The Intelligent Designer

[theist]

This morning I watched a telecourse program on geography put out by Community colleges for distance learning to earn credits. (Something tempting there but that's another subject )

It was very interesting and beautifully filmed. They were describing the principle of convection as it applied to the movements of the earth and shifts in platetectonics and volcanism.

As I was watching this, half awake from my sleeping mat on the floor, I couldn't help but marvel at the Supreme Intelligence behind it all. I surely could not understand all the concepts they were talking about having no background in geography but yet because I accept that God is the active principle and intelligence behind all physical phenomena a little appreciation for the Lord came through. I was a little open to His revealing Himself in that way and He kindly showed a reflection of one fragmental portion of His spark of splendor in nature.

It then became obvious that what is needed to reach those who are truly engrossed in the field of geography, or any other of the natural sciences, is a devotee who understands that material science as well as the science of Krsna consciousness. He/she could explain Krsna consciousness to such people by taking advantage of their own intense interest in the subject. Such a devotee would have their ear as that devotee would be recognized as speaking their language

Teaching to the level and pyschological temperment already present in one's students is what teaching according to time place and circumstance is all about.

Spending energy and time trying to convince them they have to accept what they consider to be mythological stories about earth formation rather or not those stories are true is counterproductive. Counterproductive because afterall the goal is to expose Krsna's presence behind matter and exalt Him as the ultimate controller is the real point behind Krsna conscious teaching and not to get everyone to believe such stories.

I am hoping that devotees who are well trained in this and similar fields will not hold onto the fallacy that God realization and material science are two separate fields divorced from each other by their very constitutions but are in fact perfectly compatable because Krsna is equally accessable to the scientist as He is to the philosophers and religionists. He is afterall Omnipresent and Omniponent. All that is required is to be a little open to hHs presence and willingness to reveal Himself to us.

[theist]

http://www.y-origins.com

From the Q&A page

Q. WHAT IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

A. Scientists have discovered a universe that is brimming with intelligence. Einstein observed that behind mathematics and physics is what he called “an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.” When Stephen Hawking saw the evidence for a finely-tuned universe he remarked, "There must be religious overtones, but I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it."

In fact, many leading scientists, regardless of their religious persuasion, have made similar observations about apparent intelligence behind the laws of our universe. Thus, intelligent design is merely drawing the best inferences from scientific observation as it applies to our origins. (See Articles 1-5).

This page has many links to fine articles on ID.

[suchandra]

The on and on repeated phrase by modern scientist is, evolution had 1 million years to develop all this biological diversity on planet earth.
This seems their only comment after discovering all these overwhelming wonders of nature. They know clearly that just one single living cell's functioning works more complex than a Boeing 747 airplane, still they dont consider to acknowledge that the creation is just too perfect in order to make all this develop just by uncontrolled mechanical accidents.
At least they explore all these details, like an ocean turtle which hatches in Australia and enters the Pacific Ocean in Australia covers a distance of 15,000 miles, emerges in California and after 20 years comes back at exactly the same place where it was born to dig out a turtle nest - unfallible navigation system - all created out of nothing by chance.
Poor scientists, why the are so stupid? Krishna is giving them now all these instruments to find things out which are real tiny but still they play the possum. Now they discovered that bumblebees actually couldnt fly according normal calculation, they are too heavy. High speed cameras revealed the bumblebees till now secret wing beat: this heavy insect with such small wings creates such a clever swirling of air that it can fly perfectly even carrying lots of airfreight like farina.

