the fraud of intelligent design teachings

[mahak 0]

I dont have any time today but Ill start what has been bugging me. Oh, haribol, see how much of a hurry I am in, with the librarian breathin down my neck as I type away.

 

Intelligent design should be welcomed by all Vaisnavas, because it is vaisnavism, the beginning stage of accepting the existance of a Supreme Personality of Godhead. But I smell a political rat, therefroe, I am opposing all ideas of intelligent design taught in public schools. Srila Prabhupada never authorizes anyone to hear about the Supreme Lord from gross materialists. He uses the expression "Milk touched by the lips of a serpant has poisonous effects". In the days to come, I hope to express my concern with the fascists embracing of ID theory.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

O?

 

So lets say fire is not hot - go stick your hand in it for a while and see?

Can't deny the truth. Its hot!

I hear your concerns though of some using it to their advantage.

Ah, don't matter.

Anyone with 1/10 a brain will know that there is a creator reguardless. One only needs to look at the stars in the heavens

[Guest guest]

Thanks, I was wondering if someone wanted to discuss.

 

I like separation of church and state for a very specific reason, and it is not left wing at all. I do not want to hear about god from the lips of a dog.

 

Now we have a law saying we must teach ID in school. But we still cannot deny atheists, hedonists, etc, their certificates. So now we have State Created curriculum of ID being taught by those who dont know what is meant by ID. No good at all, better teach Darwinism without the false conception that has come down, ie, macro vs micro evolution.

 

Micro evolution is valid, and fully provable in the lab, but never is macro evolution of species crossing. So we should get rid of the religion of atheistic darwinism religion being taught in public schools, forcing only science PROVABLE in the lab be taught as fact. To have demons teaching anyone about a Supreme Person is extremely dangerous, maybe even more so than the false sciences presently being taught.

 

A teacher of the Science of the Supreme Intelligent Designer is never appointed, can never be granted such status by passing an exam or endeavoring to receive an academic degree. Such a teacher is sent by God, via the process of Guru Tattwa, to an individual qualified by sincerity to know Him alone. Pyublic schools are not the venue for such actual teaching, however, of course, such institutions should also NEVER practice censorship, banning books or lecturers concerning actual Tattwa concerning the Supreme ID.

 

Whatcha think, yesu, this is not a leftist subject, I will do that elsewhere.

[Guest guest]

First off Mahak there is no law saying ID must be taught. What the lawsuits have been about are allowing teachers and textbooks to give a variation of this simple message:

 

Evolution is not a proven fact. And that there are other theories which alos can account for the origin and diversification of species.

 

Secondly ID is not teaching about God. It's implications are theistic but it's actual methodology is empirical and does nothing but present scientific evidence for the probability of design in biology.

 

You need to take it down a notch with your rhetoric, no one likes to hear religious fanaticism.

[Guest guest]

no sense calling me a fanatic. I was speaking from an ID proponant having his way and forcing ID being taught.

 

I also never said "evolution" is proven, I clearly used adjectives to show which evolution is fact, that is, minor adaptation to environment.

 

An d ID is teaching about God, because intelligent denotes personality, supreme to all beings who were thus created.

[Guest guest]

<h2>How design supporters insult God's intelligence</h2>

 

November 15, 2005

 

By Neil Ormerod, Professor of Theology at the Australian Catholic University.

 

INTELLIGENT design has become the latest hot topic in the increasingly blurred distinction between secular and sacred in Australian society. It has received qualified support from the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, and is being promoted within some Christian schools as an acceptable "scientific" alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. Yet intelligent design is based on a misunderstanding of God's relationship to creation.

 

Much depends on what its proponents mean by the term "intelligent design". If they mean that the universe as a whole displays a profound intelligibility through which one might argue philosophically that the existence of God is manifest, their position is very traditional.

 

However, if by intelligent design they mean that God is an explanation for the normal course of events which would otherwise lack scientific explanation, then this is opposed to a traditional Christian understanding of divine transcendence. In seeking to save a place for God within the creation process, the promoters of intelligent design reduce God to the level of what the early theologian Thomas Aquinas would call a "secondary cause".

 

This is just a more sophisticated version of so-called "creation science", which is poor theology and poor science. As theology, creation science failed to read the biblical story within its historical and cultural context, reading it through the eyes of modern positivism, which equates truth with the accuracy of data. The Bible could only be "true" if it were literally "true" in every detail.

 

This literalist fundamentalism finds few supporters in mainstream Christianity. As science it manipulates the evidence to fit this misreading of the Bible. Intelligent design seeks to go beyond the limitations of creation science. It does not reject or manipulate the scientific data, but argues that the scientific evidence for biological change reveals "intelligent design".

 

Theologically and philosophically the central issue is the nature of chance. The theory of evolution threatens some Christians because it evokes chance in the process of biological change. For Christians, God is the Lord of creation, a provident provider whose determinations are certain. What God wills, necessarily happens. To evoke chance may threaten this.

 

Yet Thomas Aquinas argued centuries ago that because something necessarily happens does not mean it happens necessarily. Chance can still be involved. Aquinas argued that what God wills to happen by chance, will of necessity happen by chance.

 

Two examples show how chance events can lead to determined outcomes. Take a radioactive atom. It is impossible to tell when this atom will decay. Yet if we put lots of atoms together, we can predict with precision how many will be left after a certain time. This is the basis of carbon dating.

 

Or, take the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. Despite the long denials by the tobacco companies, smoking causes lung cancer. The relationship between them is statistical: if we halve the rate of smoking we will halve the rate of related lung cancers. Yet we will never know whose lives we end up saving.

 

The philosophical issue is whether statistical causes are real causes or simply a cover for unknown causes. Even some religious believers want to cling to the type of scientific determinism which has dominated our culture since the initial discoveries of Newton.

 

Nonetheless, we human beings can use statistical causation - chance - to produce determinate outcomes. What the promoters of intelligent design argue is that God is not intelligent enough to produce determinate outcomes using statistical causation.

 

Do they think that God is not intelligent enough to use statistical causation? If we allow that God is more intelligent than us, then the whole basis of intelligent design is undermined. It is an unnecessary hypothesis which should be consigned to the dustbin of scientific and theological history.

 

Neil Ormerod is Professor of Theology at the Australian Catholic University.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/how-design-supporters-insult-gods-intelligence/2005/11/14/1131951095200.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

[Guest guest]

So-called "Intelligent Design" is an unintelligent dogma. It is a hoax.

 

The religious zealots who are trying to push religion into the public schools under the guise of "Intelligent Design" do not even take their own theory seriously. They never even talk about it. They just find things not yet explained by Darwinian evolution and pretend that if there is anything evolution doesn't explain then there must be an Intelligent Designer. I call this the argument from ignorance. The more ignorance the more evidence for intelligent design. However, unlike its proponents, I, as a scientist, have taken a serious look at the theory of Intelligent Design; and what I've found is a lot of evidence AGAINST intelligent design:

 

The nerves in a mammals eye join the photoreceptor cells at the end facing the pupil. They run across the inside surface of the retina and exit together. Where they exit they create a 'blind spot' in our field of vision. So, first, they partly obstruct the retina and, second, they create a blind spot. Why would any intelligent designer adopt this arrangement? The eyes of squids and octopi are wired the right way around, with the nerves connected behind the photoreceptors. Are we to conclude they were created by a "more" intelligent designer?

 

A long time ago humans discovered the advantage of wheels in moving over relatively smooth terrain. Why are there no animals with wheels?

 

Primitive humans discovered the mechanical superiority of metals over bone. Metal prosthetics are now used to replace bones. Metal wires are also five million times faster than neurons in the transmission of signals; yet no animal has metallic nerves. Why did the designer of animals fail to use metal as the structural or neural material of any animal?

 

People swallow and breathe through a shared passage. A design that results in many deaths due to choking on food.

 

Women experience considerable pain in child birth because the birth canal passes through the pelvis which must have a small opening to support the pregnant womb but which must then yield and expand to allow birth. This is easily explained by humans' descent from animals. What is the design explanation for this?

 

The urinary tract of a man passes through the prostate gland, a gland subject to swelling which squeezes shut the urinary track.

 

As humans have designed vehicles, they have found it best to use two wheels, three wheels, four wheels, six wheels, even 18 wheels depending on the surface and the application. The designer of a larger and heavier vehicle on the softer surface uses more wheels to avoid sinking into the surface. Yet among animals the small ones, arthropods, have six or more legs while the large animals have two or four. What is the design explanation for the absence of large animals with six or more legs?

