Dharmic Religions Only: Evolutionary Science and Hindu/Buddhist worldviews.

[sayak83]

This thread is dedicated to exploring the significance of the science of evolution from the perspective of Hindu/Buddhist worldviews. On several occasions within Hinduism DIR, the topic of evolution came up and several members expressed strong reservations about it. So I thought that I would create a dedicated same faith debate thread that looks at the reason why some who believe in the dharmic religions either do not believe that the evolutionary theory is true or that it is in opposition to their religious beliefs. If you hold either of these positions, I encourage you to converse with me so that I get a better sense on why you disbelieve in the science of evolution as it is presently understood by most biologists.

I for one, believe that the current state of evidence makes evolutionary theory as justified as quantum mechanics or atomic theory. I hope to convince you that within a scientific framework, one would be irrational to not accept evolution as extremely well justified by the evidence. So the accusation that evolutionary biologists are doing poor science flavored by extraneous ideological motives in proposing and defending evolution is a false accusation. I also hope to convince you that many strands of Hindu or Buddhist thought have no problems in accepting evolution as consonant with their overall philosophy/theology.

My next post will provide a brief highlight reel of the very basic points of evolutionary biology. Its just an opening sketch of the theory I will try to defend.

 

[sayak83]

Evolution is a scientific theory. Like all scientific theories it tries to explain and predict certain features and phenomena that could be observed in the natural world. Like all scientific theories, its acceptance among scientists depend on how well it does this job as compared to other proposed theories in explaining the already observed features and predicting new features that are to be observed in future. So what features is the theory of evolution trying to explain and predict. Here a few:-
Evolution seeks to explain
a) The origin of the diversity of life as we see it today.
b) The patterns that exist within this diversity of life. Why certain species look similar to each other and other look different. Why the combination of species found in different places differ. Etc.
c)The reason why living things have the features they have and behave the way they do. Eg:- Why do whales and dolphins have such different features than fish and sharks even though they all swim and live in the open ocean. Why some lay eggs and some give live birth. Why some are cold blooded and some hot blooded. Etc.
d) The patterns of ancient life as evidenced by the fossils of extinct living things and how to make sense of the narrative from the fossil record in a coherent manner so as to connect with the observed biosphere today.

Evolution seeks to predict
a)How species and ecosystems would respond to changes that are occurring in them by natural events or man made intrusions.
b) To predict and uncover current evolutionary trajectories, especially of fast evolving micro-organisms that cause disease. Using the knowledge of evolution to guard against their evolving capacity to adapt to our responses.
c)How to more effectively create and manage human directed artificial evolution (genetically modified crops, disease resistant crops, gene therapy as cure for hereditary conditions etc.)

Some of the central ideas of evolution are as follows:-

• Evolution is the change between generations within a population lineage defined by ancestor-descendant relationship. A population is defined as a group of living organisms that interbreed or share genetic material among them often enough to be considered to belong to a common gene pool.
• Genes are portions of the DNA/RNA strand present in every cell of every living thing that directs what protein to build and when and in what order. Proteins are the primary building blocks of the physical body and responsible for controlling all processes that go on in living things that make them alive. So all the feature of a living organism depend on what protein are being made, when and in what concentrations. All of this is directed by the information present in the many many genes in the DNA .
• Change within a population of interbreeding individuals are seen over generations when genes get modified or the relative frequency of occurrence of various genes change.
• The engine of such change are various kinds of mutations that occur to the DNA while it gets replicated during the process of reproduction. Each such change is called a mutation. For humans, the rough average number of such mutation occurring for a single couple and their child is 200. The parts of my DNA that come from my father differ from my father in about a 100 places and similarly for the parts of my DNA that comes from my mother.
• These changes may change protein production enough to change the features of the offspring in ways that affect their own survivability. If the new modifications help in survivability, it in turn creates more descendants over others in the population. This makes the new modifications of the genes becoming more frequent over time. The opposite is the case for modifications that harm the organism. In the natural world, factors that affect survivability are all natural features (climate, food source etc.) and hence this "pruning and strengthening" of new modifications is called natural selection.
• Over time, as new features accumulate, the descendant population may look and behave so differently from the ancestor that it can no longer be categorized as the same species as the ancestral population. So biologists classify it as a new species.
• Speciation occurs if an original homogeneous population gets separated from each other and accumulate away adaptive mutations in their own different ecosystems till they are so different that they no longer interbreed.

Ok, that should be enough for now. Questions? Clarifications?

 

[Terese]

May i add, most of the objections in the Hindu DIR recently are almost exclusively Human-centric. As in, Whether humans evolved from our ape-like ancestors.