The Flight of the Bumblebee by Matthew Vanhorn http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2528 http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases..._Wang.hrs.html

“Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats, and fasten your safety belts. We are ready for take off,” the flight attendant says pleasantly over the intercom. Jet engines begin to roar. You feel a subtle jolt, and the plane begins to rumble down the runway. You grab your seat in nervous anticipation of the unprecedented experience you are about to undertake. Once on track, the plane quickly gains speed. Your stomach drops in awkward exhilaration as the plane lifts from the ground, and you watch the landscape grow smaller and smaller as you float above the earth into a white sea of clouds.
Sound familiar? Unless you are prone to motion sickness or terrified of flying, the aforementioned account is probably reminiscent of your first experience aboard an airplane. Did you ever wonder what makes the airplane’s flight possible? Physicists and engineers understand this phenomenon very well. They have studied the plane’s sophisticated airfoil design. The wing’s round leading edge and sharp trailing edge, powered by 63,300+ pounds of engine thrust, produce an effective lift for the plane.
Now, imagine that there were no engines with which to power the airplane. What would it take for the plane to fly? For an Airplane to fly on its own without engines is impossible. And that brings us to the case of the humble bumblebee. Theoretically, scientists say, the bumblebee should remain grounded, just like the engineless jumbo jet. Considering that the basic equation governing the aerodynamics of flying insects and airplanes is supposed to be the same, there is no apparent explanation as to how bumblebees can fly. Bumblebee wings produce more lift than predicted by conventional aerodynamic analyses. The reciprocating motion of the wings makes the aerodynamics incredibly unsteady and difficult to analyze.
Bumblebees are hairy, robust bees, ranging from ½ inch to 1 inch in size. Bumblebee wings are very small in relation to their bodies. An airplane built with the same proportions of a bumblebee would never get off the ground, but bumblebees are not like airplanes. Rather, they are more like helicopters with flexible blades. A moving airfoil generates much more lift than a rigid one. However, the ostrich can create a moving airfoil and, yet, never lift from the ground. Thus, scientists have been in a quandary as to how the bees generate lift.
Theoretical physicists applied to the bumblebee the theories that are effective in the flight of 747s, and determined that the bees should not be able to take flight. This does not “prove” that bumblebees cannot fly; it simply means that physicists have the equation wrong. Ivars Peterson attempted to defend scientists by saying: “The real issue is not that scientists are wrong, but that there’s a crucial difference between a thing and a mathematical model of the thing.” This seemingly ambiguous statement, however, was followed by a valid reason: “A certain simple mathematical model wasn’t adequate or appropriate for describing the flight of a bumblebee” (1997). Indeed, there is nothing simple about the flight of the bumblebee.
Insect flight in general has been a mystery to scientists for many years. This difficulty traces back as far as a 1934 book by French entomologist Antoine Magnan, who referred to a calculation made by engineer André Sainte-Lague. His conclusion was based on the fact that “the maximum possible lift produced by air craft wings as small as a bumblebee’s and traveling as slowly as a bee in flight would be much less than the weight of a bee” (Dickinson, 2001).
Since 1934, engineers have employed aerodynamic theory to design Boeing 747s and stealth fighters. These aircraft are quite complex, yet their function is based upon steady-state principles. Insects disrupt this principle because they flap and rotate their wings at a rate of 300 to 400 beats per second—over ten times faster than the firing rate of the nervous system! The bumblebee achieves such fast wing speeds by simply contracting and relaxing muscles in its abdomen. Additionally, variations in stroke patterns cause differing aerodynamic forces that disconcert mathematical analyses. Insect wings do not flap like doors on simple hinges. Rather, the tip of each wing traces a thin oval at a steep angle. Also, the wings “flip” during each beat: The topside of the wing faces up during the down stroke, and down during the upstroke.
Animal mechanics specialist Charlie Ellington, from the University of Cambridge in England, discovered something that seemed to solve the puzzle. He learned that the extra lift was generated by a vortex traveling along the leading edge of the insect’s wing. Researchers Michael Dickinson and James Birch, from the University of California at Berkeley, had contrary findings. In the science journal Nature, they shared their research concerning the extra aerodynamic lift created by bumblebees. They built a largely scaled model of a fruit fly, and observed its flight in a tank of mineral oil. They simulated a tiny, real fruit fly flying in air—a much thinner medium. Professor Dickinson said: “Based on these experiments, we concluded that the [Cambridge] hypothesis cannot explain the attachment of the vortex through the stroke” (Macphee, 2001).
Ellington’s conclusion nevertheless triggered a quest for an “unsteady function” equation that could explain the superior performance of flapping wings. Distribution of velocities and pressures within a fluid is governed by what are known as the Navier-Stokes equations, which were formulated in the early nineteenth century. Ellington’s findings revealed that the flight of the bumblebee could not be solved through virtue of the Navier-Stokes equations alone. The motions of the bumblebee’s wings are too complex to formulate an exact equation to characterize the aerodynamics of its flight.
In attempts to solve the mysteries of insect flight, scientists made enlarged scale models of bumblebee wings. These models produced viable results by combining the two essential forces in a fluid—a pressure force produced by fluid inertia, and a shear force caused by fluid viscosity. Professor Dickinson reported new findings of his own in 2001 as a result of building upon the theories of Ellington that he previously had attempted to refute. In his study published in Scientific American (“Solving the Mystery of Insect Flight”), Dickinson attributed the flight of the bumblebee to the phenomena of delayed stall, wake capture, and rotational circulation.
Delayed stall occurs when an aircraft’s wing cuts through the air at too steep of an angle. Vortices created by airplanes usually leave behind a pestering turbulence in the slipstream. However, insects require these vortices to remain in flight. A vortex is a rotating flow of fluid, such as occurs in a draining bathtub. When proceeding at shallow angles, the air splits at the front of the wing and flows smoothly in two streams along the upper and lower surfaces. The upper flow travels faster, resulting in a lower pressure above the wing. This draws the wing upward, producing lift. The first stage of stall initially increases the lift because of a brief flow structure called a leading-edge vortex. This type of vortex forms directly above and behind the wing’s leading edge. Airflow in the vortex is extremely fast, and the resulting low pressure adds substantial lift.





