Jump to content

The Intelligent Designer

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

This world is created by Maya, the illusory potency of the Lord. The Lord has NO DIRECT ACTIVITY HIMSELF IN THE PROCESS OF CREATION. All the activities of creation are carried out by the energies of the Lord but the Lord Himself remains aloof.


Brahma-Samhita, TEXT 1


isvarah paramah krsnah sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah

anadir adir govindah sarva-karana-karanam


Krsna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.


PURPORT (Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami)


Krsna is the exalted Supreme entity having His eternal name, eternal form, eternal attribution and eternal pastimes...


The glance of His projected fractional portion in the sacred originating water viz., the personal oversoul or Paramatma, gives rise to a secondary potency--nature who creates this mundane universe. This oversoul's intermediate energy (tatastha) brings forth the individual souls analogously to the emanated rays of the sun.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Paramatma (Vishnu) watches the activities of the souls in illusion, but He does not interfere with the actions/reactions they experience in the world of Maya. He appears in this world as Avatara and takes the fortunate souls who become devotees out of this material world, but he does not interfere with the events happening in within the wheel of time (kala-chakra), or the material universe.


Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada:

In Bhagavad-gita, Chapter Fifteen, verse 15, Krsna says, "I am seated in everyone's heart. By all the Vedas, I am to be known; I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I know Veda as it is." The Supreme Lord, seated in everyone's heart, is described in both the Mundaka and Svetasvatara Upanisads: dva suparna sayuja sakhaya... The Supreme Lord and the individual soul are sitting in the body like two friendly birds in a tree. One bird is eating the fruits of the tree, or reactions of material activities, and the other bird, the Supersoul, is witnessing.


The goal of Vedantic study, therefore, is to know the Supreme Lord, Krsna. This point is stressed in the Bhagavad-gita, Chapter Eight, verse 13, where it is stated that by the mystic yoga process, ultimately vibrating the sacred syllable om, one attains to His supreme spiritual planet. In the Vedanta-sutras, the Fourth Chapter, adhikarana 4, sutra 22, states positively, anavrttih sabdat: "By sound vibration one becomes liberated." By devotional service, by understanding well the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one can go to His abode and never come back again to this material condition. How is it possible? The answer is, simply by chanting His name constantly.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, Prabhu,


I urge you to write a letter to the Kansas education board and advise them to modify all schoolbooks for kids in Kansas, adding the following information:

<font color=blue>

The universe was created by a god with four heads and four arms. This god is only the secondary creator. The intelligent designer created this secondary creator. This four headed god sometimes gets frightened when demons arise out of the foam of the ocean of eternity and when that happens the secondary creator prays to Maya (mother nature) asking her to come out of the ears and eyes of the intelligent designer so the intelligent designer will wake up from his snooze of Yoganidra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should also make sure that they get all the facts right when they put this information in the children's school books. Make sure they include a statement that the creator of this universe is not the only creator. There are other creators who have 8, 100 or 1,000 heads and those other creators create other universes which, like this universe, are managed by a god called Indra. This Indra has thousands of eyes all over his body. The eyes used to be another type of bodily organ but they were changed into eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is natural that a philosophical mind wants to know about the origin of the creation. At night he sees the stars in the sky, and he naturally speculates about their inhabitants. Such inquiries are natural for man because man has a developed consciousness which is higher than that of the animals. The author of Srimad-Bhägavatam gives a direct answer to such inquiries. He says that the Lord Sri Krishna is the origin of all creations. He is not only the creator of the universe, but the destroyer as well. The manifested cosmic nature is created at a certain period by the will of the Lord. It is maintained for some time, and then it is annihilated by His will. Therefore, the supreme will is behind all cosmic activities. Of course, there are atheists of various categories who do not believe in a creator, but that is due to a poor fund of knowledge. The modern scientist, for example, has created space satellites, and by some arrangement or other, these satellites are thrown into outer space to fly for some time at the control of the scientist who is far away. Similarly, all the universes with innumerable stars and planets are controlled by the intelligence of the Personality of Godhead.-- SB 1.1.1 pur



Bewildering to hear devotees arguing against ID being taught in schools. Absolutely baffling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is this slideshow? Sadputa was just so far ahead of everyone it seems. This is heady stuff to me.