 

[Aupmanyav]

About which no person should have a doubt. It is well established in science. Similarly the initial expansion of universe is well established. About origin of life, some people hopothize that life building molecules came here riding on comets. But these molecules are so common in the universe, then we can as well imagine that life started on Earth itself. Personally, I discount the origin of life from space.

For me, acceptance of these theories is no problem because I have just one belief, that is that all things in the universe came up from the energy present at the time of the proposed Big-Bang. That I know as Brahman, the universal substrate/substance.

There are problems galore in all these suppositions. Origin of life has not been proved. What existed before inflation (expansion of universe) is not known. We do not know the nature of Dark energy and Dark matter. And the last and the most important question - whether universe is eternal or it arose from 'absolute nothing'. Answers to these questions are not available at present. I leave it to the future generations to try and find the answers. I would not come to a conclusion. Even my acceptance of Brahman is subject to that important question.

I do not believe in God, soul, creation, birth, death, rebirth, heaven, hell, punishment, reward, etc. I have understood what can be understood today. And that I term as enlightenment, nirvana, moksha, freedom from questions, doubts. Can't do much about what is unknowable today. Then, what makes me a Hindu? My adherence to the precept of duties ('dharma') makes me a Hindu, my tradition, culture makes me a Hindu. My coreligionists worship various Gods and Goddesses. They are mythological figures. There may be some truth about them at the base. Their stories contain what is expected of a Hindu. That is why I respect them and their stories, though I worship none. I am comfortable with theists, they don't have my mental make-up which came up with my bringing up and education. They have a right to look at the universe in their way unless they get too superstitious. I don't think that is a good thing. I am happy with the way things are.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Thank you for the post Sayak83 ji, You have given a good overview of evolutionary principles. You also have yet to provide evidence for the ideas presented above (which no doubt you will later) and when you do, we can critically evaluate it . I cannot criticize a theory alone, evidence must be presented first. Now I completely agree with you, there are some schools in Hinduism that do accept evolution, there is no problem with that. However some schools (like the Vaishnav schools) do not. I will briefly explain their positions.

Vedanta epistemology (i.e means of obtaining knowledge) has its source in three categories. These are, Pratyuksa (Direct sensory inference),Anumana (logical process) and Sabda (communication). Now, Pratyuksha and Anumana are both non-perfect, because they operate within a human basis (i.e it is one's senses and one's thought processes that form these proofs). This does not mean that they are wrong, but rather they have the possibility to give flawed results. These are due to the four defects present intrinsically within the body (for example the eye cannot see into the depths of an atom. Neither through any instrument can we directly see the fundamental units of nature. Another flaw is that the senses are able to be put under illusion). Sabda however can be flawed or not, depending on the source. For the astika schools of Hinduism, the Vedas are an infallible source, and hence the knowledge contained within them is perfect (free of defects). This is accepted by all schools of Vedanta, as the founding acharyas (Sankaracharya, Ramanuajcharya, Madhavacharya, Sridhara Swami and later Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Vallabhacharya) have accepted this. This is why the Acharyas of Vedanta used scripture as evidence when establishing their theologies . Now for Vaishnav schools,the reason why the Vedas are infallible is because they have emerged from the mouth of Sri Narayana in the beginning of creation. This includes Sruti (Upanisads) and also Smrti (Gita, Puranas, Itihasas). So, when there is a blatant contradiction between the claims Scripture and another pramana, then the scriptural version must be accepted. This is evident in the writings of all the Vaishnav acharyas, who always accepted Sabda when there is an apparent contradiction. Now, according to the Puranas, all species of life were created by Brahman and his sons (especially through the progeny of Dakhsha Prajapati). This account is found in Srimad Bhagavatam canto 6 chapter 6 and is confirmed by Visnu Purana. Furthermore, the Puranas claim that humans have been on this earth from the beginning, dating millions of years back (this is in accordance with the concept of cyclic time, or Yugas). This is in direct contradiction with modern day evolutionists who say that humans as a species only came into being a few thousand years ago. For further archaeological proof refer to "Forbidden Archaeology" by Michael Cremo. The book provide primary archaeological evidence published later in many scientific journals, of human artifacts and remains which date further back than current evolutionary theory can explain.

The second objection to modern day evolutionary theory, is given by the Vedantic opposition to Abiogenesis. As I have expressed quite thoroughly in my previous post, the modern concept of abiogenesis (i.e consciousness can arise from chemical interactions) is opposed to the Vedantic understanding (that consciousnesses is altogether separate and superior to material elements). The Vedantic view has been expressed quite scientifically in this article by Bhakti Nishkama Santa (Ph.D). He also wrote a scientific refutation of Darwanist abiology using evidence from 21st century biological findings. That report can be found here.

