Manu Vaivasvata

[Guest guest]

Are all mankind descended from Manu Vaivasvata?

[Guest guest]

 

Are all mankind descended from Manu Vaivasvata?

 

In a very general and indirect sense - yes, but there was a lot of special circumstances and even mixing with other species, mostly Nagas.

[Vikram Ramsundar 0]

 

In a very general and indirect sense - yes, but there was a lot of special circumstances and even mixing with other species, mostly Nagas.

 

This is all egregious mythological speculation. Anatomically modern humans originated in eastern Africa about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, and descend from hominids that are now extinct. The earliest human ancestors arose a few million years earlier, also in the same general area of the African continent. Get a good book on evolution from www.amazon.com and that will answer your question nicely.

 

Hope this little bit helps.

[Guest guest]

 

Anatomically modern humans originated in eastern Africa about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, and descend from hominids that are now extinct.

 

As a scientist very familiar with this issue I consider that a mere speculation as well. As to the 100,000 to 200,000 time period that is more of a joke than a solid scientific theory based on facts.

 

We all believe in what we WANT to believe, and that certainly applies to anthropologists as well.

[Vikram Ramsundar 0]

 

As a scientist very familiar with this issue I consider that a mere speculation as well. As to the 100,000 to 200,000 time period that is more of a joke than a solid scientific theory based on facts.

 

We all believe in what we WANT to believe, and that certainly applies to anthropologists as well.

 

I can see your point and partly agree with you, but I don't think either you or I can presume to know better than professionals who spend their entire careers studying the ground in the case of palaeoanthropologists and DNA and genetic evidence in the case of evolutionary biologists. The empirical evidence available SO FAR clearly supports neo-Darwinian evolution. Or will you now say that mainstream scientists are dunces for adhering to this remarkably resilient theory?

 

Why should the evolution of species by natural selection be incompatible with the philosophy of Krishna/Vishnu consciousness? What precludes Darwinism from being God's way to bring forth life forms on earth? I'd be interested to know your take on that. I see no conflict between the two because for me, the creation myths of Brahma, the Manus etc are just that, i.e. myths, nothing more.

 

Regards to you.

[Guest guest]

 

I can see your point and partly agree with you, but I don't think either you or I can presume to know better than professionals who spend their entire careers studying the ground in the case of palaeoanthropologists and DNA and genetic evidence in the case of evolutionary biologists. The empirical evidence available SO FAR clearly supports neo-Darwinian evolution. Or will you now say that mainstream scientists are dunces for adhering to this remarkably resilient theory?

 

 

It so happens that I work in the field of laboratory analysis and know both the theories relevant to this issue and the various tools used to support them. I also know a lot of scientists. I have my own conclusions based on my knowledge of shastra as well as - if not primarily - my knowledge of science. I have been working professionally in the field of science for some 20 years and have seen many changes introduced to the theory of evolution to keep it viable over the years.

 

Evolution is a fact in the sense of relatively minor adjustments to the existing genetic material. If you want to go beyond minor adjustments to creation of completely different life forms with new features - the theory of evolution is completely useless, unproven, and even theoretically unable to explain such changes. You can breed lizzards naturally for all eternity and you will never turn them into birds. There is another mechanism at play in the universe to make major changes and that is conscious intervention. Who does it and how it happens is a matter of serious debate, but as a scientist by both education and professional practice I see no other satisfactory explanation.

[Guest guest]

 

What precludes Darwinism from being God's way to bring forth life forms on earth? I'd be interested to know your take on that. I see no conflict between the two because for me, the creation myths of Brahma, the Manus etc are just that, i.e. myths, nothing more.

 

 

Theoretically there is no conflict. I have no problem with devotees believing in evolution. However, I'm afraid that you and most of other devotees like you, do not understand the theory of evolution enough to adopt it as part of your understanding of the world. Thus such an approach is really rooted in ignorance, not knowledge.

