Creationism and Evolution Both

[Guest guest]

According to Srila Prabhupada in his commentary on Srimad Bhagavatam, there is both creationism and evolution both.

His reference to evolution appears here:

SB 1, 19. 10 purport.

 

 

Bhrgu: When Brahmaji was performing a great sacrifice on behalf of Varuna, Maharsi Bhrgu was born from the sacrificial fire. He was a great sage, and his very dear wife was Puloma. He could travel in space like Durvasa, Narada and others, and he used to visit all the planets of the universe. Before the Battle of Kuruksetra, he tried to stop the battle. Sometimes he instructed Bharadvaja Muni about astronomical evolution, and he is the author of the great Bhrgu-samhita, the great astrological calculation. He explained how air, fire, water and earth are generated from ether. He explained how the air in the stomach works and regulates the intestines. As a great philosopher, he logically established the eternity of the living entity (Mahabharata). He was also a great anthropologist, and the theory of evolution was long ago explained by him. He was a scientific propounder of the four divisions and orders of human society known as the varnasrama institution. He converted the ksatriya king Vitahavya into a brahmana.

[theist 1]

This does not say that Brhgu taught "Darwinian" evolution. He did teach how the primordial elements evolved one from another.

 

The major flaw that these materialistic evolutionist have is that they think LIFE evolved from some random molecular mixing. LIFE does not evolve into being. Life has no beginning nor will it ever cease to be.

[theist 1]

[Kulapavana 0]

 

According to Srila Prabhupada in his commentary on Srimad Bhagavatam, there is both creationism and evolution both.

 

evolution in the sense of gradual development is both observable and scriptural fact. but just as theist pointed out, what we call evolution is not what some materialists call evolution.

[theist 1]

 

Knowledge is understanding the evolution of the conscious self. The self predates birth. The self predates all material manifestation. The self may evolve from a lower species to a higher one just as we may move up from a poor house to a nicer house.

[Guest guest]

to say that species evolve does not have to negate the creationism principle.

 

Science has shown how certain species have evolved in some ways. That is not to say that some fish crawled out of the Ocean a few billion years ago and has evolved into humans.

It simply means that species sometime evolve to adapt to enironmental factors.

 

the purport says that Brgu was an anthropologist and he explained how there is some evolution of the species.

 

Even the interbreeding of various species can produce an evolutionary effect.

[shiva 0]

 

to say that species evolve does not have to negate the creationism principle.

 

Science has shown how certain species have evolved in some ways. That is not to say that some fish crawled out of the Ocean a few billion years ago and has evolved into humans.

It simply means that species sometime evolve to adapt to enironmental factors.

 

the purport says that Brgu was an anthropologist and he explained how there is some evolution of the species.

 

Even the interbreeding of various species can produce an evolutionary effect.

 

That quote from Prabhupada was not referring to Darwinian nor Neo-Darwinian theory. He uses the word evolution in a different context which has the same meaning as progression.

 

Here is what Prabhupada wrote about Darwinian evolution:

 

 

In this verse we can understand that the various types of living entities were created simultaneously at the very beginning of the creation. The nonsensical Darwinian theory of evolution is not applicable here. It is not that intelligent human beings did not exist millions of years ago. On the contrary, it is understood that the most intelligent creature, Lord Brahmā, was first created. Then Lord Brahmā created other saintly sages like Marīci, Bhṛgu, Ātreya, Vasiṣṭha and Lord Śiva. They in their turn created different types of bodies according to karma. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam Lord Kapiladeva told His mother that the living entity gets a particular type of body in accordance with his work and that this body is decided upon by higher authorities. The higher authorities, as appointed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, are Lord Brahmā and all other Prajāpatis and Manus. Thus from the beginning of creation it can be seen that the first creature is the most intelligent. It is not that so-called modern intelligence has developed by the gradual process of evolution. As stated in Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa, there is a gradual evolutionary process, but it is not the body that is evolving. All the bodily forms are already there. It is the spiritual entity, or spiritual spark within the body, that is being promoted by the laws of nature under the supervision of superior authority. We can understand from this verse that from the very beginning of creation different varieties of living entities were existing. It is not that some of them have become extinct. Everything is there; it is due to our lack of knowledge that we cannot see things in their proper perspective.