[snip]Sadäpüta: So mathematics shows that chance alone would never begin to produce the things that go into life, because this, say, is just for one protein, but it's estimated in the simplest cell that they experiment with that there are some three thousand proteins. This is what they estimate. And in a human, in a single cell of the human body, they estimate three hundred thousand, or even three million. It's just an estimate. But it shows that chance is completely unrealistic. Now the scientists will say that both chance and natural laws somehow mysteriously go together in what they call natural selection to produce living structures. In the next slide, this is also a calculation, and it shows that that is not correct either, at least as far as the mathematics goes. What this says is suppose you look at the earth and you're going to wait four point five billion years—that's what they estimate is the age of the earth—and ask what is the chance of finding a given organized structure. And mathematically there's a thing called information theory, and you can show that the chance of getting an organized structure with a high level of information goes down exponentially, so that for an amount of information higher than that of the laws that cause these things to move, the chance goes down practically to zero. So it wouldn't happen. So this gets kind of complicated, but there's a basic point behind it; namely it indicates that the natural laws that are causing things, like that list of those laws, must already have in them, built into them, whatever is going to be manifested. That is, if some given structure can be manifested in the material world, that means the laws that are causing things must already have at least that much built into them. But their understanding of natural laws, the laws are too simple, too short to have that kind of thing built into them. So there's that argument. We'll go on to the next one. This is some mathematical formulas related to that. I don't think we should dwell on that. This slide right here gives an example of the kind of structures you find even in simple organisms. This is a bacterium. When they look at it under a microscope, they can see that this bacterium has a reversible motor built into it, and this motor spins a spiral flagellum, and by spinning it it propels the bacteria through the water, just like a submarine. So this very sophisticated motor is built into the wall of the bacterium. So that shows the kind of structures for which designs would have to be there. Actually, the scientific explanation, the way that they explain how this comes about, is completely impossible, because they would say that either by chance it came about all at once—and the chances are way too small, so that would never happen—or else it would have to come by small stages somehow. But what would be a small stage in the formation of a workable motor? Can't even think of how that would work. So it doesn't make much sense. So what we wanted to argue was that these living structures are very highly complex, they have a very great amount of information needed to specify them, and then mathematically it follows that this evolution process can't happen, because the probability is way down, it's something impossible. So we wanted to argue that. The next slide—whoops, we're going the wrong way, there. We wanted to compare some structures. This is the chemist's idea of what a diamond..., the top picture is a chemist's idea of what the structure of a diamond looks like. It's based on very simple repeating patterns. It's reasonable perhaps that chemical pushes and pulls could produce a simple design like this just by pulling the molecules together. The lower thing is a structure for graphite, which is another simple design built on hexagons. But on the other hand, in living systems you have things like this. (shows slide) According to the way they've analyzed it, there are chemical structures of this complexity. So we'd like to argue that this requires a very large amount of information to specify this thing, and so the simple natural laws couldn't account for this. On the other hand, it's very reasonable to suppose that an intelligent designer can account for things like that. These protein structures that Svarüpa Dämodara was pointing out, it's not just any old structure, but it performs a very specific function within the cell, just like a little automatic machine of some kind. So we'd like to argue that the chance and molecular forces theory won't explain things like this, but to say that there is an intelligent designer would be a sensible explanation. The next slide, this shows some of the complexities of what goes on inside a cell, and it's only a fraction of what is there. It's hard to read, but each little bit of print refers to some very complicated chemical reaction involving big molecules like the one in the last slide. So there are hundreds of reactions like that on this one page, and this page is one out of four from a chart that we found detailing some of these things. This metabolism goes on even in the most primitive cells like this bacterium, and yet it's only a fraction of the total of what goes on. The scientists will admit they've only made a fractional study of all that's going on in these cells. So that kind of argument is one line of reasoning we'd like to present. (another slide) Now this refers to another thing. We'd like to describe the concept of consciousness as being something not material—nonphysical and nonchemical. And it turns out that actually in modern physics that's already a basic principle, and it's been that way for the last fifty or sixty years, but that's not widely admitted or taught in the schools. But actually in modern physics, it's called quantum mechanics. They realize that in order to describe physical processes you have to include the observer in the picture; you can't describe these things without accounting for the observer, and so they made an analysis. This was done by von Neumann, who was one of these physicists. He analyzed the difference between the observer and the observed. So here we have a man looking through, say, a microscope at some object, and you can see that in this case you can draw the line between the observer and the observed. So the man is observing the microscope plus object. And physically there are, according to the physicist's idea, there are these equations, represented by number one, equation number one, which describe all the molecules and forces of interaction on the observed side. But there's another kind of equation that goes in quantum mechanics, which corresponds to the observer's side, and this equation is completely different from the first equation. So this indicates that the observer must be something different in nature from the observed. Now the next slide shows here the boundary between the observer and the observed is moved. It's kind of arbitrary. You can move the boundary back so now the observed becomes the eyeball and the microscope and the object, and the observer is still on the other side. And the basic idea is you can move this boundary back, step by step, and on one side you can put, at least in principle, more and more of the parts of the body into the observed system, but on the other side you still have the observer, and he continues to be described by an equation that can't be reduced to the force laws that are used to describe the observed. So the conclusion is that the observer must be something nonphysical. He's not actually part of that physical body at all. So that's actually basic in quantum mechanics. So we wanted to present that. Now this slide... There's another line of evidence here. It's the inspiration, and Çréla Prabhupäda has said that intelligence is the form direction of Supersoul. So it's interesting, it's really striking to observe how various people create things in mathematics and science and art, like that. It's very striking. So we made two examples here. This one is a mathematician names Gauss. He lived in the nineteenth century, and his concern was to solve mathematical problems. The interesting thing is that in a very difficult mathematical problem, the person never solves it by figuring it out consciously, step by step. But what happens is that he tries very hard to figure it out for a long time, and nothing happens, and then all of a sudden the answer comes to him. So it's hard to read that quote. This is a quotation by this Gauss describing how that happened to him.