 

In a nutshell, Darwinian evolution believes that the driving force behind all the changes is mere mechanical survivability of an organism. If that was true evolution would have stopped at the level of bacteria, as they are best adapted for survival. If evolution does progress upwards there must be another mechanism that is pushing it. That mechanism can only be consciousness.

[theist 1]

 

This is all egregious mythological speculation. Anatomically modern humans originated in eastern Africa about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, and descend from hominids that are now extinct. The earliest human ancestors arose a few million years earlier, also in the same general area of the African continent. Get a good book on evolution from www.amazon.com and that will answer your question nicely.

 

Hope this little bit helps.

 

I reject Darwin's speculation that one species turns into another through evolutionary pressures.

 

I believe humans are designed genetically by off planet beings who have as their job the processing of karmic reactions and development on earth.

[Vikram Ramsundar 0]

 

However, I'm afraid that you and most of other devotees like you, do not understand the theory of evolution enough to adopt it as part of your understanding of the world. Thus such an approach is really rooted in ignorance, not knowledge.

 

 

Thank you for being so gracious. As they say, ignorance is bliss, and I am quite content in my self-created world of darkness. You are right, I am a professional in the accountancy and finance fields, not the natural sciences. Therefore, I find it a reasonable and rational stance to to the dominant academic view on matters pertinent to the workings of nature. If, in future, scientists modify or even discard Darwinian evolution, I'll adjust my position accordingly. You see, I tend to respect authority, and will keep doing so. In any event, what you wrote about Manu and the Nagas as being behind the presence of humans and other forms of life is too ridiculous to even merit being commented upon.

 

I am sure you must be familiar with the works of Ken Miller and Francis Collins. Both are hardcore Darwinists as well as believing Christians. Miller has pioneered some very important recent developments in evolutionary theory and Collins is the Director of the Human Genome Project. They find no conflict between the two - I guess it is all a matter of perspective.

 

For the edification of us all, I'm pasting an interview with Kenneth Miller conducted by ActionBioscience.org a few years back. Please give me your thoughts on it.

 

Haribol

 

 

evolution: science and belief

Science and Religion

Interview with Kenneth R. Miller

An ActionBioscience.org original interview

 

 

<TABLE height=228 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=510 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=508 colSpan=2 height=66>articlehighlights

Scientific and religious thinking do not conflict. It’s a mistake for religion to reject mainstream science and evolution for several reasons:</TD></TR><TR><TD width=508 colSpan=2 height=76>

• Science is a naturalistic process, and religious questions are beyond its scope.
  
• Evolution and other scientific processes may be part of a supreme being’s goal.
  
• Evolutionary biology is a useful theory that produces results every day.

 

 

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="80%">Science and Religion

Interview with Kenneth R. Miller</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width="20%">

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

 

Religious questions stand outside the scope of science.

</TD><TD width="80%">

ActionBioscience.org: Do science and religion rule each other out?

Miller: No, I certainly don’t think they do. I think the whole tradition of Western science is that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. There are many people in the scientific community, in the United States and around the world, who hold strong religious points of view and do not see their points of view conflicting with working in science or even with the philosophy of science.

ActionBioscience.org: Can science prove or disprove the existence of a higher being?

Miller: No, it can’t. The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question. A supreme being stands outside of nature. Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature. Beyond that it’s a matter of personal belief.

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width="20%">

Evolution may be one means to God’s goals.

 

</TD><TD width="80%">ActionBioscience.org: How is it possible to believe in the evolution of a complex world and God?

Miller: That’s an interesting question. God, for those of us who believe in Him, is the Creator and the Master of the universe. As C. S. Lewis once said, “[God] likes matter. He invented it.” [Mere Christianity, Harper, 2001] It seems to me that an all-powerful Creator, who is behind both the material of the universe and the laws that govern the interactions of that material, would be able to accomplish any goal He wanted to in terms of the process, the architecture, or the ultimate fruition of the universe.