Dickinson’s findings seem to be in harmony with the experimental data recorded by physicist Jane Wang of Cornell University, who wrote:

The old bumblebee myth simply reflected our poor understanding of unsteady viscous fluid dynamics. Unlike fixed-wing aircraft with their steady, almost inviscid (without viscosity) flow dynamics, insects fly in a sea of vortices, surrounded by tiny eddies and whirlwinds that are created when they move their wings (as quoted in Segelken, 2000, parenthetical item in orig.).

In addition to delayed stall, Dickinson discovered that the wings generated short-lived strong forces at the beginning and end of each stroke that could not be explained by the stall. These force peaks occurred during stroke reversal, when the wing decelerates and rapidly rotates, suggesting that the rotation itself might be responsible. Dickinson illustrated the idea of rotational circulation by using a tennis ball. A tennis ball hit with backspin pulls air faster over the top, causing the ball to rise, whereas a topspin will pull air faster underneath, causing the ball to sink. Dickinson concluded that flapping wings develop significant lift by rotational circulation.

Finally, Dickinson discovered that wake capture—the collision of the wing with the swirling wake of the previous wing stroke—assists in the flight of insects. Each stroke of the wing leaves behind a complex of vortices. When the wing reverses direction, it passes back through this churning air. A wake contains energy lost from the insect to the air, so wake capture provides a way for the insect to recover energy.
Scientists still do not know every intricacy involved in the flight of bumblebees and other insects. Scientists hope to learn more from the complex wings of the bumblebee in order to apply the knowledge to aircraft. Engineers can design great aircraft by patterning their work after the Great Architect—He who builds all (Hebrews 3:4). God put so much obvious and careful planning into the tiny wing of the bumblebee—and that is only a minute fraction of the awesome Universe He decisively designed.