Devotee: "I've succeeded not on account of my painful effort, but by the grace of God. Like a sudden flash of lightning, the riddle happened to be solved. I myself cannot say but when the conducting thread which connected what I previously knew with what made my success possible."

Prabhupäda: So the chance theory is the grace of God.

Svarüpa Dämodara: Grace of God?

Prabhupäda: Yes, because if God sees that the rascal is trying for so many years, "All right, give him a chance." (laughter) That is His mercifulness. So what they call chance theory, that is grace of God.

Svarüpa Dämodara: So God is all-merciful.

Prabhupäda: Oh, yes. That is the proof.

Sadäpüta: Actually, this couldn't come about by just chance, because the number of possibilities...

Prabhupäda: There is, but he takes it as chance. All the possibilities taken together he is given by God. That he does not know. He takes it as chance. But there is no question of chance. It is the gift of God.

Sadäpüta: Next example, this is another example taken from music. This example is Mozart. Mozart was a musician. He composed symphonies. And in that quote which-I'll just summarize it instead of reading it—he explains how it was that he created these symphonies. He explained that actually what happened was that ideas just came into his mind, melodic themes and so on, and he says "Whence do they come I do not know, and I have nothing to do with it." And actually what would happen was that an entire symphony would just blossom into his mind, and he wouldn't even know where it was coming from. So..."--

Life comes from life slideshow discussion July 3 1976


Link to comment
Share on other sites



Bewildering to hear devotees arguing against ID being taught in schools. Absolutely baffling.



Obviously you do not understand the basic nature of science. Rejecting the inclusion of theological concepts into science is not atheism. It is just common sense and any devotee/non-devotee who has basic knowledge of science will not support this idea.


Science works on the basis of tangible evidence, which can be observed consistently and objectively. Now examine ID which rests on theory with no evidence and is viewed differently in different religions. In India alone there are over a dozen different stories which cannot be reconciled. The ideas are varied because this is a subjective topic and anyone can come up with just about anything based on personal fancy.


The process of natural selection as explained by Darwin is a considerably intelligent process. One has to be truly biased against science to overlook facts and propose fantasies as alternate paradigms for scientific concepts.


We should not stop here. There are puranic stories in India which say the earth is supported by 8 elephants and whenever one of these move, we have earthquakes. Check the story of Ganga coming down to the earth for details. The next step would be to demand that Indian schools challenge gravity and equilibrium to include the alternate elephant angle in science. Then you can challenge geography based on the bhagavatam description of the world as seven rings, etc. And then prabhupada said the moon is a star which is another hot topic that should be added to science curriculum. We can go on and on.


Why stop with ID?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

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


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


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


Here it is again:



In my opinion, there is absolutely no problem in accepting

scientific opinion regarding the origin of species and the

universe, and at the same time being a devout Vedantin and

follower of Sri Ramanuja.


Let me explain why.


The philosophers of Vedanta typically posit three ways

of "knowing" things: (a) pratyaksha -- perception or

direct observation, (b) anumAna -- inference or logical deduction

such as "where there's smoke, there's fire", and

© Sabda -- the Vedas.