 

Arthropods make an elastic protein, rezulin, which is much more elastic than that in molluscs (abductin) and in vertebrates (elastin). Thus a fly can flap its wings with less energy loss than a horse can run or a scallop can swim. Why would an intelligent designer not use the best protein in all three?

 

When animals with fur get cold, little muscles attached to each hair follicle cause the hairs to stand up, thus thickening the fur and increasing its insulative value. Humans also have these muscles which cause 'goosebumps' when we're cold. This increases our surface area and increases our loss of heat. This is easily explained by our descent From furry animals -- but not by design.

 

In the DNA of all living things there are sequences which have no effect on the development or function of the organism. Collectively these are called 'junk' DNA; its only function is to replicate itself. What is the explanation for this design?

 

Why did the "intelligent designers" of life on Earth start with simple forms and proceed to more complex forms slowly over millions of years?

 

In short, if people had been designed by General Creators Inc., the company would be facing the biggest product liability law suit the world has ever known. Of course none of this fazes the ID crowd because they already know ID is religion and religion doesn't have to make sense.

 

Brent Meeker (meekerdb@rain.org)

[Guest guest]

Why should we believe that microsoft creates software? After all it isn't perfect according to most people. I propose that microsoft never created any software, it evolved from dirt and water.

 

Anyone who doesn't like people teaching that God is the source, designer and controller of everything and takes to jumping up and down and getting all red in the face in their futile attempts at trying to prove God didn't create anything are simply like dogs howling at the moon. They will tire themselves out and end up wth nothing to show for their efforts but a sore throat.

 

They seem to be in ignorance of just whose world they live in. They are hateful of God being given credit for the things God has given to all of us.

 

 

[Yesu_Bhaktan 0]

 

 

Anyone who doesn't like people teaching that God is the source, designer and controller of everything and takes to jumping up and down and getting all red in the face in their futile attempts at trying to prove God didn't create anything are simply like dogs howling at the moon. They will tire themselves out and end up wth nothing to show for their efforts but a sore throat.

 

 

[Guest guest]

From the Theology professor from the above:

 

 

Theologically and philosophically the central issue is the nature of chance. The theory of evolution threatens some Christians because it evokes chance in the process of biological change. For Christians, God is the Lord of creation, a provident provider whose determinations are certain. What God wills, necessarily happens. To evoke chance may threaten this.

 

 

Maybe in his opinion the central issue is chance. But the central issue for the proponets of ID is probability. Chance is a fuzzy term if it isn't given a contextual reference. For instance I can say there is a chance that an asteroid will hit earth eventually within the next 100 million years and that would be an acceptable conclusion based on chance due to the probability of such a thing happening based on past occurences and the number of asteroids in the asteroid belt which leave and head towards the inner solar system.

 

But when it comes to chance development and diversification of species we run into an impasse because of the probability.

 

From Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability

"The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place."

 

From Sir Fred Hoyle, British physicist and astronomer

 

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

 

Also from Hoyle:

 

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein."

 

From Professor Harold Morowitz

 

"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!"

 

From Gerald Schroeder PHD is physics and earth science from MIT

 

Can random mutations produce the evolution of life? That is the question addressed herein.

 

Because evolution is primarily a study of the history of life, statistical analyses of evolution are plagued by having to assume the many conditions that were extant during those long gone eras. Rates of mutations, the contents of the "original DNA, " the environmental conditions, all effect the rate and direction of the changes in morphology and are all unknowns. One must never ask what the likelihood is that a specific set of mutations will occur to produce a specific animal. This would imply a direction to evolution and basic to all Darwinian theories of evolution is the assumption that evolution has no direction. The induced changes, and hence the new morphologies, are totally random, regardless of the challenges presented by the environment.

 

With this background, let's look at the process of evolution. Life is in essence a symbiotic combination of proteins (and other structures, but here I'll discuss only the proteins). The history of life teaches us that not all combinations of proteins are viable. At the Cambrian explosion of animal life, 530 million years ago, some 50 phyla (basic body plans) appeared suddenly in the fossil record. Only 30 to 34 survived. The rest perished. Since then no new phyla have evolved. It is no wonder that Scientific American asked whether the mechanism of evolution has changed in a way that prohibits all other body phyla. It is not that the mechanism of evolution has changed. It is our understanding of how evolution functions that must change, change to fit the data presented by the fossil record. To use the word of Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, it appears that the flow of life is "channeled" along these 34 basic directions.

 

Let's look at this channeling and decide whether or not it can be the result of random processes.

 

Humans and all mammals have some 50,000 genes. That implies we have, as an order of magnitude estimate, some 50,000 proteins. It is estimated that there are some 30 million species of animal life on Earth. If the genomes of all animals produced 50,000 proteins, and no proteins were common among any of the species (a fact we know to be false, but an assumption that makes our calculations favor the random evolutionary assumption), there would be (30 million x 50,000) 1.5 trillion (1.5 x10 to power of 12) proteins in all life. (The actual number is vastly lower). Now let's consider the likelihood of these viable combinations of proteins forming by chance, recalling that, as the events following the Cambrian explosion taught us, not all combinations of proteins are viable.

 

Proteins are coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 300 amino acids. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids in life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein is 20 to the power of 300 (that is 20 multiplied by itself 300 times) or in the more usual ten-based system of numbers, 10 to the power of 390 ( Ten multipled by itself 390 times or more simply said a one with 390 zeroes after it!!!!!) . Nature has the option of choosing among the possible 10 to the power of 390 proteins, the the 1.5 x (10 to power of 12) proteins of which all viable life is composed. Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct. It would be as if nature reached into a grab bag containing a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion proteins and pulled out the one that worked and then repeated this trick a million million times.

 

But this impossibility of randomness producing order is not different from the attempt to produce Shakespeare or any meaningful string of letters more than a few words in length by a random letter generator. Gibberish is always the result. This is simply because the number of meaningless letter combinations vastly exceeds the number of meaningful combinations. With life it was and is lethal gibberish.

 

Nature, molecular biology and the Cambrian explosion of animal life have given us the opportunity to study rigorously the potential for randomness as a source of development in evolution. If the fossil record is an accurate description of the flow of life, then the34 basic body plans that burst into being at the Cambrian, 530 million years ago, comprise all of animal life till today. The tree of life which envisioned a gradual progression of phyla from simple forms such as sponges, on to more complex life such as worms and then on to shelled creatures such as mollusks has been replaced by the bush of life in which sponges and worms and mollusks and all the other of the 34 phyla appeared simultaneously. Each of these bush lines then developed (evolved) a myriad of variations, but the variations always remained within the basic body plan.

 

Among the structures that appeared in the Cambrian were limbs, claws, eyes with optically perfect lenses, intestines. These exploded into being with no underlying hint in the fossil record that they were coming. Below them in the rock strata (i.e., older than them) are fossils of one-celled bacteria, algae, protozoans, and clumps known as the essentially structureless Ediacaran fossils of uncertain identity. How such complexities could form suddenly by random processes is an unanswered question. It is no wonder that Darwin himself, at seven locations in The Origin of Species, urged the reader to ignore the fossil record if he or she wanted to believe his theory. Abrupt morphological changes are contrary to Darwin's oft repeated statement that nature does not make jumps. Darwin based his theory on animal husbandry rather than fossils. If in a few generations of selective breeding a farmer could produce a robust sheep from a skinny one, then, Darwin reasoned, in a few million or billion generations a sponge might evolve into an ape. The fossil record did not then nor does it now support this theory.

 

The abrupt appearance in the fossil record of new species is so common that the journal Science, the bastion of pure scientific thinking, featured the title, "Did Darwin get it all right?" And answered the question: no. The appearance of wings is a classic example. There is no hint in the fossil record that wings are about to come into existence. And they do, fully formed. We may have to change our concept of evolution to accommodate a reality that the development of life has within it something exotic at work, some process totally unexpected that produces these sudden developments. The change in paradigm would be similar to the era in physics when classical logical Newtonian physics was modified by the totally illogical (illogical by human standards of logic) phenomena observed in quantum physics, including the quantized, stepwise changes in the emission of radiation by a body even as the temperature of the body increases smoothly.

 

With the advent of molecular biology's ability to discern the structure of proteins and genes, statistical comparison of the similarity of these structures among animals has become possible. The gene that controls the development of the eye is the same in all mammals. That is not surprising. The fossil record implies a common branch for all mammals. But what is surprising, even astounding, is the similarity of the mammal gene the gene that controls the development of eyes in mollusks and the visual systems in worms. The same can be said for the gene that controls the expression of limbs in insects and in humans. In fact so similar is this gene, that pieces of the mammalian gene, when spliced into a fruit fly cell, will cause a fruit fly eye to appear at the site of the 'splice' . This would make sense if life's development were described as a tree. But the bush of life means that just above the level of one-celled life, insects and mammals and worms and mollusks separated.