Now, what I don’t find useful to speculate about are the exact physical, chemical, or biological processes that could be attributed to God, or identified as God working His magic in the world. I think both Western religious tradition and scripture itself tell us that God is very subtle and He can use many ways to accomplish His ends.

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width="20%">

 

We must use our responsibility to nature wisely.

 

 

 

We are Earth’s stewards.

</TD><TD width="80%">ActionBioscience.org: If a supreme being put evolution into motion, do humans then have a moral responsibility for the care of the planet?

Miller: Oh, that’s a very good question. I think the answer to that is certainly “Yes.” Let’s talk about it biologically first. We are the brightest things on the block. We have become the single, most common, large mammal on Earth. We might take that for granted today, but 500 years ago that was not true. We were not the single, most common, large mammal. That means, in terms of ecological impact, that our species is unique. We have the possibility to do more good, to do more damage, or to cause more extinctions than any other organism on this planet. So we have to use our responsibility wisely.

From a religious point of view, there is an entire movement within Christian theology, known as the Christian Ecology Movement. It takes very seriously the Biblical admonition that we should be stewards of the Earth. We are Earth’s guardians. The Bible is filled with parables about the wise steward and the foolish steward. The care of Earth, in particular, is an area in which both the religious and scientific sentiments coincide.

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width="20%">

 

Knowledge is a compelling reason to believe in God.

 

 

 

 

Religions must embrace the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

</TD><TD width="80%">ActionBioscience.org: In your book, Finding Darwin’s God, you write, “in nature, elusive and unexplored, we will find the Creator at work.” How is your view different from that of creationists or proponents of intelligent design, who argue against evolution?

Miller: I think the biggest difference, and the most direct way to pinpoint that difference, is to say that creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain. Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained. So the way in which my view is different from the creationists or intelligent design proponents is that I find knowledge a compelling reason to believe in God. They find ignorance a compelling reason to believe in God.

ActionBioscience.org: You also write in the same book, “There is a deeper problem caused by the opponents of evolution, a problem for religion.” Please explain.

Miller: When religion places itself in conflict with science, that is, when religion says that we have to reject scientific explanations for religious reasons, it basically means that every time science advances in understanding, religion contracts. If you define religion as being the things that science cannot explain, every time the realm of science expands--and every year we understand a little more about life, the world around us, and the cosmos--those areas become smaller. I think ultimately the rejection of mainstream science, and the rejection of evolution by the creationist movement, is a mistake for religion because it essentially argues that religion is disapproved by the mechanisms and tools of science. That’s a profound theological mistake.

</TD></TR><TR><TD width="20%">

Evolution is fundamental to understanding life.</TD><TD width="80%">ActionBioscience.org: Why does evolution remain a dangerous idea for some of the American public?

Miller: I think evolution remains a dangerous idea for two reasons:

1. Many people in the religious community continue to believe that evolution cannot be reconciled with religion. That is just not true. Most people understand that, but not everyone.
   
2. Evolution concerns something very fundamental. Evolution is controversial for the same reason that you can start a fight by going into a bar and saying something about somebody’s mother. It concerns where we’re from, what our status is as human beings, and how we relate to the rest of life on the Earth. That will always make it a controversial idea, not just in the U.S. but also in many countries around the world.

</TD></TR><TR><TD width="20%">Evolution is both a fact and good science.</TD><TD width="80%">ActionBioscience.org: How should science respond to this public fear of evolution?

Miller: Science can respond in three ways:

1. The first is by answering the objections that are frequently raised against evolution. The charge that evolution is not good science--that there are no transitional forms, that the mechanism of evolution doesn’t work, and other similar charges--can easily be answered from scientific literature.
   
2. The second is by emphasizing the fact that scientific ideas are different from religious ideas and therefore that science in general, and evolution in particular, does not present an obligatory threat to religion.
   