 

In this verse the word dhvasta-tamasaḥ is very important, for without being free of ignorance one cannot control the creation of different types of living entities. As stated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (3.31.1), daiva-netreṇa — bodies are awarded under the supervision of superior powers. How can these superior powers control the evolutionary process of the living entity if they are not free from all imperfection? The followers of the Vedic instructions cannot accept the Darwinian theory of evolution, for it is marred by imperfect knowledge.

 

Also the interbreeding of species does not cause evolution. although evolutionists like to call the effect seen as "micro-evolution". In reality micro-evolution is a misnomer and nothing more then a use of language for propaganda. Real evolution according to the modern synthesis (Neo-Darwinism) is caused by mutation + natural selection (survival of the fittest). Interbreeding of species is not evolution, it is variation of already present genetic information of the species, no different then if a native australian human breeds with a nordic blue eyed blond haired person and they produce a body of mixed genetic information. If a person breeds dogs to obtain specific characteristics the result is called micro-evolution, but that's just the use of the word evolution for propaganda purposes. Real evolution (Macro-Evolution) requires new information be introduced to the genome by mutation to the genome, thereby causing NEW bodily parts of some type or another i.e. a pigs grows wings.

[Gaea 0]

 

...In reality micro-evolution is a misnomer and nothing more then a use of language for propaganda. Real evolution according to the modern synthesis (Neo-Darwinism) is caused by mutation + natural selection (survival of the fittest). Interbreeding of species is not evolution...

 

That isn't propoganda. It is called micro-evolution because it is exactly what evolution is about. By the way, evolution isn't just mutation of genes - it is also mixing (i.e. breeding) - this, in effect, is the same as mutation because you bring random alleles together to form "better" phenotypes.

[Kulapavana 0]

it can be argued, that altough Brahma was created first, much time elapsed before first humans walked the Earth. How exactly did Prajapatis and their wiwes create bodies for all these forms of life? There are very few details in shastra on this subject. some Vaishnavas admitted the possibility of the species evolution as part of such a process. Maybe it was done through genetic modelling of some sort. Or did Prajapatis and their wiwes simply take a physical form of a desired form of life, unite and produce offspring - the initial line for every species? That is an explanation most logical and appealing to me personally but it is still based on conjectures, not clear shastric evidence.

[shiva 0]

 

That isn't propoganda. It is called micro-evolution because it is exactly what evolution is about. By the way, evolution isn't just mutation of genes - it is also mixing (i.e. breeding) - this, in effect, is the same as mutation because you bring random alleles together to form "better" phenotypes.

 

What has been termed micro-evolution is diversity within a species. Macroevolution is one species changing into a different species. Calling diversity within a species (variation) any type of "evolution" is an ideological preference (propaganda) because the essence of evolutionary theory i.e. the evolution of species from one into another, has nothing to do with variation within a species.

 

The essential component of neo-darwinian theory is that mutation can produce new genetic information. That is how an amoeba can turn into a whale or a mango tree. New genetic information is created by mutation to the genome. The mutations that are not harmful to the species survive and the ones that are harmful die off due to natural selection. Over millions of years one non-harmful mutation mutates again and again and again, millions of times, until new functioning body parts are formed such as eyes, legs, fur, lungs, bones, wings, feathers, leaves, flowers, fruits, vegetables, nuts, etc. That is evolution and that is what happens and will happen according to so called experts.

 

"Micro-evolution" is what they have termed the variation of genetic information with a species. Mutation can be involved here also. Genetic diseases caused by mutated genes passed on to progeny for example. Also recessive genes can make it so that certain traits of species only show up occasionally. But the essential component of neo-darwinism is missing i.e introduction of new genetic information which builds new body parts.