 

The eye gene has 130 sites. That means there are 20 to the power of 130 possible combinations of amino acids along those 130 sites. Somehow nature has selected the same combination of amino acids for all visual systems in all animals. That fidelity could not have happened by chance. It must have been pre-programmed in lower forms of life. But those lower forms of life, one-celled, did not have eyes. These data have confounded the classic theory of random, independent evolution producing these convergent structures. So totally unsuspected by classical theories of evolution is this similarity that the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the Untied States, Science, reported: "The hypothesis that the eye of the cephalopod [mollusk] has evolved by convergence with vertebrate [human] eye is challenged by our recent findings of the Pax-6 [gene] ... The concept that the eyes of invertebrates have evolved completely independently from the vertebrate eye has to be reexamined."

 

The significance of this statement must not be lost. We are being asked to reexamine the idea that evolution is a free agent. The convergence, the similarity of these genes, is so great that it could not, it did not, happen by chance random reactions.

 

The British Natural History Museum in London has an entire wing devoted to the evolution of species. And what evolution do they demonstrate? Pink daisies evolving into blue daisies; small dogs evolving into big dogs; a few species of cichlid fish evolving in a mere few thousand years into a dozen species of cichlid fish. Very impressive. Until you realize that the daisies remained daisies, the dogs remained dogs and the cichlid fish remained cichlid. It is called micro-evolution. This magnificent museum, with all its resources, could not produce a single example of one phylum evolving into another. It is the mechanisms of macro-evolution, the change of one phylum or class of animal into another that has been called into question by these data.

 

The reality of this explosion of life was discovered long before it was revealed. In 1909, Charles D. Walcott, while searching for fossils in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, came upon a strata of shale near the Burgess Pass, rich in that for which he had been seeking., fossils from the era known as the Cambrian. Over the following four years Walcott collected between 60,000 and 80,000 fossils from the Burgess Shale. These fossils contained representatives from every phylum except one of the phyla that exist today. Walcott recorded his findings meticulously in his notebooks. No new phyla ever evolved after the Cambrian explosion. These fossils could have changed the entire concept of evolution from a tree of life to a bush of life. And they did, but not in 1909. Walcott knew he had discovered something very important. That is why he collected the vast number of samples. But he could not believe that evolution could have occurred in such a burst of life forms, "simultaneously" to use the words of Scientific American. This was totally against the theory of Darwin in which he and his colleagues were steeped. And so Walcott reburied the fossils, all 60,000 of them, this time in the drawers of his laboratory. Walcott was the director of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. It was not until 1985 that they were rediscovered (in the draws of the Smithsonian). Had Walcott wanted, he could have hired a phalanx of graduate students to work on the fossils. But he chose not to rock the boat of evolution. Today fossil representatives of the Cambrian era have been found in China, Africa, the British Isles, Sweden, Greenland. The explosion was worldwide. But before it became proper to discuss the extraordinary nature of the explosion, the data were simply not reported. It is a classic example of cognitive dissonance, but an example for which we have all paid a severe price.

[Guest guest]

"Introduction: The claim is often made that few or no legitimate scientists or academics have any real doubts about the validity of Darwinism, naturalistic theories of the origins of life, or believe in the real scientific possiblity of intelligent design of life or the universe. The purpose of this document is to list individuals of high academic training who have publicly expressed serious doubts about Darwinism, other naturalistic theories of life's origin, or have expressed support for intelligent design theory, either in scientific journals, books, web-documents, letters, or other public statements. Our criteria for this page is that each individual must either 1) have a PhD, 2) be a professor at a university or 3) be moderately published in scientific journals, or 4) is a member of a mainstream scientific society."

 

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207#list

 

 

 

A counter argument to that theologian in the above article by guest from a Christian theologian who disagrees with the argument posited by him.

 

A Critique of "Theistic Evolution" as a Supplementary Model of the Relationship between Darwinian Theory and Religion, by Jakob Wolf

 

Metanexus Sophia. 2005.02.03.

Jakob Wolf, Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Copenhagen, writes a critique of the concept of "theistic evolution" as a bridge between Darwinian theory and religion. Finding theistic evolution "far too speculative," Wolf finds the Darwinian account of emerged complex systems equally speculative, noting that it is "unable to explain the evolution of these systems in a scientifically satisfactory way." Turning to analogical knowledge over speculative theorizing, Wolf finds that "the discussion between the Darwinian theory and religion has gone awry because the significance of the phenomenological insight has been overlooked."

 

Born 1952. Master of theology from the University of Aarhus, Denmark 1978. 1978-83 studies in Copenhagen and Berlin. Lutheran minister in Lumsaas/Hoejby parish 1983. Phd. from University of Aarhus, doctoral dissertation: Phenomenon and Theory - An Investigation of the Phenomenological Philosophy of Hans Lipps as Precondition for the Philosophy of Religion of K.E.Løgstrup,1984.D.D. from the University of Copenhagen, doctoral habilitation: A World of Colours - Goethes Doctrine of Colours, The Phenomenology of Hans Lipps, The Philosophy of Religion of K.E.Løgstrup, 1990. Ass. Prof. at the Department of Systematic Theology, University of Copenhagen 1995. Has published numerous articles on philosophy and theology and two books: Ethics and the Universe, 1997, and The Hidden God - On Natural Theology, 2001. Has participated in Esssat conferences since 1990.

 

--Editor

 

=-=--=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-==-=-=-

 

A Critique of "Theistic Evolution" as a Supplementary Model of the Relationship between Darwinian Theory and Religion

 

By Jakob Wolf

 

Those who champion theistic evolution accept Darwinian theory as a satisfactory explanation of evolution of nature. They marry the Darwinian theory up with the religious tenet that the natural world is the creation of a transcendent God by claiming that that God delivers the ultimate underpinning for the truth of Darwinian theory. The theologian John F. Haught belongs to this constituency of thought. In his article "Darwin, Design, and Divine Providence" (in Debating Design ed. Michael Ruse and William Dembski, 2004) he sets out some of the standard explanations for how religion can be squared with Darwinian theory.

 

Haught claims that religious explanations lie at "deeper level of explanation" than their scientific counterparts. Given the fact that they function at two different levels, science and religion are not mutually contradictory. Scientific explanations operate at a more superficial level than religious ones. Religious explanations are answers to very fundamental questions such as "Why there is any order at all, rather than chaos; or why there is anything at all, rather than nothing; or why the universe is intelligible; or why we should bother to do science at all." (p.237).

 

It is true that these types of question are pertinent in religious contexts. The question is whether they are relevant to the discussion about the answer delivered by Darwinian theory to the issue of causes behind the evolution of nature and the religious answer to the same question.

 

It is no part of Darwinian theory to claim that there is order rather than chaos in nature. Rather, given the major role assigned to chance in that theory, Darwinianism must be committed to the claim that nature is chaotic. If the religious take on the issue has it that nature is ordered rather than chaotic, then it contradicts Darwinian theory. As for Darwinian theory, it is very difficult to see what grounds it might have for accepting the religious-type claim to the effect that nature is ordered.

 

As for the question as to why there should be anything at all rather than nothing, it is true that the Darwinian theory is predicated on a presupposition that it is unable to explain, namely the existence of matter upon which the Darwinian mechanism can act. Religion and the Darwinian theory are mutually compatible and supplementary, then, because Darwinian theory presupposes that there is something rather than nothing, and this presupposition is explained by the religious claim that the natural world is the creation of a transcendent God.

 

Now if this solution to the problem of how Darwinian theory may be reconciled with the religious claim, whose cornerstone is that nature has been created by a transcendent God, is construed in terms of the Thomistic distinction between a first cause and secondary causes, the question inevitably arises as to how well any such model accounts for the relationship between Darwinian theory and the religious thesis. If, spotting a blackbird in the garden, I should ask what or who created it, I would seem committed to replying that it has evolved through a process involving an unconscious natural selection mechanism working on some random mutations. Is our perception of the particular blackbird at all altered if to this response we add the claim that the evolution of the blackbird via an unconscious Darwinian mechanism presupposes the existence of a transcendent God who set the whole process in train? I fail to see that it is. The problem with the "first cause solution" is that it is too abstract. If we look at the particular creatures of nature, then we do not in fact see them as the result of a creative consciousness.