3. The last way to respond is simply by doing good science. Evolutionary biology is fundamentally a useful theory. It’s a theory whose application and practice in the laboratory every single day yields useful scientific results. The American people are a people of practical results and consequences. When something works, when something is practical, when something earns money, it gets respect in American society, and evolution can do all of those things.

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width="20%">

 

So-called “alternatives” to evolution are not scientific and lack evidence.

</TD><TD width="80%">ActionBioscience.org: In some regions of the U.S., educators are being encouraged, sometimes forced, by their institution to teach “alternative” ideas to evolution. What is your response to this development?

Miller: Disappointment. If the ideas being offered were genuinely scientific alternatives, if they were ideas that had significant support within the scientific community or substantial experimental evidence, it might be interesting to include them in the science classroom.

Unfortunately, the ”alternatives” actually being offered are not scientific at all. The insertion of an idea such as young-earth creationism, which requires a rejection of astronomy, physics, and chemistry as well as biology, into the scientific curriculum makes about as much sense as teaching witchcraft in medical school. The other alternative often proposed, so-called “intelligent” design, doesn't even rise to the level of being a scientific hypothesis. It has no explanatory power and approaches scientific problems by nothing more than an appeal to the “designer.” Since such appeals are not testable, they don't amount to science and can only mislead students as to the nature of science and scientific evidence.</TD></TR><TR><TD width="20%"></TD><TD width="80%">

© 2004, American Institute of Biological Sciences. Educators have permission to reprint articles for classroom use; other users, please contact editor for reprint permission. See reprint policy.</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="20%"></TD><TD width="80%">

About the author: Kenneth T. Miller, Ph.D., a Christian and evolutionist, is professor of biology in the Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology, and Biochemistry at Brown University, in Providence, RI. His research delves into problems of structure and function in biological membranes using a variety of techniques associated with electron microscopy. One of his principal interests is the public understanding of evolution. He has written a number of articles defending the scientific integrity of evolution, answering challenges such as that posed by intelligent design, and has publicly debated anti-evolutionists. He has written a series of high school and college textbooks with Joseph S. Levine, called Biology, the most recent of which is known as the “Dragonfly” book (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2002); he also wrote Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution

(HarperCollins, 1999). Miller was interviewed at the AIBS Symposium "Evolutionary Science and Society: Educating a New Generation" at the 2004 NABT convention.

http://bms.brown.edu/faculty/m/kmiller/

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[theist 1]

I remember reading Darwins own words that finding transitional forms would be the test of his speculation. Been a long time and his exact words escape me. Well guess what NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS.

 

Show the transitional forms or save your words Vikram prabhu. It should be easy considering every form now present would have left hundreds of thousands and millions of transitional forms but our brilliant Darwinists cannot even find their holy grail... the missing link.

 

Darwin is dead.

[Guruvani 0]

it's quite obvious that creationism and evolution are both factors in the existence of species.

 

Darwin's theory was based upon what he observed on a three week visit to the Galapagos and was based primarily on what he observed about a species of Finches on the islands.

 

 

He didn't publish his book on the origin of the species till 24 years laters.

 

No doubt, there is some evolution of the species, but that theory certainly doesn't account for the full explanation of the existence of species.

 

Some species like the Crocodile haven't evolved at all in many millions of years.

 

It doesn't have to come down to evolution or creationism.

There can be both.

 

In fact both principles are behind the existence of different species of life.

[Guest guest]

 

In any event, what you wrote about Manu and the Nagas as being behind the presence of humans and other forms of life is too ridiculous to even merit being commented upon.

 

If it was not for the Nagas and other Upadevas humans would have destroyed the Earth decades ago. They are the Watchers. There is so much more to this world you have no clue about... but as you said: Ignorance is bliss

 

I do not fight devotees who have faith in evolution in the typical sense - that battle has very little meaning for our spirituality. But I think you are missing a lot by denying this world it's magic. I pity people who are so rational they never even try to see the hidden dimensions all around them, pulsating with the most fascinating life you cannot even imagine

[theist 1]

The Watchers. Known as Elohim in Genesis..."Let US make man in OUR image." Off planet genetic engineers. Servants of those that serve the Prajapatis.