 

Dogs can be breeded for millions of years and the result will always be a dog of some type. The reason they call variation within a species micro-evolution is because they are propandizing in an effort to make it seem like macro-evolution is possible. It goes like this: "Sure we can't prove evolution is true because evolution takes place over millions of years therefore we can't see it happening, but we can see micro-evolution going on all of the time which proves that evolution is possible." Calling variation within a species "micro-evolution" is an attempt to mislead people into thinking that variation within species supports the basic schema of evolutionary theory i.e neo-darwinism or the building of new body parts and new body plans by mutation. That a microbe can "evolve" through mutation + natural selection and become a tree or a human.

 

From darwinismrefuted.com

 

 

Variation, a term used in genetics, refers to a genetic event that causes the individuals or groups of a certain type or species to possess different characteristics from one another. For example, all the people on earth carry basically the same genetic information, yet some have slanted eyes, some have red hair, some have long noses, and others are short of stature, all depending on the extent of the variation potential of this genetic information.

 

Variation does not constitute evidence for evolution because variations are but the outcomes of different combinations of already existing genetic information, and they do not add any new characteristic to the genetic information. The important thing for the theory of evolution, however, is the question of how brand-new information to make a brand-new species could come about.

 

Variation always takes place within the limits of genetic information. In the science of genetics, this limit is called the "gene pool." All of the characteristics present in the gene pool of a species may come to light in various ways due to variation. For example, as a result of variation, varieties that have relatively longer tails or shorter legs may appear in a certain species of reptile, since information for both long-legged and short-legged forms may exist in the gene pool of that species. However, variations do not transform reptiles into birds by adding wings or feathers to them, or by changing their metabolism. Such a change requires an increase in the genetic information of the living thing, which is certainly not possible through variations.

 

Darwin was not aware of this fact when he formulated his theory. He thought that there was no limit to variations. In an article he wrote in 1844 he stated: "That a limit to variation does exist in nature is assumed by most authors, though I am unable to discover a single fact on which this belief is grounded."28 In The Origin of Species he cited different examples of variations as the most important evidence for his theory.

 

For instance, according to Darwin, animal breeders who mated different varieties of cattle in order to bring about new varieties that produced more milk, were ultimately going to transform them into a different species. Darwin's notion of "unlimited variation" is best seen in the following sentence from The Origin of Species:

 

"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."29

 

The reason Darwin cited such a far-fetched example was the primitive understanding of science in his day. Since then, in the 20th century, science has posited the principle of "genetic stability" (genetic homeostasis), based on the results of experiments conducted on living things. This principle holds that, since all mating attempts carried out to transform a species into another have been inconclusive, there are strict barriers among different species of living things. This meant that it was absolutely impossible for animal breeders to convert cattle into a different species by mating different variations of them, as Darwin had postulated.

 

Norman Macbeth, who disproved Darwinism in his book Darwin Retried, states:

 

"The heart of the problem is whether living things do indeed vary to an unlimited extent... The species look stable. We have all heard of disappointed breeders who carried their work to a certain point only to see the animals or plants revert to where they had started. Despite strenuous efforts for two or three centuries, it has never been possible to produce a blue rose or a black tulip."30

 

Luther Burbank, considered the most competent breeder of all time, expressed this fact when he said, "there are limits to the development possible, and these limits follow a law."31 In his article titled "Some Biological Problems With the Natural Selection Theory," Jerry Bergman comments by quoting from biologist Edward Deevey who explains that variations always take place within strict genetic boundaries:

 

Deevey concludes, "Remarkable things have been done by cross-breeding ... but wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit. We can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can make cylindrical eggs." A more contemporary example is the average increase in male height that has occurred the past century. Through better health care (and perhaps also some sexual selection, as some women prefer taller men as mates) males have reached a record adult height during the last century, but the increase is rapidly disappearing, indicating that we have reached our limit.32

 

In short, variations only bring about changes which remain within the boundaries of the genetic information of species; they can never add new genetic data to them. For this reason, no variation can be considered an example of evolution. No matter how often you mate different breeds of dogs or horses, the end result will still be dogs or horses, with no new species emerging. The Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen sums the matter up this way:

 

"The variations upon which Darwin and Wallace placed their emphasis cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of 'indefinite departure'. "

[gHari 0]

The problem with science, with evolution is simply that they try to overstep their bounds. When they speculate about 'why' then they intrude on religion. They want religion out of science. I say: keep science out of religion.