 

It is equally obscure how Darwinian theory might relate to the issue of the intelligibility of the universe. The claim that the universe is intelligible is an assertion to the effect that there exists an affinity between our intelligence and the rationality [sD4]of the universe. The universe was conceived before being apprehended by us. Our thinking about the universe hooks into the thinking through which the universe was created. According to Darwinian theory, the evolution of nature is not the expression of a conscious intelligence and so Darwinian theory can get no purchase on the claim that the universe is the work of an intelligence whose agency explains why its constitution is intelligible.

 

The final question, which inquires as to why we should bother to do science at all is, as I see it, the ethical question. We should do science because it is for the good of mankind. If science were not to mankind's benefit but to mankind's detriment, then we ought not to be doing science. The problem with that question is while it is not irrelevant per se it is irrelevant to the key issue of how we view the individual denizens of the natural realm. For that is where the ethical dimension takes hold. Our ethical assessment of the organismal world, to which human beings also belong, depends to a very significant extent on how we perceive it. If we look upon the natural realm as the result of the workings of an unconscious mechanism, we conceive of its members differently than we would if we saw them as a result of the agency of a conscious intelligence. I shall return to this issue in the concluding part of this article.

 

Haught goes on to claim that not only is it possible to knit together Darwinian theory and religion, but that Darwinian theory can even enrich the religious theory of creation. The Darwinian theory can be the occasion for "theological growth and renewal". Ian Barbour calls this position integration. The fact that chance plays a significant role in the explanation of the evolution of nature readily consists with the theological idea that God is "humble, self-giving love", Haught claims. If God is self-giving love, he will desist from creating a universe that is deterministic: love does not compel the loved one. "An infinite love, if we think about it seriously, would manifest itself in the creation of a universe free of any rigid determinism (either natural or divine) that would keep it from arriving at its own independence, autonomy, and self-coherence." (p.241). Love implies that you "let the other be". The other is allowed to exercise free will and individual autonomy. This fits well with a theology which has it that God is selfless love, that the universe has been invested with its own autonomous laws of which natural selection is one. God endues the universe with possibilities, and then leaves it alone to actualize and evolve itself. God does not force the universe to do as he wishes, but seeks only to persuade the universe to evolve in the right direction. God does not coerce the universe into obeying his commands, but seeks only to set it on the right course. God takes the "risk of love" - the risk that his creation will make wrong and evil choices. This model for the relationship between God and creation responds to the problem of evil with the argument from free will. "A theology after Darwin also argues that divine Providence influences the world in a persuasive rather than a coercive way. Since God is love and not domineering force, the world must be endowed with an inner spontaneity and self-creativity that allows it to 'become itself' and thus to participate in the adventure of its own creation. Any other kind of world, in fact, is theologically inconceivable. If God were a directive dictator rather than persuasive love, the universe could never arrive at the point of being able to emerge into freedom." (p.243).

 

This integration model is fraught with problems. It is true that, according to Christianity, the divine essence is selfless love. It is also true that in a genuine love relationship the lovers do not force each other to act in ways that run contrary to their own volitions. Love is free. But does it make any sense to apply these concepts, which relate to the sphere of interpersonal love, to God's interactions with the universe and nature as a whole? Concepts such as "freedom" and "autonomy" only make sense when used in relation to creatures in possession of consciousness. If, instead, you apply these concepts across the board to nature and the universe it must surely be in a highly metaphorical sense, and indeed, Haught's text is peppered with quotation marks. A thorough treatment of these issues would require a more probing discussion of process theology, but in the present context that would take us too far afield. Suffice it for me to point out that the weightiest problem facing this religious interpretation of the Darwinian theory is that it is in flagrant contradiction with the theory it purports to interpret. The Darwinian theory claims that the universe and the natural world are the result of unconscious processes. By contrast, the religious interpretation claims that the universe and the natural world are the result of conscious intelligent agency. It is possible to distinguish between a first cause and secondary causes, but it is surely a paradox too far simultaneously to claim that the universe both and is not the manifestation of conscious agency. I find it implausible to claim that chance, which is a central factor in Darwinian theory, and which also plays a role in quantum physics, is not really chance at all but the articulation of the workings of a divine mind. Such a claim fails to take natural science seriously, and undermines it through the addition of pure speculation.

 

The fundamental problem with "theistic evolution" is that it is far too speculative. It starts from an acceptance of Darwinian theory of the evolution of nature: the theory that the evolution of nature results from the workings of unconscious mechanisms. Bolted onto it is the religious claim that evolution of nature is ultimately the work of a conscious creative power. This is achieved by the posit of a creative consciousness underpinning the Darwinian mechanism. It is obvious why any such theory is necessarily highly speculative: at no point does it connect with empirical observations. By contrast, the Darwinian theory is empirically based. A theory about something underlying the Darwinian theory is not. Add to this the fact that what is alleged to be behind the Darwinian theory contradicts it outright and it becomes obvious that the metaphysics being offered is speculative indeed.

 

According to Immanuel Kant speculative concepts are concepts not founded on empirical observations but are, rather, constructed from other concepts. Speculative arguments are theories about theories. The concept of natural selection, which involves the operation of a mechanism on random variations, is a concept applicable to empirical findings: it seeks to explain empirical observations, namely how the living organisms, observable by us, emerge. The concept of a first cause seeks not to explain empirical observations, but rather to establish the ultimate cause of natural selection. The inference from natural selection to its possible cause is an inference within the sphere of pure concepts, as Kant puts it. Speculative concepts such as the concept of a first cause do not, according to Kant, represent genuine cognitions but are mental constructs only, unable to be verified or falsified by empirical observations. The idea of a first cause may be useful as a regulative idea: it may stimulate scientists to persevere in the search for more fundamental causes, but this apart, we should refrain from speculation, according to Kant. Speculative conjectures do nothing to advance knowledge since it is impossible to determine whether they are true or merely arbitrary and illusory ideas. Speculation is in vain. How might we ever set about determining whether Haught's speculations are true or false? We cannot. And when these ideas about what ultimately drives the Darwinian mechanism have so little to recommend them and contribute nothing to the explanation and understanding of the evolution of nature, which the Darwinian theory is purported to account for satisfactorily, why should we accept them? Haught's theoretical constructs about what lies behind the Darwinian mechanism have little persuasive power. Add to that our knowledge of how concerned he is to unite Darwinian theory and religion and it becomes difficult to avoid the suspicion that his theological speculations are nothing but wishful speculations.

 

It may be that it is possible to marry the religious claim that the universe is the expression of a creative consciousness with other natural science theories, but if you hold that the Darwinian theory provides a satisfactory account of the evolution of nature, there would seem to be no cogent way of marrying religion and Darwinian theory.

 

The question remains, however, whether Darwinian theory should be accounted a satisfactory explanation of the evolution of nature. Kant claimed in 1790 that it would be absurd to hope for the emergence of "another Newton" capable of explaining the genesis of a blade of grass from natural laws which were not goal-directed. Darwinists claim that Darwinian theory proffers an explanation that accounts for the emergence of a blade of grass solely by reference to chance and natural laws, not directed by a purpose.

 

But does the Darwinian theory provide us with a satisfactory explanation of evolution of nature? The biochemist Michael Behe has argued that it is improbable that the Darwinian mechanism is capable of explaining the evolution of e.g. highly complex biochemical systems. Darwinian theory maintains that evolution proceeds through gradual incremental changes, but it is improbable that very complex systems evolve in this way since all the parts of which such a system is composed have to be in place if the system is going to work. If the system lacks any of its component parts, it cannot work at all, and will present no advantage to the organism. Consequently, natural selection would not select for such an unfinished system for further evolution. Behe claims that these biological systems are irreducibly complex and that therefore it is highly improbable that they should have evolved solely as a result of the workings of the Darwinian mechanism.

 

Behe put this claim forward in 1996 and it has been vigorously debated ever since. The biochemist Franklin Harold, himself a Darwinist, discussing Behe's claim however concludes: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity (Behe 1996) but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations." (Franklin Harold The Way of the Cell 2001, p.205). An explanation of the evolution of an organism is scientifically adequate only if it is able to account for all the incremental steps required for the building of the system. These steps must be so small that their probability can be calculated. Which means that you should actually be able to quantify the probability of every small step, and so prove that it is reasonably probable that it constitutes a step on the evolutionary ladder. You also have to be able to prove that each step presents an advantage to the organism. Currently, there exist no Darwinian explanations of e.g. the bacterial flagellum which satisfy these criteria. Hence Darwinian accounts purporting to account for the emergence of very complex systems are primarily expressions of the hope that the evolution of these systems is explainable by appeal to the Darwinian mechanism. They are wishful speculations. We have to conclude, rather, that we are currently unable to explain the evolution of these systems in a scientifically satisfactory way. We may hope, however, that at some time in the future we shall be able to do so. But, as in the time of Kant, that remains no more than a hope. The contemporary debate within biochemistry confirms Kant´s conclusions regarding the scope of our epistemic access to the processes by which living organisms evolved.