REFERENCES

Dickinson, Michael (2001), “Solving the Mystery of Insect Flight,” [On-line], URL: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...A9809EC588EF21.
Macphee, Kona (2001) “The Buzz on Bumblebees,” [On-line], URL: http://pass.maths.org.uk/issue17/news/bumble.
Peterson, Ivars (1997), “Flight of the Bumblebee,” [On-line], URL: http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathland_3_31.html.
Segelken, Roger (2000), “Bumblebees Finally Cleared for Takeoff,” [On-line], URL: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases..._Wang.hrs.html.

[theist]

On Tuesday the 24th there will be a fascinating show on the TV channel Animal Planet @ 8:00 on the west coast. It will be about how man's "inventions" have come about by the intense study of nature. Flies and hummingbirds are studied in order to better understand aerodynamic principles etc. (see Suchandra's post again above.)

The thing is many of the scientists who are stretching their brains to try and understand with their intelligence these principles of nature all the while deny that there is a superior intelligence at work through nature. God's intelligence. Crazy puffed up fellows. If they would just acknowledge the presence and supremacy of the Lord then their studies would be a form of jnana yoga.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Originally Posted by suchandra The on and on repeated phrase by modern scientist is, evolution had 1 million years to develop all this biological diversity on planet earth. This seems their only comment after discovering all these overwhelming wonders of nature. They know clearly that just one single living cell's functioning works more complex than a Boeing 747 airplane, still they dont consider to acknowledge that the creation is just too perfect in order to make all this develop just by uncontrolled mechanical accidents.

That's a fascinating article about insect flight, Suchandra Prabhu, and, while I agree with you for the most part, the argument that our universe could not have become what it is simply by chance is easily refuted logically (if not spiritually).

If you're willing to concede that there exists a finite probability that a particular natural process (a process which is possible) will occur in a given period of time, then, over an infinite period of time, that process is *guaranteed* to happen. If you grant (ignoring the soul for a moment) that life arises from series of mechanical processes, each with a finite probability of occurring, then, over an infinite amount of time

So, when you use the "1 million years" figure (I don't know where you got that, the Earth is estimated to be 4.55 billion years. According to this: http://geol.queensu.ca/museum/exhibi...n/archean.html it is believed that there has been life on Earth for 3.5 billion years.), that is not really fair, because, it does not take into account the entire universe.

3.5 billion years is a long time. Then, consider how many innumerable planets there are and the fact that, according to scientific principles there is no beginning or end to time. So, it's altogether plausible that, after innumerable failures, on our planet, the dice rolled just right and here we are.

This particular argument that you present has been a favorite of aspiring Vaishnavas for a long while (I remember it from my childhood in ISKCON). Unfortunately, it's a very hollow argument that is best abandoned lest reasonable folks assume the person bandying the argument about is a fool (as you blithely dismiss the scientists as being fools).

While I whole-heartedly would agree with the assertion that way too much faith is placed in science these days, to the point where it has become a religion of sorts. Scientific principles have been twisted and abused in the same manner as the priciples of capitalism and communism, and, in fact, there is no "pure science". Special interests, whether private industry or government exert way too much influence over the scientific process for it to be considered unbiased.

That said, science is a *tool* (or should be), and not a blueprint for living. One cannot deny the results (both beneficial and harmful) of science. Science has facilitated so many things (including spreading the Mercy of Mahaprabhu), so what is the point of denigrating or condescending to the scientists?

Simply put, faith is required at some point. One cannot logically prove the existence of God (at least not without granting many assumptions).

In the logical paradigm, the world most certainly *could* have arisen by chance. However, to the Vaishnava, "not a blade of grass moves without the will of the Lord". The Vaishnava sees the Lord as the "Cause of all Causes".

[arun momia]

whom should we follow?
All religion are sacred we can't establish ones superiority over other.but there are some conflicts as well

According to the major teachings of Lord Budha He said that There is hardly a place where you can hide from your karma- phala, you will have to suffer for your bad karmas.

But when we try to find the meaning of following verse from Shri Bhagwat Gita,

sarva dhrma pritajaya
mam ek sharnam vrja
ahm tvamm sarv papebhyo
mokshyami ma sucha


is it really possible, if a day when someone gets enlightend his al past karmas burns and he never returns for karm-phala then what about the teachings of Great Budha.

plz. someone correct me.