 

A causes B .... let's admit that we don't know why. Science can maybe explain HOW A causes B, but never WHY. The causal plane is strictly the domain of the transcendental Autocrat, Sri Krsna.

 

So when science concludes that the reason A becomes B is CHANCE, they are overstepping their bounds. There is no rationality for pretending that chance causes change, given no other visible measurable reason in their limited field of study. They can maybe explain that perturbation of DNA by the physical laws of the local environment is the how - but WHY that happened, only Sri Krsna knows.

 

This is how evolution is to be defeated as the 'intellectual religion of dead matter'. As such it is destroying the lives and hope of millions of youth in our society - with that one logical flaw, missed by undiscriminating adolescents prone to accept school as authoritative in order to pass and survive in this world.

 

So our campaign should be to correct their small-minded slogan of "Keep religion out of science" to ...

 

 

<center>KEEP SCIENCE OUT OF RELIGION

</center>

[Guest guest]

 

How exactly did Prajapatis and their wiwes create bodies for all these forms of life?

 

If you read in the Bhagavatam abaout Prajapati Daksha you will find that he created many life form simply with the power of his mind.

 

 

SB 6 4, TEXT 19

 

 

 

TEXT

 

 

 

manasaivasrjat purvam

 

prajapatir imah prajah

 

devasura-manusyadin

 

nabhah-sthala-jalaukasah

 

 

 

SYNONYMS

 

 

 

manasa--by the mind; eva--indeed; asrjat--created; purvam--in the beginning; prajapatih--the prajapati (Daksa); imah--these; prajah--living entities; deva--the demigods; asura--the demons; manusya-adin--and other living entities, headed by the human beings; nabhah--in the skies; sthala--on the land; jala--or within the water; okasah--who have their abodes.

 

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

 

 

With his mind, Prajapati Daksa first created all kinds of demigods, demons, human beings, birds, beasts, aquatics and so on.

[Guest guest]

 

 

So our campaign should be to correct their small-minded slogan of "Keep religion out of science" to ...

 

 

<center>KEEP SCIENCE OUT OF RELIGION

</center>

 

Then wouldn't that discredit the Bhaktivedanta Institute that Srila Prabhupada personally authorized, endorsed and provided for the financing of by the BBT?

[Guest guest]

 

That quote from Prabhupada was not referring to Darwinian nor Neo-Darwinian theory. He uses the word evolution in a different context which has the same meaning as progression.

 

 

I don't see anywhere in this topic that anyone is saying that the reference in the Bhagavatam is supporting or endorsing Darwin's idiotic version of evolution.

 

Some species have evolved or "morphed" into slight variants due to environmental influences that caused the species to adapt to changing cirmcumstances.

 

Nobody has said that the Bhagavatam supports Darwin.

Chill bro'.

 

Mahalo.

Pakalolo.

[gHari 0]

 

Then wouldn't that discredit the Bhaktivedanta Institute that Srila Prabhupada personally authorized, endorsed and provided for the financing of by the BBT?

No, since that research will not try to use material laws to explain why, only how. Combining the how science and the why science is the most rational approach.

[Guest guest]

 

No, since that research will not try to use material laws to explain why, only how. Combining the how science and the why science is the most rational approach.

 

I don't know about that.

 

Lord Brahma and his offshoots that create this material world are the greatest scientists of all.

 

Do you think there is no science behind the power of Brahma and the prajapatis, or that is just a bunch of hocus-pocus?

 

Do you think that Lord Karanadakashayi Vishnu and Garbhodakashayi Visnu are not the supreme scientists?

 

there is science behind the magic.

 

Krishna is the supreme scientist.

[Guest guest]

 

I don't know about that.

 

Lord Brahma and his offshoots that create this material world are the greatest scientists of all.

 

Do you think there is no science behind the power of Brahma and the prajapatis, or that is just a bunch of hocus-pocus?

 

Do you think that Lord Karanadakashayi Vishnu and Garbhodakashayi Visnu are not the supreme scientists?