 

Albeit that Kant deemed it an absurd hope, we cannot in principle rule out the possibility that we shall some day succeed in explaining the evolution of these systems by means of undirected natural laws. There are two things that make such certainty impossible. One is the openness of the future. Nobody can predict the future. New discoveries may be made - new data or new natural laws - which enable us to explain it. The other is that chance is a key factor in the Darwinian explanation. It is not logically impossible that myriad fortuitous mutations occurring simultaneously would explain the emergence of a complex system, but it is not probable. Kant did not declare it impossible in principle that we should one day be able to explain the evolution of living organisms, but he deemed that hope "absurd".

 

Does that mean we must stop here and conclude that we simply do not know how these systems evolved? No, because another possibility spontaneously imposes itself - the possibility, predicated on the analogy between artefacts, e.g. machines, and living organisms - to the effect that these complex systems may have been brought into being by an intelligent cause. For it is an essential feature of machines as well as of organisms that the parts of the whole are so configured and integrated that jointly they perform a function which exceeds the capacity of any single part alone. It is very important to emphasize that this is only a structural analogy; it is not a relation of identity; the organism is not a machine. However, nor is the analogy a piece of speculation; it presents itself spontaneously when you look at, say, the model of the bacterial flagellum. According to this analogy, you are entitled to infer that the emergence of these complex systems is due to an intelligent cause because we know of no artefacts which have not been caused by an intelligent cause. Michael Behe agrees with Kant on this point.

 

The theory that the evolution of the organism is caused by an intelligent cause has been alleged to be synonymous with pseudo-scientific creationism. But is it? A commitment to creationism presupposes a belief in the biblical account of creation. And since, by the same token, the existence of the God of the Bible will figure as a starting premise when you seek to explain the evolution of nature, your aim will be to have the empirical observations dovetail with the biblical account of creation. Thus runs the charge, but it is unfounded. The theory that the evolution of nature is caused by a conscious intelligence does not presuppose any theistic belief. It presupposes merely that you have confidence in the deliverances of your senses and the soundness of your powers of reasoning. The theory springs entirely from the attempt to explain empirical observations and thus has nothing to do with creationism. It has to do with a profound tradition in European philosophy.

 

Kant did not think, however, that this theory is part of natural science and here Michael Behe disagrees with Kant. Behe is of the view that intelligent design theory is indeed a natural science theory. However, I agree with Kant. I to the position that in our tradition natural science is a project defined by a methodological constraint to the effect that explanations of natural phenomena must appeal only to unintelligent causes. Natural science is the endeavour to advance our knowledge under the constraint that only unintelligent causes such as natural laws and chance are legitimately invoked in our explanations. In natural science, appeal to intelligent causes is off limits. Since it refers to an intelligent cause, intelligent design theory does not qualify as science.

 

The fact that intelligent design theory is not science, however, does not automatically place it in the realm of arbitrary subjective cognition. For this insight has a universal validity. We can think of a whole host of explanations which we consider to be valid even though they are not scientific explanations. It is, for instance, impossible to explain the emergence of the mobile phone scientifically. We cannot appeal to the operation of some natural law for the emergence of the mobile phone is a contingent phenomenon. Nor is it caused by chance, nor any combination of natural law and chance. It results from intelligent agency. This is universally acknowledged to be the case; who can deny it? But it is not an explanation in natural science. Likewise, mutatis mutandis, for the insight to the effect that evolution of the organism is the result of intelligent agency.

 

What's more, there is complete consensus on the phenomenological description of the organism, with everyone, including the proponents of Darwinian theory, claiming that it is integral to the structure of a living organism that it comprises a whole whose parts are so arranged and integrated that together they perform a function which no single part can perform alone. This explains why biochemists, for instance, refer to proteins as nano-machines. The Darwinist Richard Dawkins defines biology thus: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." ( Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker 1987, p.6). Biological entities appear to be designed. It is very important to note that everybody agrees on the phenomenological description of the living organism. Disagreement sets in when it comes to explaining the nature of what everybody observes. Is it possible to account for the evolution of the complex organism by appeal to unintelligent causes alone, or does an intelligent cause need to be invoked?

 

The most obvious conclusion to draw is that, owing to the strength of the analogy between a manmade machine and an organism, an intelligent cause is needed. This perception of the matter is the one that most readily imposes itself upon us and has done for centuries. If you think otherwise, the burden of proof rests squarely with you. William Dembski is right on this point. "If a creature looks like a dog, smells like a dog, barks like a dog, feels like a dog and pants like a dog, the burden of evidence lies with the person who insists the creature isn´t a dog. The same goes for incredibly intricate machines like the bacterial flagellum: the burden of evidence is on those who want to deny its design." (William Dembski The Design Revolution 2004, p.222). If the Darwinian explanation of e.g. the bacterial flagellum is unpersuasive, there is no reason to believe that the phenomenological description and analogical inference are unreliable epistemic guides. The phenomenological insight has, as it were, the right of primogeniture. Of course, spontaneous, intuitive, analogical insights can turn out to be false, but since this is true of any kind of cognitive claim it does not amount to a decisive argument for maintaining that whatever is grasped through analogical cognition is false. Any argument to that effect would be metaphysical, not scientific, in character. Phenomenological philosophy has shown that phenomenological cognitions are valid cognitions in their own right. There is no case for disqualifying this mode of cognition per se. If scientific findings show a particular phenomenological insight to be spurious, its claims to validity will have been undermined. But if this is not the case, there is no reason not to have confidence in it. Natural science thus affords a test of the validity of phenomenological insights. However, the phenomenological insight to the effect that nature is the expression of a conscious intelligence has not been repudiated; hence, there is no reason not to have confidence in it.

 

This defence of the phenomenological cognition has nothing to do with the argument from ignorance. The distinction between a stereotypical argument from ignorance, to the effect that "Ghosts and goblins exist because you have not shown me that they do not exist", and, contrariwise, the claim that the phenomenological insight into the nature of the evolution of the organism holds, in that the latter remains unrebutted by scientific evidence. For ghosts and goblins are the fictions of subjective imaginings while the phenomenological perception of the structure of the organism has universal validity.

 

What distinguishes a theory which claims that the emergence of life and the evolution of nature was produced by an intelligent cause, on the one hand, from the Darwinian theory as a theory in natural science, on the other, is the fact that the Darwinian theory is the result of a methodological reduction. The scientific investigation of nature is subject to deliberately chosen constraints. It is our decision, qua scientists, to study nature and produce explanations of the phenomena under scrutiny which appeal only to unintelligent causes such as natural laws and chance. This reductive element means that we neglect our spontaneous phenomenological determination of nature as the expression of conscious intelligence. According to phenomenological philosophy, by contrast, our phenomenological insights are primary, and logically prior to all scientific cognition. Scientific cognition is a secondary, chosen, perspective.

 

The relationship between this theory and religion is, that a religious interpretation to the effect that the evolution of nature is caused by a transcendent creative power is a possible but not necessary inference from the theory that the evolution of nature is caused by a conscious intelligence. This theory allows but does not enforce the interpretation that the evolution of nature is owed to a transcendent creative power. The theory is not a proof of God's existence, but is hospitable to that interpretation. It is certainly possible to think that the intelligent cause which can be inferred from the analogy between the organism and the manmade machine is a manifestation of a transcendent creative power. This religious interpretation is not a speculative conjecture about a primary cause underlying a secondary cause; it is an interpretation that focuses more minutely on what the cause might be. It is not a speculative idea, a theory about a theory, but an attempt to identify the intelligent agent. Moreover, there exists no conflict between the theory that the evolution of nature is caused by an intelligent cause and the religious interpretation. The two are eminently compatible. Both the analogical argument and the religious hypothesis agree that nature is an expression of a conscious intelligence.