So from these two oppositions above, hopefully I have shown why the Vaishnav schools of Vedanta, disagree and reject Darwin's theory of evolution and instead put forth their own theory in which it is consciousness that evolves through various species, while the species themselves remain the same. We are happy for other schools to complete believe in it, but evolution is incompatible with our philosophy.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't understand. How can matters of faith attempt to deny scientific knowledge?

(...)

Furthermore, the Puranas claim that humans have been on this earth from the beginning, dating millions of years back (this is in accordance with the concept of cyclic time, or Yugas). This is in direct contradiction with modern day evolutionists who say that humans as a species only came into being a few thousand years ago.

The Homo genus is currently believed to be 2 million years old, while Homo Sapiens Sapiens (our species and subspecies) is 200 000 years old by current knowledge.

The idea that humans might be less than 10 000 years old is not scientific at all, but rather Abrahamic.

For further archaeological proof refer to "Forbidden Archaeology" by Michael Cremo. The book provide primary archaeological evidence published later in many scientific journals, of human artifacts and remains which date further back than current evolutionary theory can explain.

That is a 1998 book. Not having read it and having no idea how falsifiable and peer-reviewed its claims are, I won't opine.

The second objection to modern day evolutionary theory, is given by the Vedantic opposition to Abiogenesis. As I have expressed quite thoroughly in my previous post, the modern concept of abiogenesis (i.e consciousness can arise from chemical interactions) is opposed to the Vedantic understanding (that consciousnesses is altogether separate and superior to material elements). The Vedantic view has been expressed quite scientifically in this article by Bhakti Nishkama Santa (Ph.D). He also wrote a scientific refutation of Darwanist abiology using evidence from 21st century biological findings. That report can be found here.

So from these two oppositions above, hopefully I have shown why the Vaishnav schools of Vedanta, disagree and reject Darwin's theory of evolution and instead put forth their own theory in which it is consciousness that evolves through various species, while the species themselves remain the same.

Abiogenesis is still speculative, although the Theory of Evolution is not.

Neither really deals with consciousness in any way, though. I can't even imagine how any conception of the origin of consciousness would possibly conflict with either abiogeneis or the Theory of Evolution. Or, for that matter, how it could possibly be involved with biological findings or knowledge in any way.

I take it that by "Darwinist abiology" you mean Abiogenesis? That is not a Darwinistic idea, but rather a logical extrapolation from it. Challenging it is not at all a refutation of the Theory of Evolution.

As for Bhakti Nishkama Santa's text, it is utter garbage with no scientific worth at all. It is just a cheap ideological piece that is not even well-informed on the basics of Darwinism.

He seems to be a PhD on Coastal Hydrodinamics, if this source is any good. His understanding of biology is rather embarrassingly low, if the article is any indication. Worse still, he does not realize that he should not hold such a strong position on matters that he clearly does not understand, let alone attempting to present it as somehow scientific.

http://scsiscs.academia.edu/BhaktiNiskamaShantaPhD

 

[निताइ dasa]

don't understand. How can matters of faith attempt to deny scientific knowledge?

My goal here is not to disprove evolution, but rather show that it is incompatible with Vaishnav theology. If the affirmative side provides some evidence of their claims then we can critically analyse that evidence according to both our world views. As for your second statement, when we get down to the every fundamental level, faith is the basis of all knowledge whether it is scientific of scriptural. I am happy to elaborate more about this, but I don't feel it is relevant.

The Homo genus is currently believed to be 2 million years old, while Homo Sapiens Sapiens (our species and subspecies) is 200 000 years old by current knowledge.

The idea that humans might be less than 10 000 years old is not scientific at all, but rather Abrahamic.

I never said humans are less then 10 000 years old. In fact I am saying the opposite, that they are older than what is currently accepted today.

Abiogenesis is still speculative, although the Theory of Evolution is not.

I would disagree, because in my view some aspects of evolution are huge extrapolations (macroevolution)

Neither really deals with consciousness in any way, though. I can't even imagine how any conception of the origin of consciousness would possibly conflict with either abiogeneis or the Theory of Evolution.

I take it that by "Darwinist abiology" you mean Abiogenesis? That is not a Darwinistic idea, but rather a logical extrapolation from it. Challenging it is not at all a refutation of the Theory of Evolution.

What I am saying is that consciousness must be taken into account when dealing with these matters. That is why I find the Vedanta viewpoint logical, Until modern day evolutionists can conclusively show the origin of consciousness, I will always find the Vedanta worldview more logical. I prefer not to mix and match ideas from differing fields of knowledge.