 

there is science behind the magic.

 

Krishna is the supreme scientist.

Does that science include only natural physical laws acting on the mahat-tattva like man's science?

[Guest guest]

 

Does that science include only natural physical laws acting on the mahat-tattva like man's science?

 

All the physical laws represent spiritual laws of the Supreme Scientist.

All the material elements of Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, ego and intelligence are perverted reflective characteristics of the spiritual and eternal forms.

 

there is no such thing as "natural law".

There is only ONE law and that is the law of Krishna.

 

Science is simply the laws of God in practical application.

 

When there is disharmony with the current of the Absolute, there is a system of reactive forces which come in to play.

 

We call that natural law.

But, it is actually the supernatural law of Godhead.

[Gaea 0]

 

What has been termed micro-evolution is diversity within a species. Macroevolution is one species changing into a different species. Calling diversity within a species (variation) any type of "evolution" is an ideological preference (propaganda) because the essence of evolutionary theory i.e. the evolution of species from one into another, has nothing to do with variation within a species.

 

 

Err, no - What you just said, THAT is propoganda. Evolution of species into other species depends on both mutation and genetic diversity (i.e. a diverse gene pool).

[Kulapavana 0]

 

If you read in the Bhagavatam abaout Prajapati Daksha you will find that he created many life form simply with the power of his mind.

 

perhaps that verse refers to creating a concept (idea) of a particular life form with their mind (mental creation) which must come first. It is clear that Prajapatis actually produced bodies for these life forms through the media of their wiwes (there are many references to that). If everything was produced by the mind, why would their wiwes be mentioned?

[Guest guest]

 

perhaps that verse refers to creating a concept (idea) of a particular life form with their mind (mental creation) which must come first. It is clear that Prajapatis actually produced bodies for these life forms through the media of their wiwes (there are many references to that). If everything was produced by the mind, why would their wiwes be mentioned?

 

that is word jugglery that ignores the obvious meaning of the verse I quoted.

Reminds me of how Shankar managed to explain the Vedas in an indreict way.

 

The direct meaning of the verse was that Daksa created life forms with mystic power from his mind just like Lord Brahma also created certain demigods and life forms out of his mind.

[Guest guest]

 

that is word jugglery that ignores the obvious meaning of the verse I quoted.

 

juggle this one:

 

SB 6.6.21-22: Kasyapa, who is also named Tarkshya, had four wives -- Vinata [suparna], Kadru, Patangi and Yamini. Patangi gave birth to many kinds of birds, and Yamini gave birth to locusts. Vinata [suparna] gave birth to Garuda, the carrier of Lord Vishnu, and to Anuru, or Aruna, the chariot driver of the sun-god. Kadru gave birth to different varieties of serpents.

 

if you want to insult someone, better make sure they dont have a point.

[Kulapavana 0]

that was me above. I got logged out.

[Guest guest]

 

 

if you want to insult someone, better make sure they dont have a point.

 

What is your point?

We were talking about the verse where it describes that Daksha created many forms of life with is mind.

You tried to screw out some other meaning to the verse.

 

Now, you want to jump over to the topic of Kasyapa Muni and pretend that I said something I didn't say.

 

If you want to change the subject to prove a point, then the point is never proven.

 

I never denied anything you attempted to show with your reference to Kasyapa Muni.

 

Build a straw man and then destroy him?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

What is your point?

We were talking about the verse where it describes that Daksha created many forms of life with is mind.

 

my point was, that in itself, this particular verse does not describe whether these entities were created in their final bodily form or as a concept only. Everything in creation first starts as a concept. You create a concept of the building in your head or on paper, then you go ahead and build it.

 

especially when we look at other verses of SB (like the one I quoted) where Daksa's sons and daughters (Prajapatis) actually unite and give birth to various species in bodily forms, such a question seems reasonable.

 

If Daksa created all these beings in their final bodily form why are Kashyapa and his wives producing all these species again? If you can, do enlighten us with a proper explanation, shastric or logic based. Logic is one of the approved tools for gathering knowledge in our sampradaya.