 

According to Kant´s analysis of the possibility of knowledge concerning how living organisms evolved, Darwinian theory and religion cohere together, since Darwinian theory is the result of a methodological reduction. According to this model both Darwinian theory and the religious theory are legitimate theories. The Darwinian theory is a legitimate theory functioning as a working hypothesis in the natural science project, an investigation of how far we can get in explaining natural phenomena by appeal to unintelligent causes alone. The religious theory is legitimate, by contrast, as a possible interpretation of the phenomenological cognition. We do not have to choose between religion and the Darwinian theory, not because the two theories harmoniously supplement each other, but because the Darwinian theory as a contradictory theory serves as a test of the validity of the religious interpretation of nature. As for the present the Darwinian theory has not yet been able to falsify the religious theory, and vice versa, the Darwinian theory has not yet been falsified. This may change, nobody knows the future. We do not have to choose between the two theories because both are still fruitful.

 

According to this model the Darwinian theory and the religious theory represent two distinct perspectives on nature. However, this is not postmodern perspectivism. According to postmodernism, all perspectives count as equal and are not interconnected. According to the Kant-inspired model, the natural science perspective is subordinate to the religious perspective because the phenomenological cognition is primary and hence essentially prior to scientific cognition. The natural science perspective results from a methodological reduction. Moreover, the perspectives are not on a par in the sense that we are committed to accepting two or more truths as in postmodernism. If we inquire after the cause of evolution of nature, then the answer is that as far as we know it is a transcendent conscious creative power. The Darwinian theory is not a truth, but a working hypothesis.

 

It seems to me that this Kant-inspired model for the relationship between religion and the Darwinian theory is much more convincing than the "theistic evolution" model. The "theistic evolution model" fails to convince because of its speculative character. On it, you add a further speculative layer to a theory that is already speculative. This amounts to wishful speculation twice over, which is surely too much.

 

The phenomenological model is not speculative. On that model, instead of constructing a speculative conjecture about what might lie behind the Darwinian theory, you perceive that theory to be a legitimate methodological reduction of the phenomenological analogical insight to the effect that nature is the expression of intelligent agency. The religious interpretation of that insight is not a theory of something further behind this intelligence. It is an a hermeneutical attempt to home in on what this intelligence might be. It is not a theory about a theory.

 

The discussion about the relationship between the Darwinian theory and religion has gone awry because the significance of the phenomenological insight has been overlooked. The understanding has been that we stand before two theories which are mutually incompatible: a Darwinian theory of nature which sees it as the outcome of the workings of unconscious mechanisms and a religious theory that holds that nature is the expression of a conscious intelligence. This leads to either an irresoluble conflict, which both creationists and Richard Dawkins agree to be the case, or it leads to highly speculative religious theories about what ultimately lies behind the purported Darwinian mechanism. But speculative religious constructions seek to unite irreconcilables. The two theories are mutually exclusive. It is only possible to accept both given the existence of an intermediary "middle term", which can "mediate" between them. This "middle term" is the phenomenological insight.

 

But does it at all matter whether you see nature as the expression of unconscious mechanisms or as the expression of a conscious intelligence? Or is the disjunction merely an academic issue without practical consequences? In fact, it makes a crucial difference. It impacts significantly upon how we view the realm of nature, which includes human beings. If we look upon our fellow-creatures in the natural realm (and indeed upon ourselves) as the upshot of the agency of conscious intelligence, we see them (and us) as having intrinsic value. What we see as the upshot of a sequence of unconscious processes, we see as bereft of intrinsic value.

 

We can draw an analogy with a work of art. A painting by, say, the Russian painter Kandinsky is regarded as a valuable object. It will fetch several million dollars on the market, but it also has an artistic value which makes it irreplaceable. If we were to lose the painting, we would consider the loss irreparable. We are at great pains to safeguard such works of art. They are held in art galleries in which the humidity and temperature is carefully controlled, etc. If, on a freezing cold day, we took the painting and used it to build a fire in the hearth, everybody would consider our act outrageous and shameful. But what would happen if we were told that this painting was not Kandinsky's work? That a three-year-old child had produced it by scrawling random lines across a canvas before spattering it with paint? The painting would immediately lose all value, and nobody would think it scandalous or shocking to use it as firewood.

 

The analogy between a work of art and nature's creatures is that just as we see a work of art as a harmonious composition of parts, lines, figures and colours, orchestrated into a compelling whole, so also do we see plants and animals and human beings as felicitously integrated wholes. Indeed, nature provides the artist with an inexhaustible source of inspiration. Recall, for instance, the poem of William Blake on the tiger: "Tyger! Tyger! Burning bright / In the forests of the night, / What immortal hand or eye / could frame thy fearful symmetry." A sociological survey conducted in Denmark could report that 77% of all Danes believe that "that no work of art is of as great value as the most beautiful natural objects." (Karen Schousboe I naerheden - om det vaerdifulde Copenhagen 2004, p.61) Inherent in our phenomenological experience of nature is the identification of an analogy between a work of art and natural phenomena, and hence we see the denizens of the natural world too as having an intrinsic value. Just as we find it shameful to destroy a work of art in the absence of a compelling reason for doing so, so do we regard it shameful to destroy one of nature's creatures without very good reason. A commonplace example is that nobody would seek to defend our rendering whales extinct by using their blubber for margarine.

 

The implication of the Darwinian theory is that the phenomenological import of our experience - our phenomenological insights - is illusory. The living world is not the expression of anything - not of any intelligent designer, artist, etc. It comprises nothing other than the products of unconscious mechanisms. When we perceive nature's creations as analogous to works of art and as bearers of intrinsic value, we are the victims of an illusion. Nature's credentials as art are phoney. There is no reason why we should not use nature solely as a means to our ends. It has no intrinsic value. There is no outrage in condemning a species to extinction. Nothing of unique value is lost.

 

There is no question of founding an ethics of nature on the basis of Darwinian evolutionary theory. It may be possible, on that basis, to argue that it is stupid to destroy certain parts of nature because so doing may damage our chances for survival. But as a motive for the conservation of nature generally, this is wholly inadequate. There exist countless species whose loss would have no effect upon our survival chances. We could easily survive without whales, for example. If the Darwinian theory is our only perspective on nature, we can only act stupidly, not shamefully. There is no question that our ways of looking at nature have implications for how we interact with it. What we consider a thing essentially to be determines how we treat it. If we consider nature to be devoid of intrinsic value, we treat it accordingly.

 

A fundamental flaw of theistic evolution is that it leads us to look upon the individual denizens of the living world as evolving from unconscious mechanisms and therefore as organisms with no intrinsic value. Any speculation to the effect that a first cause lies behind the Darwinian mechanism leaves those Darwinian implications intact.

 

The only conception of nature capable of underpinning an ethics of nature is the view that the living world is the expression of conscious intelligence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Christian Zealot Fanaticism and Secular Humanism are both religions that have no place is schools. Darwinism should not be taught as fact, nor should creationism per King James. Reality is far away as possible from these left and right extremes, which is in the center.

 

The word God does not appear in the constitution. This is a secuilar document. Secular education should follow such precepts, freedom of religion and freedom from religion should be what a good constitutionalist should favor. For a Vaisnava favoring teaching religion is public schools, this goes directly AGAINST kRSNAS TEACHING TO aRJUNA. We should give up ALL VARIETIES of religion and surrender to the Supreme Lord, and not favor any religion at all.

 

Religion was taught in my school, a Catholic one. Later, in public school, there was no ACLU banning lecturers or books. But I did not learn anything about God in the classroom, I learned in the parking lot, smoking a Thai Stick, discussing psychedelic prayers with my hipster friends. Why7? NBecause this was the beginning stage of Guru Tattwa, the kanistha (offensive) stage of Good Consciousness, springing forth from Paramatma, and further allowed to mature (somewhat) from He whom was SENT BY THE SUPREME LORD WITHIN. All the professors knew squat about god, but axel, mudmon, and humdow, the asrama of the parking lot, now that is where spiritual discourse took place. Not just in '66, eiyther, because my daughter, tulasi, confirms that there is no shortage of spiritual insight from the skinny puppy / techno crowd.

 

later, and hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

 

Keep it pure, dont hear from demons. Krsna appears to those who want Him, even in a prison house, religion appears to those who want to succumb to the last snare of MAYA.

[Guest guest]

ID will become the popular stance of the new renegades. The world will soon become focussed on the vast wisdom found in the Vedas and in the hearts of true lovers of God.

 

Just as different unfortunate philosophies are required to draw people away from wrong ideologies, so also will the ID school as it moves beyond Eden and Darwin's robotic world view, draw our imagination away from evolutionism and Godlessness.

 

Some the new convert fanatics will become serious about the search for the truth within, leaving behind their test tubes and debate. Somehow or other we have to turn to Krsna.