As for Bhakti Nishkama Santa's text, it is utter garbage with no scientific worth at all. It is just a cheap ideological piece that is not even well-informed on the basics of Darwinism.

Love this, "utter garbage:, "no scientific worth", "not well-informed" ahahaha. Gotta love how you jump to the level of Ad Hominem so quickly, without having read the piece in the first place. Typical "call the author names in order to minimize his position, yet in no way address the actual arguments made". That is not a sign of an open mind. Bhakti Nishkama Santa's youtube videos are very informative and from the way he speaks about his subject matter shows that he knows quite a lot about biology. He has been invited to speak at multiple universities and biological conferences and talks on this matter (with prominent Indian biologists I may add). You don't seem to have a Ph.D in biology, yet you don't see me insulting your arguments with such slurs. Please learn the proper etiquette of debate before you engage in one.

Anyway I have given my view on this topic. Let us wait for other Hindu/Buddhists to weigh in.

 

[LuisDantas]

My goal here is not to disprove evolution, but rather show that it is incompatible with Vaishnav theology.

If you say so. But if that is the case, that shows that the theology must be revised.

If the affirmative side provides some evidence of their claims then we can critically analyse that evidence according to both our world views.

May you please clarify this?

As for your second statement, when we get down to the every fundamental level, faith is the basis of all knowledge whether it is scientific of scriptural. I am happy to elaborate more about this, but I don't feel it is relevant.

Take a look that the relationship between falseability and the scientific method before we can further discuss this.

I never said humans are less then 10 000 years old. In fact I am saying the opposite, that they are older than what is currently accepted today.

The current scientific understanding is that humans existed for200000 years, not 10000.

I would disagree, because in my view some aspects of evolution are huge extrapolations (macroevolution)

Well, "macroevolution" isn't even a scientific concept, because it is not needed. The idea that they have not been demonstrated is an urban legend at odds with the facts and with current scientific knowledge, and has been for decades.

What I am saying is that consciousness must be taken into account when dealing with these matters. That is why I find the Vedanta viewpoint logical, Until modern day evolutionists can conclusively show the origin of consciousness, I will always find the Vedanta worldview more logical. I prefer not to mix and match ideas from differing fields of knowledge.

Consciousness is not at all a biological concept, so I can't make any sense of this. Particularly your last claim, that is a direct contradiction of the rest of this paragraph.

 

[LuisDantas]

Love this, "utter garbage:, "no scientific worth", "not well-informed" ahahaha. Gotta love how you jump to the level of Ad Hominem so quickly, without having read the piece in the first place.

You are wrong. I did read the piece. It is utter gargabe, regardless of who wrote it.

That he is speaking way out of his field of knowledge may explain why it is utter garbage to a degree, although it does not explain why he bothered to present it as if it were a formal article craving scientific relevance.

Typical "call the author names in order to minimize his position, yet in no way address the actual arguments made".

Except that you are lying. I did read the article and I am calling his bluff. Then I found out a possible, partial reason for the bluff to exist in the first place. Ad Hominem is something else entirely.

That is not a sign of an open mind.

The kind of "open mind" needed to lend relevance to such an article is quite anti-scientific and should not attempt to present itself as at all respectful of science.

Bhakti Nishkama Santa's youtube videos are very informative and from the way he speaks about his subject matter shows that he knows quite a lot about biology.

That is odd if true, then. Because the article shows that he is either lying or very confused about the basics. Maybe it is a forgery?

He has been invited to speak at multiple universities and biological conferences and talks on this matter (with prominent Indian biologists I may add). You don't seem to have a Ph.D in biology, yet you don't see me insulting your arguments with such slurs. Please learn the proper etiquette of debate before you engage in one.

Proper etiquette of debate does not involve lending such garbage any credibility, sorry.

Anyway I have given my view on this topic. Let us wait for other Hindu/Buddhists to weigh in.

 

[निताइ dasa]

If you say so. But if that is the case, that shows that the theology must be revised.

I disagree. That is a materialistic position to take, and is not accepted by everyone

May you please clarify this?