[suchandra]

Originally Posted by Murali_Mohan_das Simply put, faith is required at some point. One cannot logically prove the existence of God (at least not without granting many assumptions).

Prabhupada would say, bhakti-yoga, or proving the existence of God, is a scientific process, not something what you have to believe blindly. Modern sciencists are using their material brains and material senses and come to the conclusion they didnt see an intelligent Designer behind creation, that they didnt see any God. But isnt this like sticking your finger into honey and saying, I cant say if this is sweet or not? Only our highly complex taste buds are able to taste sweetness and send this message, here is something that tastes good, to our brain(http://www.neurobio.arizona.edu/282/...ste/08_003.jpg) :


Similiarly, since the spiritual energy is anti-matter it cant be perceived with material tools like material mind and material eyes.
But this is what modern science insists upon, they only accept that there's a God when they can see God with material instruments. However, isnt this as foolish as insisting, I can only accept that honey is sweet when I'm able to taste the sweetness with my finger? Only by awakening our sleeping soul and spiritual senses we can perceive the presence of God's energy in His creation. So this is not believe but a scientific method.

Because we cannot perceive the soul by our gross senses, we deny it. Actually there are so many things that are there which we cannot see. We cannot see air, radio waves, or sound, nor can we perceive minute bacteria with our blunt senses, but this does not mean they are not there. By the aid of the microscope and other instruments, many things can be perceived which had previously been denied by the imperfect senses. Just because the soul, which is atomic in size, has not been perceived yet by senses or instruments, we should not conclude that it is not there. It can, however, be perceived by its symptoms and effects. His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada from Beyond Birth and Death.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Originally Posted by suchandra Prabhupada would say, bhakti-yoga, or proving the existence of God, is a scientific process, not something what you have to believe blindly.

Well, Prabhu, "bhakti-yoga" and "proving the existence of God" are two entirely different things.

"Proof" in the scientific sense has a very specific meaning. It involves mathematically rigorous extrapolations based on accepted and established scientific principles, and, where possible, experimental confirmation of the principle's validity. I still insist that proving God's existence via the scientific method is not possible and defy anyone to prove me wrong.

To the Vaishnava, there is no question of proving the existence of God, the Vaishnava sees God *everywhere* (so, of course, there is no question of "believing blindly").

Originally Posted by suchandra Modern sciencists are using their material brains and material senses and come to the conclusion they didnt see an intelligent Designer behind creation, that they didnt see any God.

Right. Scientists have no evidence (as defined by science) to show that there is an Intelligent Designer (ID) at play in the universe. Where is *your* scientific evidence? Of course, to a good scientist, the lack of evidence is not proof to the contrary, but, simply, a lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by suchandra But isnt this like sticking your finger into honey and saying, I cant say if this is sweet or not? Only our highly complex taste buds are able to taste sweetness and send this message, here is something that tastes good, to our brain.

Frankly, I fail to see how this example applies to the question of the scientific proof of the existence of an ID. Furthermore, as pointed out by Srila Prabhupada many times (and you yourself), our senses are not to be trusted. It's funny you should use the example of sweetness, because Srila Prabhupada liked to cite the example of jaundice:

From: http://vedabase.net/noi/7/

TRANSLATION The holy name, character, pastimes and activities of Kṛṣṇa are all transcendentally sweet like sugar candy. Although the tongue of one afflicted by the jaundice of avidyā [ignorance] cannot taste anything sweet, it is wonderful that simply by carefully chanting these sweet names every day, a natural relish awakens within his tongue, and his disease is gradually destroyed at the root. PURPORT The holy name of Lord Kṛṣṇa, His quality, pastimes and so forth are all of the nature of absolute truth, beauty and bliss. Naturally they are very sweet, like sugar candy, which appeals to everyone. Nescience, however, is compared to the disease called jaundice, which is caused by bilious secretions. Attacked by jaundice, the tongue of a diseased person cannot palatably relish sugar candy. Rather, a person with jaundice considers something sweet to taste very bitter. Avidyā (ignorance) similarly perverts the ability to relish the transcendentally palatable name, quality, form and pastimes of Kṛṣṇa. Despite this disease, if one with great care and attention takes to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, chanting the holy name and hearing Kṛṣṇa's transcendental pastimes, his ignorance will be destroyed and his tongue enabled to taste the sweetness of the transcendental nature of Kṛṣṇa and His paraphernalia. Such a recovery of spiritual health is possible only by the regular cultivation of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

So, Srila Prabhupad and the scientists tell us the same things: do not trust your senses. Scientists use the best measurement tools available to them, but they have learned not to blindly trust their measurements, since tools made by imperfect hands often have imperfections.
Here's an example from the Anthropogenic Global Warming discussion:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...n-cooling-not/

Basically, a new array of measurment buoys were placed at various places in the ocean. After a couple of years, the data from these buoys was indicating that the oceans were *cooling* and not warming as the scientists expected. After reviewing all of the involved components, a sensor was found to be defective.

I see stories like this all the time. Science is anything but perfect. However, most of the scientists I have known have been very humble, dedicated people. While there are, no doubt, many arrogant scientists, I find it is in the media that science tends to take on a hysterical tone.

Originally Posted by suchandra Similiarly, since the spiritual energy is anti-matter it cant be perceived with material tools like material mind and material eyes.

Now, this is nitpicking, but spiritual energy is most definitely *not* anti-matter. Anti-matter is also material, *not* spiritual. Spritual energy is exactly that, spiritual. It transcends the mundane. It is supra-mundane.

Originally Posted by suchandra But this is what modern science insists upon, they only accept that there's a God when they can see God with material instruments. However, isnt this as foolish as insisting, I can only accept that honey is sweet when I'm able to taste the sweetness with my finger? Only by awakening our sleeping soul and spiritual senses we can perceive the presence of God's energy in His creation. So this is not believe but a scientific method.

You can say that Krishna Consciousness (KC) is a scientific method (as Srila Prabhupada certainly did). But, in what manner is it scientific? Wouldn't you say, KC, is a process by which, if one follows diligently, a reproduceable result is obtained? That's the basis of science: the ability to reproduce a certain effect.

However, as pointed out in Nectar of Instruction, we *cannot* assume we have the taste for the ultimate sweetness.

The term "bona fide" is bandied about a lot by the aspiring Vaishnavas, but what does it mean literally? Literally it means "good faith". It does *not* mean "authorized by God", "infallible" or any other such thing.

Initially, in our inquiries, whether they be spiritual or scientific we must accept a higher authority on "good faith" since we lack the vision, taste, and insight to comprehend the spiritual, scientific, or mathematical principles they are teaching.

In time, based on the results we get, we will see whether our faith was well-placed or not. In time our understanding will grow, perhaps by our own efforts, but, in the case of spirit, through the Mercy of the Lord.

Still, whether it's science or religion, faith is required, Suchandra Prabhu.

This is already a long post, but I hope to post something about just what Sri Krishna's role in creation is. It is very nicely presented in Brahma Samhita and elsewhere, and should further illuminate this topic.

Gaura Hari Bol!!! Jaya Gurudev!!

[theist]

Still, whether it's science or religion, faith is required, Suchandra Prabhu.

I picture two kinds of faith. Blind faith and what I call sighted faith. Sighted faith is one in which we have learned to have faith in Krsna because of His bestowing a drop of divine vision to us whereby we can perceive Him within material nature to some degree. This gives rise to the sighted faith that understands that Krsna will without doubt reveal Himself more to us as we proceed. This of course can never be shown directly to another because only Krsna reveals Krsna.

If we can inspire someone to inquire into the possibility of an Intelligent Designer then we will have done our job. Of the four kinds of inquirers into the Absolute one is the curious soul.