 

No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

 

My stance will be: if you like the notion of ID you will love the Vedic wisdom - the only world view consistent with both inner space and outer space.

 

Canuck

 

[Guest guest]

Let's just consider two options:

 

<h2>Option 1) God is really, really smart.</h2> He sets up universes so they function without requiring any maintenance. (notice that I don't use the word create, since Vishnu doesn't create according to the Vedas - he "manifests" the brahmanda "universe" from pre-existing stuff - the energized Mahat-tattva). In this model, the living beings within the universe perform good and bad actions (karma) and their actions, their yajnas, tapas, and sins etc. keep the universal wheel turning round and round. The Lord sometimes appears in the world and gives His darshan to jivas, and liberates them, but he is not involved in doing any work to keep the karma-wheel turning. That is, He descends in this world and enjoys His lila but he is free from all involvement in karma.

 

quote:

jnanam te' ham sa-vijnanam idam vaksyamy aesatah

yaj jnatva neha bhuyo 'nyaj jnatavyam avasisyate

In the Bhagavad-gita (7.2) Krsna says, "Arjuna, now I shall explain to you scientific knowledge

not only about the soul, but also about its potency. The mind, the senses, and the modes of nature

are all non-atma, or material. There is a direct and indirect approach towards reality which I shall

now explain to you. Please listen attentively to Me: jnanam te 'ham sa vijnanam. What is this?

There is Myself and My potency, and the jiva, the living entity, is the marginal potency which is

filling up all these material worlds." If the jiva-sakti, the spiritual potency, were withdrawn, then everything would be stone, and who would care for exploitation? All this fighting tendency, this

tendency for exploitation would stop if the marginal potency, the jiva, were withdrawn from

matter. Everything would be dead. The soul has entered into this material consciousness and has

made it a moving thing. You should understand this properly, in a scientific way. We are not lacking

in our ability to give you a scientific explanation.

- Srila Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar Maharaj

 

<h2>Option 2) God is an intelligent designer.</h2> He creates universes that require him to make all sorts of mundane decisions in order to make the universe keep moving along. If he doesn't keep a constant check on his creations then things fall apart.

To explain what I mean let me elaborate on something that was brought up in a quote above.

quote:

<blockquote>

The nerves in a mammals eye join the photoreceptor cells at the end facing the pupil. They run across the inside surface of the retina and exit together. Where they exit they create a 'blind spot' in our field of vision. So, first, they partly obstruct the retina and, second, they create a blind spot. Why would any intelligent designer adopt this arrangement? The eyes of squids and octopi are wired the right way around, with the nerves connected behind the photoreceptors.

</blockquote>

If God is an intelligent designer and he plans the details of all living beings bodies, then He must have planned that humans have a blind spot in their eyes but that squids and octopus have no blind spots - and much better vision. Why was this? Again, eagles also have superior vision to humans. Why is it that an intelligent designer designed different sorts of eye machines - poor quality snail eye machines, average quality human eye machines, high quality squid eye machines. Some of the designs might be called "intelligent designs" such as the eyes of an octopus. In fact octupi have such excellent perception of colour that they are able to change their own bodily colour to camouflage themselves - a skill which humans cannot emulate and which is partly possible because of their awesome ability to perceive colours and imitate patterns of colours. Anyway, in this model we are discussing, an intelligent designer is engaged in doing lots of experiments and making eyes for snails and tentacles for jellyfish. This intelligent designer is very "engrossed" in the complexities of the material world. He is not a transcendent Being - He is a process worker who spends lots of time managing life on earth. Like a quality assurance worker who checks products on a conveyor belt at a factory. We know that long ago there were dinosaurs on this earth, and we expect that the bodies of those dinosaurs must have required a high level of project managment skills in their design and maintenance, when the intelligent designer was working on them and watching them eat each other and lay their eggs. But we wonder, truly, if an intelligent designer such as this is really "God". Because in the Bhagavad gita our Lord says:

 

Chapter 3, Verse 22.

O son of Prtha, there is no work prescribed for Me within all the three planetary systems. Nor am I in want of anything, nor have I need to obtain anything--and yet I am engaged in work.

 

<hr>

That is, Krishna says he has no prescribed work to do but that he does work in the world in order to teach DHARMA. He doesn't have to do anything to maintain the universe. He doesn't have to come into the world to manage molecules and DNA and dinosaurs. He comes here to attract souls and lead them towards their home in Vaikuntha.

 

Krishna is God. Not that "intelligence" that created the eyes of snails.

 

[Guest guest]

http://vedabase.net/sb/3/9/30/en

[Guest guest]

From Teachings of Lord Caitanya

 

According to a mantra in Taittiriya Upanisad (yato va imani bhutani jayante) this cosmic manifestation is but an emanation from the Supreme Absolute Truth, and it rests in the Supreme Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth has been called the ablative, causative and locative performer. Thus as a performer, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for these are symptoms of personality. As the ablative performer of this cosmic manifestation, all thinking, feeling and willing come from Him. Without thinking, feeling and willing, there is no possibility of arrangement and design in the cosmic manifestation. Then again, He is causative, for He is the original designer of the cosmos. And He is locative: that is, everything is resting in His energy. These attributes are all clearly attributes of personality.

 

 

From Purport Srimad Bhagavatam 2.10.13

 

In the Bhagavad-gita (9.7-8) the creation and annihilation of the material world are stated as follows:

 

sarva-bhutani kaunteya

 

prakrtim yanti mamikam

 

kalpa-ksaye punas tani

 

kalpadau visrjamy aham

 

prakrtim svam avastabhya

 

visrjami punah punah

 

bhuta-gramam imam krtsnam

 

avasam prakrter vasat

 

"At the end of each millennium the creative forces, namely the material nature and the living entities who struggle in the material nature, all merge together into the transcendental body of the Lord, and again when the Lord desires to manifest them, all of them are again displayed by the Lord.

 

"Therefore the material nature is working under the control of the Lord. All of them, under the agency of material nature and under the control of the Lord, are thus repeatedly created and annihilated by the will of the Lord."

 

As such, before the creation or manifestation of the material cosmic world, the Lord exists as total energy (maha-samasti), and thus desiring Himself to be diffused to many, He expands Himself further into multitotal energy (samasti). From the multitotal energy He further expands Himself into individuals in three dimensions, namely adhyatmic, adhidaivic and adhibhautic, as explained before (vyasti). As such, the whole creation and the creative energies are nondifferent and different simultaneously. Because everything is an emanation from Him (the Maha-Visnu or Maha-samasti), nothing of the cosmic energies is different from Him; but all such expanded energies have specific functions and display as designed by the Lord, and therefore they are simultaneously different from the Lord. The living entities are also similar energy (marginal potency) of the Lord, and thus they are simultaneously one with and different from Him.

 

 

From Purport Sri Brahma-samhita 5.62 by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura

 

By discarding all these speculations, you and your bona fide community should adopt the ultimate principle identical with the doctrine of acintya-bhedabheda (inconceivable simultaneous distinction and nondifference). This will make you eligible for being a true devotee. The basic principle is that this animate world is made up of jivas and the inanimate world is constituted of matter. Of these all the jivas have been manifested by My supreme (para) potency and this phenomenal world has been manifested by My secondary (apara) potency. I am the cause of all causes. In other words, I regulate all of them by the power of My will although I am not a different entity from the marginal and material (tatastha and acit) potencies. By the transformation of those distinct potencies pradhana (substantive material principle), prakrti (material cause) and purusa (efficient cause) have been produced. Hence although as regards the subjective nature of all potency I am pradhana, prakrti and purusa, yet as the possessor of power I am eternally distinct from all those potencies. This simultaneous distinction and nondifference has also sprung from My inconceivable power. So let the attainment of love for Krsna by the practice of pure devotion through the knowledge of their mutual true relationship that subsists between the jiva, the jada (matter) and Krsna based on the principle of inconceivable simultaneous distinction and non-difference, be My instruction for being handed down in the order of spiritual preceptional succession in your community (Sri Brahma-sampradaya).

 

 

 

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 13.3

 

O scion of Bharata, you should understand that I am also the knower in all bodies, and to understand this body and its knower is called knowledge. That is My opinion.

 

PURPORT

 

While discussing the subject of the body and the knower of the body, the soul and the Supersoul, we shall find three different topics of study: the Lord, the living entity, and matter. In every field of activities, in every body, there are two souls: the individual soul and the Supersoul. Because the Supersoul is the plenary expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, Krsna says, "I am also the knower, but I am not the individual knower of the body. I am the superknower. I am present in every body as the Paramatma, or Supersoul."

