces such complexity. Only intelligence does.

Of course, I could be proved wrong. If someone demonstrated that, say, a type of bacteria without a flagellum could gradually produce such a system, or produce any new, comparably complex structure, my idea would be neatly disproved. But I don't expect that to happen.

Intelligent design may mean that the ultimate explanation for life is beyond scientific explanation. That assessment is premature. But even if it is true, I would not be troubled. I don't want the best scientific explanation for the origins of life; I want the correct explanation.

Pope John Paul spoke of "theories of evolution." Right now it looks as if one of those theories involves intelligent design.

That article was written in 1996. Since then there have been a few discoveries by scientists which invalidate certain claims made in the article. The following are no longer supported by evolutionists.

Darwinian theory successfully accounts for a variety of modern changes. Scientists have shown that the average beak size of Galapagos finches changed in response to altered weather patterns.

New data has proven that theory wrong.

"Recent observations have revealed that the finches did not undergo an unlimited variation as Darwin's theory presupposed. Moreover, most of the different types of finches which Darwin thought represented 14 distinct species actually mated with one another, which means that they were variations that belonged to the same species. Scientific observation shows that the finch beaks, which have been mythicized in almost all evolutionist sources, are in fact an example of "variation"; therefore, they do not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. For example, Peter and Rosemary Grant, who spent years observing the finch varieties in the Galapagos Islands looking for evidence for Darwinistic evolution, were forced to conclude that "the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth," a fact which implied that no "evolution" that leads to the emergence of new traits ever takes place there."

Why? Because "variation" is what is possible to manifest within a species based on the mixing of genetic data. In other words there are is a lot of genetic information within the gene pool of a species, but only a limited number of genetic traits will occur in an individual or small group regularly. For instance you may be a normal sized person but give birth to a dwarf, the dwarf may in turn give birth to a normal sized person. The genetic information for dwarfism may or may not express itself in every generation, but the potential always remains. That is what "variation" or "micro-evolution" means, it's what breeding depends on, it has nothing to do with natural selection because the genetic information is already present in the gene pool. Variations appears due to mating and the mixing of genes, not from mutation leading to natural selection. So the finches were not evolving based on weather, in fact that hypothesis is a modified form of Lamarckism and is known as the the theory of acquired traits. The idea, rejected by evolutionists today is that the environment instigates mutation. That idea has been abandoned by all serious evolutionists because the genetic code is not affected by the environment. Mutations have to be random because there is no way for your DNA to be aware of your environemnt and then mutate to suit that environment. Anywa

So what actually was discovered was that 14 different finch species were all mating and this created a huge gene pool then making it appear like the beak changes were something which they were not. Because the cross mating of those species was unknown until just recently it has been for a long time a major aspect of evolutionary theory that some form of mutation had occured.

Likewise, the ratio of dark- to light-colored moths in England shifted when pollution made light-colored moths more visible to predators.

Turns out the whole thing was a sham. The researchers did sloppy work and the theory of natural selection applying to those moths has been rejected by evolutionists. For the whole story see:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms04.html

Mutant bacteria survive when they become resistant to antibiotics. These are all clear examples of natural selection in action.

This is also rejected today by evolutionists as having any relevance towards evolution.

Biologist and former president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grassé states the following about the unchanging nature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution: Bacteria ...are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. [b]acteria ...exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living insect groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect. But these examples involve only one or a few mutations, and the mutant organism is not much different from its ancestor. Yet to account for all of life, a series of mutations would have to produce very different types of creatures. That has not yet been demonstrated.