Each one of these ways of "knowing" are independently

valid (svatah prAmANya). One does not need corroboration

from another source of information in its sphere of



Each way of knowing (pramANa) operates in its own

sphere of influence. The Vedas and ancillary scriptures

are part of the 'adhyAtma SAstra', meant for understanding

the supra-sensory, such as the nature of the self, the

nature of God, the nature of consciousness, and the

relation between all of these. Obviously, science has

little bearing in this area.


Similarly, pratyaksha and anumAna (i.e., science) is meant

to understand the world that we see and live in. Whatever

is posited by the Vedas and other scriptures has to agree

with scientific observation. Sri Ramanuja makes the brilliant

point that when one's understanding of the Veda disagrees

with knoweldge obtained through scientific investigation, the

scientific observation is preferred; the Veda

must be reinterpreted to fit with the observation.

Two ways of knowing simply cannot be in conflict.

This principle, in my opinion, reflects a unique genius,

and blends the scientific and religious outlooks.



For example, if the Veda says "the moon is made of

green cheese", but our observations indicate that the

moon is indeed not made of such a substance, the Veda

must be reinterpreted to fit our observation. Perhaps

the Veda means something symbolically or metaphorically --

whatever the case, our observation simply cannot be wrong.


Similarly, science simply cannot tell us about God.


cannot say anything about whether God exists or doesn't

exist, or whether God plays a helping hand in creation,

whether we have free will, whether there is more to life

than bodily experience, or whether God is the ultimate

reality. Science deals only with what we can see, and

what we can deduce from this observation.


Let's analyze the matter further to answer the present



Darwin's theory of natural selection is accepted by

nearly all scientists in some form or another. There are

some so-called scientists who espouse "scientific"

creationism, but most of this theory consists of misquotation

of learned articles and a misunderstanding of the scientific

record. Unfortunately, some of this dubious science

is even propagated by some Vaishnavas today, when before

it was purely the mainstay of extremist Christians.



Should acceptance of evolution, a scientific fact, in any

way affect one's beliefs as a Vedantin? Absolutely not.


There is nothing in our primary shastras that cannot be understood

in the light of commonly accepted science; after all, these texts

are meant to inform us about what we *cannot see* or *reason*

about. (By primary texts, I mean the Upanishads, Gita,

and Brahma Sutras. There are countless secondary texts that

posit illogical and irreconcilable theories of the universe.

But these secondary texts are just that -- secondary.)


Finally, realize that our tradition in particular is a

tradition of experience -- anubhavam. Its foundation does

not lie in a dogmatic assertion of the creation of the earth

at a point of time, or some personality's exuberant vision.

It relies on certain *principle* of life and religious

experience, which are elucidated by the Upanishads, Gita

and Sutras, and reaffirmed and experienced by our Alvars.

These principles neither stand nor fall on the acceptance

scientific evidence about the world around us.



This is one of those issues where the tradition of Vedanta

really stands head and shoulders above the others.


rAmanuja dAsan

Mani Varadarajan





Link to comment
Share on other sites



Sri Ramanuja makes the brilliant point that when one's understanding of the Veda disagrees with knoweldge obtained through scientific investigation, the scientific observation is preferred; the Vedamust be reinterpreted to fit with the observation. Two ways of knowing simply cannot be in conflict.



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



Link to comment
Share on other sites

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


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


From the Lord come both knowledge and forgetfullness.


*Behe is professor of Chemistry Dept. of biological Sciences, Lehigh University.





Link to comment
Share on other sites



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



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


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



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many scientists reject evolution



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




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


Time to separate the men from the boys.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

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


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


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


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


A great teaching oppurtunity presents itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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


<h2>Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami: </h2>


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


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


- from Batasura, by Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Prabhupada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buddhism doesn't concern itself with "creation".


Buddhism is about finding release from samsara.


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


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



Link to comment
Share on other sites

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


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


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


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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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




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


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


see results here:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

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



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



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


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


As I said above:


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


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


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





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



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





Link to comment
Share on other sites



Darwin Under the Microscope


Michael J. Behe

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Link to comment
Share on other sites

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




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



New data has proven that theory wrong.


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


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


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



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



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





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



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



Biologist and former president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grassé states the following about the unchanging nature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution:


Bacteria ...are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. acteria ...exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living insect groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect.


But these examples involve only one or a few mutations, and the mutant organism is not much different from its ancestor. Yet to account for all of life, a series of mutations would have to produce very different types of creatures. That has not yet been demonstrated.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Support the Ashram

Join Groups

IndiaDivine Telegram Group IndiaDivine WhatsApp Group

  • Create New...