As I have written already in the previous post, Vedic epistemology is based upon three sources (Pratyuksha, Anumana and Shabda). The first two (Pratyuksha and Anumana) are essentially the basis that science is ground upon (i.e science uses sensory or other empirical data in combination with logic to make conclusions about the world around us). However, each of these three sources are based upon an assumption and thus require a "leap of faith" if you may in order to yield any infomation from them. I will briefly describe the assumptions in each:

Pratyuksha (direct sensory inference): This pramana (or proof), assumes that the senses actually perceive reality adequately enough to make valid conclusions based upon them. The sense are faulty (there is no doubt about that), and what real proof is there that they are actually telling us the truth (i.e they perceive the ultimate reality)? Think of it like this, if you are in a dream, the senses within that dream, still gather information (about the dream world) yet to make conclusions based upon that data and call it pertaining to the ultimate "reality" is a wrong conclusion. Unless you make the assumption that the dream is the greatest reality. This principle is the basis of the philosophy of solipsism (bought into prominence in the west by Rene Descartes), and till this day it cannot be logically disproved. You can never be sure, whether this world, as perceived by your senses is real or not, and assuming so requires faith. What if you are dreaming? What if your brain is in a matrix? Another very important tool that supports this is called the "veil of perception". Imagine that you are trapped in closet with only a small gap that allows you to see the outside world. The gap only gives you a small, not whole picture of the room. Now, do you really think that making a conclusion simply based upon that incomplete data and calling it "reality' is logical? Now let us draw the same situation for us. We interact with the external world (if it even exists) with the senses. Now, how can we conclusiveness say that all the information that is found in the external world can be observed our senses? What if there is other forms of information that require "other senses" (apart from the five we have) or worse, they can't be collected with senses. There is no way to logically disprove this also and therefore this also becomes an assumption that naturalists make (naturalists believe that everything in nature can only be explained in terms of nature itself). Science assumes there is nothing beyond the empirical (and hence evidence must be something you can 'observe'), while theism assumes there is (i.e God cannot be observed empirically but testimony says He exists) Both assumptions require faith.

Anumana (logic): now the flaw of this pramana arises when one thinks that one's ability to reason logically can accurately map and predict the external environment. Furthermore there are a number of logical fallacies that arise when logic is used incorrectly. Logic requires the use of previous assumptions and axioms to work, and these require faith also. (i.e the axiom "a cause leads to an effect". Tis cannot be logically proven, and must be assumed as true before used. This also requires faith.)

Sabda (testimony): The main assumption here is that the person who is telling you the data is in fact telling you the correct facts. You have faith in the testimony of scientists (from a subjective point of view you haven't done the experiments yourself, nor have you witnessed the results, you are placing faith in textbooks and scientific journals for your so called "scientific verified data").

Hence since these three forms of knowledge sources exhaust all possible forms of knowledge, it is hence concluded that all knowledge is based upon faith. This is what Sri Krsna says in Bhagavad Gita:

"Shraddavan labhate jnanam" or "A person with faith acquires knowledge". Without faith you can't do anything, it is the basis of all knowledge and hence action.

The current scientific understanding is that humans existed for200000 years, not 10000.

I really don't understand, I am not saying Humans are younger than 10 000 years. I am saying they are millions of years old.

You are wrong. I did read the piece. It is utter gargabe, regardless of who wrote it.

That he is speaking way out of his field of knowledge may explain why it is utter garbage to a degree, although it does not explain why he bothered to present it as if it were a formal article craving scientific relevance.

This is exactly ad hominem. You are attacking the author because of his qualifications (i.e you think he hasn't studied biology professionally) rather than the argument. that is not how you debate. No-one has the right to call another's argument rubbish simply because they disagree with it. Rather, if you disagree with an argument than oppose it through argument, don't resort to calling it "rubbish". There is nothing that annoys me more, then proud individuals prancing around labeling other's views as "rubbish".

The kind of "open mind" needed to lend relevance to such an article is quite anti-scientific

See, I think that statement goes against everything science claims it stands for. So I beg to differ.

Proper etiquette of debate does not involve lending such garbage any credibility, sorry.

And nor does calling an argument garbage, without a logical refutation.

 

[Terese]

If you say so. But if that is the case, that shows that the theology must be revised.




May you please clarify this?



Take a look that the relationship between falseability and the scientific method before we can further discuss this.



The current scientific understanding is that humans existed for200000 years, not 10000.




Well, "macroevolution" isn't even a scientific concept, because it is not needed. The idea that they have not been demonstrated is an urban legend at odds with the facts and with current scientific knowledge, and has been for decades.




Consciousness is not at all a biological concept, so I can't make any sense of this. Particularly your last claim, that is a direct contradiction of the rest of this paragraph.

What Nitai-Dasaji is saying is that modern humans have existed for millions of years.