 

One who studies the subject matter of the field of activity and the knower of the field very minutely, in terms of this Bhagavad-gita, can attain to knowledge.

 

The Lord says, "I am the knower of the field of activities in every individual body." The individual may be the knower of his own body, but he is not in knowledge of other bodies. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is present as the Supersoul in all bodies, knows everything about all bodies. He knows all the different bodies of all the various species of life. A citizen may know everything about his patch of land, but the king knows not only his palace but all the properties possessed by the individual citizens. Similarly, one may be the proprietor of the body individually, but the Supreme Lord is the proprietor of all bodies. The king is the original proprietor of the kingdom, and the citizen is the secondary proprietor. Similarly, the Supreme Lord is the supreme proprietor of all bodies.

 

The body consists of the senses. The Supreme Lord is Hrsikesa, Which means "the controller of the senses." He is the original controller of the senses, just as the king is the original controller of all the activities of the state; the citizens are secondary controllers. The Lord says, "I am also the knower." This means that He is the superknower; the individual soul knows only his particular body. In the Vedic literature, it is stated as follows:

 

ksetrani hi sarirani

 

bijam capi subhasubhe

 

tani vetti sa yogatma

 

tatah ksetra-jna ucyate

 

This body is called the ksetra, and within it dwells the owner of the body and the Supreme Lord, who knows both the body and the owner of the body. Therefore He is called the knower of all fields. The distinction between the field of activities, the knower of activities, and the supreme knower of activities is described as follows. Perfect knowledge of the constitution of the body, the constitution of the individual soul, and the constitution of the Supersoul is known in terms of Vedic literature as jnana. That is the opinion of Krsna. To understand both the soul and the Supersoul as one yet distinct is knowledge. One who does not understand the field of activity and the knower of activity is not in perfect knowledge. One has to understand the position of prakrti (nature), purusa (the enjoyer of nature) and isvara (the knower who dominates or controls nature and the individual soul). One should not confuse the three in their different capacities. One should not confuse the painter, the painting and the easel. This material world, which is the field of activities, is nature, and the enjoyer of nature is the living entity, and above them both is the supreme controller, the Personality of Godhead. It is stated in the Vedic language (in the Svetasvatara Upanisad 1.12), bhokta bhogyam preritaram ca matva/ sarvam proktam tri vidham-brahmam etat. There are three Brahman conceptions: prakrti is Brahman as the field of activities, and the jiva (individual soul) is also Brahman and is trying to control material nature, and the controller of both of them is also Brahman, but He is the factual controller.

 

In this chapter it will also be explained that out of the two knowers, one is fallible and the other is infallible. One is superior and the other is subordinate. One who understands the two knowers of the field to be one and the same contradicts the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who states here very clearly, "I am also the knower of the field of activity." One who misunderstands a rope to be a serpent is not in knowledge. There are different kinds of bodies, and there are different owners of the bodies. Because each individual soul has his individual capacity for lording it over material nature, there are different bodies. But the Supreme also is present in them as the controller. The word ca is significant, for it indicates the total number of bodies. That is the opinion of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana. Krsna is the Supersoul present in each and every body apart from the individual soul. And Krsna explicitly says here that the Supersoul is the controller of both the field of activities and the finite enjoyer.

 

 

 

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 13.30

 

One who can see that all activities are performed by the body, which is created of material nature, and sees that the self does nothing, actually sees.

 

PURPORT

 

This body is made by material nature under the direction of the Supersoul, and whatever activities are going on in respect to one's body are not his doing. Whatever one is supposed to do, either for happiness or for distress, one is forced to do because of the bodily constitution. The self, however, is outside all these bodily activities. This body is given according to one's past desires. To fulfill desires, one is given the body, with which he acts accordingly. Practically speaking, the body is a machine, designed by the Supreme Lord, to fulfill desires. Because of desires, one is put into difficult circumstances to suffer or to enjoy. This transcendental vision of the living entity, when developed, makes one separate from bodily activities. One who has such a vision is an actual seer.

[Guest guest]

Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 3, Verse 22.

O son of Prtha, there is no work prescribed for Me within all the three planetary systems. Nor am I in want of anything, nor have I need to obtain anything--and yet I am engaged in work.

 

--------

He has no work to do. Everything is done by His Divine Energies, which serve him. He comes and works as a charioteer of Arjuna, but he doesn't spend any time and effort designing DNA sequences.

[Guest guest]

There is a difference between divine consciousness and material consciousness.

 

God is in divine consciousness.

 

But a mind that is absorbed in material work is not divine.

[Guest guest]

 

 

He has no work to do. Everything is done by His Divine Energies, which serve him. He comes and works as a charioteer of Arjuna, but he doesn't spend any time and effort designing DNA sequences.

 

 

Do you think DNA forms itself?

 

Try to hear. Krishna is the Cause of all causes. Who do you think placed Brahma on the lotus to begin with? We read above from the SB that Brahma was given the intelligence to recreate the planetary systems. Now who do you suppose gave Brahma that intelligence? And whose intelligence did Brahma receive? Afterall Krishna is the cause of all causes. The sole Source and Possessor of all that be. So Krishna gave Brahma a particle of His own intelligence concerning Brahma's duty as the secondary creator (visarga). Krishna also gives the ant the intelligence on how to act as an ant. Krishna's intelligence is everywhere behind the material phenomenon. Behind a flower growing, a bird flying etc. Every thing manifested, every manifested thing perceived, the act of perception itself is a testament to the Intelligent Presence of the Supreme Lord.

 

But yet He is Independent and aloof. Acintya bhedabheda.

 

YB

[Guest guest]

Vedantists are of course far ahead of the ID folks and eons ahead of evolutionists. We can see that the progression of life forms in the fossil record is simply the evolution of the soul from one species to another. Supply and demand. Actually, demand and supply, order fulfillment. Soul XYZ now requires a monkey body; and the big supply and demand computer system that dresses souls with material forms dictates in advance the demand for a monkey body at the exact instant it is needed by the reincarnating soul.

 

Since this whole thing, unbeknownst to science, is about the soul which is transcendental, we must therefore conclude that the control of such a system must also be transcendental. That's a bit of a logical mouthful, but I think it can be shown to be quite valid if given a little quality reflection.

 

Savage Mute

[shvu 1]

 

Of any two conflicting positions, that which leaves the most number of questions unanswered shall be rejected.

 

Position One

Life developed from simple primates into complex systems over time as explained by evolution and also substantiated with plenty of evidence. Of course, one may complain that a continuous stream of evidence is lacking, which is more than likely as nature does not preserve evidence over billions of years perfectly. Science does its best by examining whatever evidence is at hand. The gaps will be filled as more evidence is uncovered. It is an ongoing process. Evolution of simple forms into complex forms is a clear indication of the innate intelligence of nature.

 

Position Two

An invisible "intelligent" creator waved his wand and set forth the various life forms including the centipedes, snakes, leeches, the reptiles, and in general the whole predator system (for no conceivable reason) and let us face it -- life forms which can do with a lot of improvement or in other words, life forms that come with flawed designs. It is not known who created this creator, it is not known what the motive is behind creating the various life forms, it is not known why this alleged creator is hidden from sight leaving no evidence of his existence, it is not known why this creator created imperfect designs.

 

Which of these two positions is more plausible?

 

A group of people finding no answers to the existence of life on the planet assumed there must be an intelligent, hidden cause behind this and assigned creatorship to this hidden entity. With no evidence of any kind, they now expect to push this as science into schools. Once this is done they will move onto step two, which is to discredit evolution and ban it as a false theory. Step three would be to name this intelligent creator as the god of the bible and anyone who says otherwise, including Hare Krishna! ( Yeah...belief in false gods is just as worse as no belief in god) will be charged with blasphemy & burned at the stake or stoned to death in public. And before anyone realizes it, we would have gone back to times 1000 years ago.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

Religious Studies prof gets beat up and loses job over opposition to ID:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/08/creationism.professor.ap/index.html

[Guest guest]

Looks like the "believers" are getting ready to burn the witches and scientists. And when they are finished with them don't you know they will burn the Hari Krishna's too!

 

quote:

<blockquote>

On Monday, Mirecki was treated at a Lawrence hospital for head injuries after he said he was beaten by two men on a country road. He said the men referred to the creationism course. Law enforcement officials were investigating.

 

Mirecki, who joined the university in 1989, is an expert in ancient Mediterranean cultures, languages and religions.

</blockquote>