I don't see the real difference between real science and real religion. Both would have as their objective getting to the real truth. If openess and honesty are there in the searcher the I must believe that, "he who applies himself well to one will achieve the results of both".

The problem lies when the agnostic considers himself an atheist that already "knows" there is no God and then proceeds to discover the truth of things. He has cut himself off from receiving sighted faith from Paramatma's revelations.

Krsna says in the Gita that for those who want to worship the demigods he will make their faith steady so that they may devote themselves to that particular deity. The principle here that we need to recognize that faith is directed by Krsna. Which also implies that the blind faith possessed by the atheistic scientist is also directed by Krsna in order to accomodte the atheists desire to deny God. This is why we can never force anyone to accept the existence of the Lord. it is not by force it is by making logical and attractive arguments in favor of ID so that the thoughtful scientist may open up to th possibility of god and thus receive the necessary sighted faith to rightly proceed.

The (in)famed arch atheist warrior Anthony Flew is a good example. Finally after considering the mind blowing complexity of creation for so many years while arguing against God with a fervor the knowledge had it's effect and he has become a theist.

If it can work for him it can work for all the others. It just needs to be presented thoughtfully and without fanaticism. This is why I am so happy that there are such intelligent and trained devotees like Suchandra and others that are speaking out in this arena with developed examples of how there must be an a Supreme Intelligence behind all we perceive.

Stories of the battles between the asuras and devas will only go a little ways with a very few people in the present culture of scientific thinking. We can se that Srila Prabhupada wanted to have God consciousness accepted as a science and not on sentimental religious terms. Like one so-called christian hymn goes;

Give me that old time religion...
It was good enough for pappy
So it's good enough for me.

Or something like that. You get the point. Blind faith is not enough for spreading God realization.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

In looking back through this long discussion, I came across many gems of note, which I hope to drag back to the surface. However, in looking for a verse in the Vedabase, I came across this one:

SB 5.19.4: The Lord, whose pure form [sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha [Bs. 5.1]] is uncontaminated by the modes of material nature, can be perceived by pure consciousness. In the Vedānta He is described as being one without a second. Because of His spiritual potency, He is untouched by the contamination of material nature, and because He is not subjected to material vision, He is known as transcendental. He has no material activities, nor has He a material form or name. Only in pure consciousness, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, can one perceive the transcendental form of the Lord. Let us be firmly fixed at the lotus feet of Lord Rāmacandra, and let us offer our respectful obeisances unto those transcendental lotus feet.

From this verse, it is very clear that the Supreme Lord has no material activites. It's reasonable to assume that that includes material acts of creation.

When I hear the term "Intelligent Designer", the image that comes to mind immediately is that of an old God sitting at his drafting table chuckling over His latest design for the platypus.

What is revealed in Brahma Samhita, however, is that the Lord's role in Creation is really to plant the seed into the heart of Lord Brahma, who undertakes all the "heavy lifting", so to speak.

More quotes to follow, God-willing.

[Sarva gattah]

Originally Posted by Murali_Mohan_das In looking back through this long discussion, I came across many gems of note, which I hope to drag back to the surface. However, in looking for a verse in the Vedabase, I came across this one: From this verse, it is very clear that the Supreme Lord has no material activites. It's reasonable to assume that that includes material acts of creation. When I hear the term "Intelligent Designer", the image that comes to mind immediately is that of an old God sitting at his drafting table chuckling over His latest design for the platypus. What is revealed in Brahma Samhita, however, is that the Lord's role in Creation is really to plant the seed into the heart of Lord Brahma, who undertakes all the "heavy lifting", so to speak. More quotes to follow, God-willing.

Maha-Vishnu creates the mahat-tattva and provides all material vessels (ethereal and biological), vai His many representatives for those jiva-tattva's who enter His domain in their attempts to satisfy their material dreams or desires. Very intersting reading Prabhu