Thank you for the post Sayak83 ji, You have given a good overview of evolutionary principles. You also have yet to provide evidence for the ideas presented above (which no doubt you will later) and when you do, we can critically evaluate it . I cannot criticize a theory alone, evidence must be presented first. Now I completely agree with you, there are some schools in Hinduism that do accept evolution, there is no problem with that. However some schools (like the Vaishnav schools) do not. I will briefly explain their positions.

Vedanta epistemology (i.e means of obtaining knowledge) has its source in three categories. These are, Pratyuksa (Direct sensory inference),Anumana (logical process) and Sabda (communication). Now, Pratyuksha and Anumana are both non-perfect, because they operate within a human basis (i.e it is one's senses and one's thought processes that form these proofs). This does not mean that they are wrong, but rather they have the possibility to give flawed results. These are due to the four defects present intrinsically within the body (for example the eye cannot see into the depths of an atom. Neither through any instrument can we directly see the fundamental units of nature. Another flaw is that the senses are able to be put under illusion). Sabda however can be flawed or not, depending on the source. For the astika schools of Hinduism, the Vedas are an infallible source, and hence the knowledge contained within them is perfect (free of defects). This is accepted by all schools of Vedanta, as the founding acharyas (Sankaracharya, Ramanuajcharya, Madhavacharya, Sridhara Swami and later Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Vallabhacharya) have accepted this. This is why the Acharyas of Vedanta used scripture as evidence when establishing their theologies . Now for Vaishnav schools,the reason why the Vedas are infallible is because they have emerged from the mouth of Sri Narayana in the beginning of creation. This includes Sruti (Upanisads) and also Smrti (Gita, Puranas, Itihasas). So, when there is a blatant contradiction between the claims Scripture and another pramana, then the scriptural version must be accepted. This is evident in the writings of all the Vaishnav acharyas, who always accepted Sabda when there is an apparent contradiction. Now, according to the Puranas, all species of life were created by Brahman and his sons (especially through the progeny of Dakhsha Prajapati). This account is found in Srimad Bhagavatam canto 6 chapter 6 and is confirmed by Visnu Purana. Furthermore, the Puranas claim that humans have been on this earth from the beginning, dating millions of years back (this is in accordance with the concept of cyclic time, or Yugas). This is in direct contradiction with modern day evolutionists who say that humans as a species only came into being a few thousand years ago. For further archaeological proof refer to "Forbidden Archaeology" by Michael Cremo. The book provide primary archaeological evidence published later in many scientific journals, of human artifacts and remains which date further back than current evolutionary theory can explain.

The second objection to modern day evolutionary theory, is given by the Vedantic opposition to Abiogenesis. As I have expressed quite thoroughly in my previous post, the modern concept of abiogenesis (i.e consciousness can arise from chemical interactions) is opposed to the Vedantic understanding (that consciousnesses is altogether separate and superior to material elements). The Vedantic view has been expressed quite scientifically in this article by Bhakti Nishkama Santa (Ph.D). He also wrote a scientific refutation of Darwanist abiology using evidence from 21st century biological findings. That report can be found here.

So from these two oppositions above, hopefully I have shown why the Vaishnav schools of Vedanta, disagree and reject Darwin's theory of evolution and instead put forth their own theory in which it is consciousness that evolves through various species, while the species themselves remain the same. We are happy for other schools to complete believe in it, but evolution is incompatible with our philosophy.

Nitai-Dasa, what do you mean 'the beginning'? Also, if humans always existed, how come our ancestors millions of years ago did not become subject to change? Are you saying humans stayed physically the same for millions of years?

 

[निताइ dasa]

? Also, if humans always existed, how come our ancestors millions of years ago did not become subject to change? Are you saying humans stayed physically the same for millions of years?

I believe they did change. Natural selection works, however mutations cannot ever produce "new" information, they simply remove or change the existing genetic code. More often than not, such mutations are not favorable and the majority are harmful (the protein stops working negatively affecting function) or harmless (they don't affect bodily function to the point it provides a survival advantage).. I am saying that the first humans were genetically perfect, however as time went on they lost such "superior features" and devolved to the humans we see today. As for fossil records of "ape-men" they were not common ancestors but rather separate and unique species (called in Ramayan as "Vanaras", or ape men) who became extinct long ago. The Puranas say that in Satya Yuga, people had a very long average life, and were very tall. They could live without eating for days and were in pristine health. However as the yuga's progressed (Treta, Dwapara and Kali) the average life span,height, and religiosity of humans decreased. Mutations reduce the gene-pool, they don't cause it become more complex, especially comparing the staggering structural and functional differences between species today, I don't believe something as random and non-directional as mutation could have led to such complex formations. For me, saying "mutations did it" is sorta of like saying "God did it". That is also why I am reluctant to support microevolution because I have not found conclusive evidence that persuades me to support that a common simple ancestor can branch off into more complex and distinct species.