[Vikram Ramsundar 0]

I can understand all the opposition to my views, and I equally accept that Darwinism has not been conclusively established. But as I say, in the absence of a more compelling alternative, I prefer to defer to the predominant academic consensus. Theist Prabhu, you are justified in mentioning the startling lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record, but can you yourself provide any kind of proof for the existence of off-planet beings, to use your own terminology? If not, then it is pure and simple fantasy to award any serious consideration to such ideas.

 

As for Lowborn, you keep reminding me of my ignorance whilst yourself wallowing in the most fanciful variety of propositions. Prove to me that Nagas and Vaivasvata Manu exist and are watching us - I will then adopt a more enlightened conception of our origins, and be thankful to you for it.

 

Haribol

[Vikram Ramsundar 0]

 

It doesn't have to come down to evolution or creationism.

There can be both.

 

In fact both principles are behind the existence of different species of life.

 

One of the rare instances in which I'm ready to fully back something uttered by you.

[krishnadasa 0]

 

One of the rare instances in which I'm ready to fully back something uttered by you.

 

Answer is within and the sages found it by meditating within. There are many ways of dealing with the truth and so is the case in finding it. Sometimes the scientific way of dealing with it proves to be very attractive , but nevertheless, that tends to be very very inaccurate, reason , it builds on many assumptions and presumptions. i myself a scientist and see how the so called theories fail in time when they are not ready to deal with certain cases. On the other hand spirit is perfect and the search for it is not based on any kind of assumptions. So it does not fail in any case. And most importantly all the scriptures are written by researching on the spiritual platform (by the sages), and as result they do not depend on time and take care of all (even exceptional) cases.

 

I always found it very blissful when i see someone inquiring about one's existance , its a start of one's spiritual journey, which ends only when one gets in touch with the creator ......

 

Hari bol

[theist 1]

 

I can understand all the opposition to my views, and I equally accept that Darwinism has not been conclusively established. But as I say, in the absence of a more compelling alternative, I prefer to defer to the predominant academic consensus. Theist Prabhu, you are justified in mentioning the startling lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record, but can you yourself provide any kind of proof for the existence of off-planet beings, to use your own terminology? If not, then it is pure and simple fantasy to award any serious consideration to such ideas.

 

As for Lowborn, you keep reminding me of my ignorance whilst yourself wallowing in the most fanciful variety of propositions. Prove to me that Nagas and Vaivasvata Manu exist and are watching us - I will then adopt a more enlightened conception of our origins, and be thankful to you for it.

 

Haribol

 

Vikram,

I am surprised at your response. When we consider that the Bhagavatam is simply filled with stories of life beyond the earth you ask me to prove it? The whole of Krsna consciousness is based on the life principle beingnonmaterial substance and thus able to take on any material form including fire bodies etc.

 

Darwinians would have us believe that certain material conditions (so much carbon, h2o etc.) in the right combinations constitute life and unless those conditions are met life is not possible.

 

You are right to say that evolution of forms is not in itself against God consciousness. From what I understand Darwin was a believer in God. But it is simply not the case that species evolved into other more complex species due to natural selection.

 

The lack of transitional forms in a coffinform the speculation of Darwin. Even a total atheist and materialist would have to agree with that. In fact Darwin himseld were he here today would not be a Darwinist based on that fact alone.

 

We needn't accept the dominant position just because we don't have a better answer. We can choose to simply admit that we do not know the details of what happened in the formation of humans while rejecting Darwinianism for it's obvious flaws.

[Rishi_L 0]

Is Sraddhadeva Manu another name for Vaivasvata Manu?