 

[atanu]

Abiogenesis is still speculative, although the Theory of Evolution is not.
Neither really deals with consciousness in any way, though.

This is my view too.

 

[kalyan]

#1 If the theory of evolution
was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.

#6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none.

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults

Darwin and his monkey gang can't keep people in the dark in this internet age ......Its waste of time to spend much more on this topic for evolution is debunked by science itself

/EndThread

 

[Aupmanyav]

The idea that humans might be less than 10 000 years old is not scientific at all, but rather Abrahamic.

If we go by the four-yugas of Hinduism, the age of well-formed humans (no less than modern humans, but perhaps even better) will be 3,893,000 years in the current cycle (since the beginning of Satya yuga).
Luis, you will find a hard time defending science here. 'Sabda' is irrefutable.

 

[sayak83]

May i add, most of the objections in the Hindu DIR recently are almost exclusively Human-centric. As in, Whether humans evolved from our ape-like ancestors.

I understand. But the theory is for all biology. So I thought I would start from the general theory and evidence for it, see how it is applicable for non-human species, and subsequently see what kind of evidence has led to it being extended for humans as well.

 

[crossfire]

I agree with the Dalia Lama's quote:

"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."

~Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality (2005)​

Your mileage may vary.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Namaste

Bullet points regarding our concern that the HaMsa and ParamHaMsa sages of SatYuga were spiritually highly evolved beings and had a lot of physical endurance as well. ( For better understanding of where I come from please see the quote below from the Hinduism DIR)

A personal Hindu take - reconciling Veda shAstra with biological findings (which could be the right idea but inaccurate and insufficient in detail) :

• Manus are not on the same plane as modern humans -- they are more like demi-gods or super-celestials. The are said to have MONITORED the manifestation of herbs, birds, reptiles etc. BhAgvat and other purANa do not give us details of exact periods of how long it took for these species to manifest or come into being. Remember one Manu lives over the entire period of 1 manvantar = 28 chatur-yuga! Let us not forget this. Let us also not forget the kalpa - bheda that explains the inconsistency between purANa - it is not inconsistency, but narrations of different kalpas.

• The HaMsa paramhaMsa of SatYuga which lived at least 3 million years ago (Sat Yuga being 1200 deva varsha - celestial yrs i.e. 1,200,000 earth years) wore valkhale tree bark) -- note that they were so in tune with nature that they could understand the language and bhAvanA (emotions/feelings) of fishes underwater, birds in the sky and other beings. They treated all creatures with respect. They KNEW that the AtmA lived in all of them. They figured that out because they had a special grace from paramAtmA , Parameshwar, the Supreme Brahman'. At the same time they were very very simple beings. They were very civilized and intelligent for the environment they lived in. OK. Define civilized and prove how civility can regress/progress/both through biological evolution.
• Point 1 tells us that the karma of the haMsa of SatYuga was very clean. They were very pure and innocent. The vices of modern society had not entered their hearts.
• I read somewhere that the Neanderthals in the cold north also had some connection with the creatures and nature although they were very primitive hunter-gatherers
• The more recent examples -- Native Americans had the sixth sense of changes in nature, earthquake warnings without seismographs, had some spiritual understanding and connected it to how natural phenomena occured (Purusha-PrakRuti)
• PLUS, remember that Lord BramhA had to do some trial-and-error SRushTI (creation) several times before releasing His final version. Out of the first few attempts came undesired outcomes -- rAkshasa and some dangerous or evil beings. (BhAgvat PurAN)

• Back to the paramhaMsa of Sat Yuga : Can such beings attain/possess physical bodies that biologically evolved from what evolution tells us are the immediate predecessors of homo-sapiens ? Let us leave aside modern day prejudices and concepts of what is society, civilization, advancement, intelligence.
• Consider HanumAn, a vAnara of tretA-yuga -- who was a param yogi RAm bhakta and would be classified by modern science as an ape. He wrote the Holy Names of Shri RAma on big rocks / stones that made them float on the Indian Ocean to make a bridge to Lanka.
• Now consider that the evolution is not a simple linear time-line but HAS TO BE a very complex multi-dimensional map of what happened to which species. Not to leave out the possibility of marraige/ mating between sister species or similar species.

• Therefore I would say that while the basic concept of the evolution theory may have some weight (which is an observation of the result of spiritual transformation and transmigration of the jIvAtmA), the details may not be very accurate, since the scientific proofs are only empirical, observational and based on samplings. Just because I do not see some evidence does not mean it never happened, and just because I see 2 things in a row I may not honestly connect them without enough truthful evidence.