[Guest guest]

 

Thank you for being so gracious. As they say, ignorance is bliss, and I am quite content in my self-created world of darkness. You are right, I am a professional in the accountancy and finance fields, not the natural sciences. Therefore, I find it a reasonable and rational stance to to the dominant academic view on matters pertinent to the workings of nature. If, in future, scientists modify or even discard Darwinian evolution, I'll adjust my position accordingly. You see, I tend to respect authority, and will keep doing so. In any event, what you wrote about Manu and the Nagas as being behind the presence of humans and other forms of life is too ridiculous to even merit being commented upon.

 

I am sure you must be familiar with the works of Ken Miller and Francis Collins. Both are hardcore Darwinists as well as believing Christians. Miller has pioneered some very important recent developments in evolutionary theory and Collins is the Director of the Human Genome Project. They find no conflict between the two - I guess it is all a matter of perspective.

 

For the edification of us all, I'm pasting an interview with Kenneth Miller conducted by ActionBioscience.org a few years back. Please give me your thoughts on it.

 

Haribol

 

Dude, did Wallacian-Darwinian Evolution result in a single technology?

Also, don't analogize this to astrophysics b/c that does not count b/c we are using technology (various telescopes) to verify and validate those theories. As for thee genetic evidence, you tell me what it is. You know I am not going through all their arguments which will confuse the hell out of someone not an expert in genetics. I think scientists are just flat out lying b/c they want to prove something they love and know is unproven still! Also, what is the mathematical probablity of us evolving from a primordial soup over billions of years? Just tell me b/c I know its extremely low, but that is nothing against that scientific theory b/c anything can happen, right? Authority is just one source of knowledge.

 

As far as I know, those scientific genius clowns behind this theory would be laughing uncontrollably on the floor if they found out how much faith a lot of modern scientists have in their theories! They just launched a new religion pretending to be quasiscience; it is basically new age pantheism. Modern scientists love it.

[Guest guest]

actionbioscienceDOTorg/evolution/ingman.html

 

"Evidence from DNA studies generally supports a recent African origin but these conclusions have been criticised for a lack of statistical support."

 

You know, I/we cannot figure out what this guy means by 'lack of statistical support'. To me it implies, that a lot of modern scientists do not agree with his DNA study on the evolution of the first human from whatever. And they shouldn't it is just a masquerade on this field.

[Guest guest]

"Dude, did Wallacian-Darwinian Evolution result in a single technology?

Also, don't analogize this to astrophysics b/c that does not count b/c we are using technology (various telescopes) to verify and validate those theories."

 

Don't worry about that. We don't need technology from science for it to be true neither the inverse.

[Vikram Ramsundar 0]

 

Vikram,

I am surprised at your response. When we consider that the Bhagavatam is simply filled with stories of life beyond the earth you ask me to prove it? The whole of Krsna consciousness is based on the life principle beingnonmaterial substance and thus able to take on any material form including fire bodies etc.

 

Darwinians would have us believe that certain material conditions (so much carbon, h2o etc.) in the right combinations constitute life and unless those conditions are met life is not possible.

 

You are right to say that evolution of forms is not in itself against God consciousness. From what I understand Darwin was a believer in God. But it is simply not the case that species evolved into other more complex species due to natural selection.

 

The lack of transitional forms in a coffinform the speculation of Darwin. Even a total atheist and materialist would have to agree with that. In fact Darwin himseld were he here today would not be a Darwinist based on that fact alone.

 

We needn't accept the dominant position just because we don't have a better answer. We can choose to simply admit that we do not know the details of what happened in the formation of humans while rejecting Darwinianism for it's obvious flaws.

 

Thinking of it Prabhu, I can understand your astonishment, but please do not get me wrong; I am not a pure rationalist who s to the view that life originated from matter, otherwise I wouldn't be here. I favour the concept of directed evolution - in other words, Krishna/God is behind the entire mechanism, but based on the information that I have at the moment, I contend that He manifested the different living forms primarily via the method propounded by academe. I do not rule out the possibility that there are additional elements such as those you cite which further complicate the picture. But personally I find it safe not to insist on this given that there is no real evidence in support of it. In the end, what you and I are both agreeable on is the logical assumption that, ultimately, consciousness rather than matter lies at the root of everything in the universe.

 

Hare Krishna

[Guest guest]

On this forum, we do not disagree on God's existence. Everyone agrees on scientfic laws in the universe. We just disagree on how life originated in each species. Also, we have not agreed on a common epistemlogy. I know the modern scientists' sources of knowledge. It has weaknesses.

 

Does some expert in the other area know a knowledge system without those weaknesses? If there aren't, then we have to be agnostic or atheist for the not too smart.

[Guest guest]

 

I can see your point and partly agree with you, but I don't think either you or I can presume to know better than professionals who spend their entire careers studying the ground in the case of palaeoanthropologists and DNA and genetic evidence in the case of evolutionary biologists. The empirical evidence available SO FAR clearly supports neo-Darwinian evolution. Or will you now say that mainstream scientists are dunces for adhering to this remarkably resilient theory?

 

Why should the evolution of species by natural selection be incompatible with the philosophy of Krishna/Vishnu consciousness? What precludes Darwinism from being God's way to bring forth life forms on earth? I'd be interested to know your take on that. I see no conflict between the two because for me, the creation myths of Brahma, the Manus etc are just that, i.e. myths, nothing more.

 

Regards to you.

 

""Why should the evolution of species by natural selection be incompatible with the philosophy of Krishna/Vishnu consciousness? What precludes Darwinism from being God's way to bring forth life forms on earth? I'd be interested to know your take on that. I see no conflict between the two because for me, the creation myths of Brahma, the Manus etc are just that, i.e. myths, nothing more.""

 

This is easy. Guru, sadhu, and sastra of the religion all 100% disagree with this scientific theory. Not, a single one will you find.

And yes, the first two may and are expert in science but especially epistemlogy. The third, we do not know enough about but it has a very interesting alternative theory.

You know as it looks to me, evolutionary biology is not proven and Vaisnava creationism is not unproven and it also has a lot of good logic in it; so me, I should not disparage either.

 

Anyway, this religion has loads of books defending its view of reality and its beliefs (as you would believe). There is a reason others do not.

[theist 1]

 

Thinking of it Prabhu, I can understand your astonishment, but please do not get me wrong; I am not a pure rationalist who s to the view that life originated from matter, otherwise I wouldn't be here. I favour the concept of directed evolution - in other words, Krishna/God is behind the entire mechanism, but based on the information that I have at the moment, I contend that He manifested the different living forms primarily via the method propounded by academe. I do not rule out the possibility that there are additional elements such as those you cite which further complicate the picture. But personally I find it safe not to insist on this given that there is no real evidence in support of it. In the end, what you and I are both agreeable on is the logical assumption that, ultimately, consciousness rather than matter lies at the root of everything in the universe.

 

Hare Krishna

 

I agree Vikram this is the essential thing. When I talk to someone of scientific bent (which I am not) I don't enter into their field to try and make this point. No need to straighten out Darwinism. I simply ask for proof that consciousness comes from a certain combination of unconscious molecules. I want to bring the conversation into our field.

 

The more mundane religions have the same problem. Ask any Christian or Islamist to explain the difference between spirit and matter and they are also at a loss. They are as convinced as the Darwinists that they are the material body.

 

What is it we need to learn and then share with the world at large? It is sambandha-jnana of course. The basics of how things are. We need to avoid the trap of entering so deeply into material controveries that we neglect the basic message, we are not these bodies. We are spirit in essence. God is the Supreme spirit and we are His children. The universe is not our home.

 

I believe this is where the Krsna person is unbeatable. Even as laymen before the great scientists we can stand firm on these basic priciples of real knowledge and thus it is shown that even the least competent expounder of Krsna consciosness stands above all the mundane scientists and religionists the world can offer.

 

Thank you for reminding us of that unified position. We must hold fast to it.