CONCLUSION

• Therefore, the Veda shAstra teachings of transmigration of jIvAtmA is the underlying truth unseen to science and evolution is a partial biological physical material side-effect of this underlying truth. So the theory of evolution presented by science may not be rejected as a basic whole while taking into consideration the Hindu teachings.

|| Shri KRushNArpaNamastu ||

Namaste,

saccidAnanda rUpAya vishwatpathyAdi hetave |
tApa-trya-vinAshAya Shri KRushNAya vayam numah: ||
Some points regarding recent things – I just saw many busy threads, have not read them all

However, here is how I see it...
Please Note: The following is mostly for the agnostics, but we must all respect science, scientists and the scientific community for they only make statements on what they can see, prove and infer within their range of available indrIya.

Evolution (spiritual ,and resulting observation - material)
Certainly it is the sUkshma sharIra that evolves – mAnas-buddhi and carries saMskAra from one birth to next like “fragrance of flowers carried by wind” according to BhagavAn Shri KRshNa –
B.G. 15.8 sharIram yad avApnoti
yachcha-api utkrAmatIshwarah:
gRhItwaitAni sauMyAti
vAyurgandhAn iva-AshayAt

Now, how do you expect the karma of Ape 1 to be drastically different from karma of Ape 2 his neighbor? It cannot be. It is collective karma. memes. Mob-pscychology. They all march in step with very very similar karma in the same natural habitat, so they evolve marching in step, gradually.

What chances do you see a mosquito turning into a dinosaur due to past karma? NIL!
The poor mosquito can do only so much good or evil!
Maa PrakRutI also has a responsibility, does She not? She cannot place a dinosaur in an environment that does not suit its survival.

Another point : "Why do we still have apes around if current evolution theory is correct?" was the qn raised.
Ans: They exist because their group and individual karma places them there. They could have been something totally different at the time or could have been a sister species that did not learn well.

Doesn’t Shrimad BhAgvatam, the crown jewel of purANa and Padma PurAN state that manushya janma is a prized possession because it is attained after going through 84 crore yonis of various lower species ? Is this not the evolution science tells us about by observation? However, science only sees a small portion of the whole picture.

Limitations of modern science
So, while science makes observations on jaDa prakRuti ONLY, what it has been observing is the result of collective karma of habitats and species as Mother Nature “naturally” expects them to transform without special intervention (I will say transform rather than evolve).
Science does not make statements on things it cannot "see" --- which is not a bad thing. Therefore it does not know or understand the existence of Manus, Rshis, prajApatis, etc. co-existing with very primitive species of life many many years ago. No human or Rshi fossils are found because they were cremated - this is also well-known.

 

[sayak83]

Thank you for the post Sayak83 ji, You have given a good overview of evolutionary principles. You also have yet to provide evidence for the ideas presented above (which no doubt you will later) and when you do, we can critically evaluate it . I cannot criticize a theory alone, evidence must be presented first. Now I completely agree with you, there are some schools in Hinduism that do accept evolution, there is no problem with that. However some schools (like the Vaishnav schools) do not. I will briefly explain their positions.

Vedanta epistemology (i.e means of obtaining knowledge) has its source in three categories. These are, Pratyuksa (Direct sensory inference),Anumana (logical process) and Sabda (communication). Now, Pratyuksha and Anumana are both non-perfect, because they operate within a human basis (i.e it is one's senses and one's thought processes that form these proofs). This does not mean that they are wrong, but rather they have the possibility to give flawed results. These are due to the four defects present intrinsically within the body (for example the eye cannot see into the depths of an atom. Neither through any instrument can we directly see the fundamental units of nature. Another flaw is that the senses are able to be put under illusion). Sabda however can be flawed or not, depending on the source. For the astika schools of Hinduism, the Vedas are an infallible source, and hence the knowledge contained within them is perfect (free of defects). This is accepted by all schools of Vedanta, as the founding acharyas (Sankaracharya, Ramanuajcharya, Madhavacharya, Sridhara Swami and later Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Vallabhacharya) have accepted this. This is why the Acharyas of Vedanta used scripture as evidence when establishing their theologies . Now for Vaishnav schools,the reason why the Vedas are infallible is because they have emerged from the mouth of Sri Narayana in the beginning of creation. This includes Sruti (Upanisads) and also Smrti (Gita, Puranas, Itihasas). So, when there is a blatant contradiction between the claims Scripture and another pramana, then the scriptural version must be accepted. This is evident in the writings of all the Vaishnav acharyas, who always accepted Sabda when there is an apparent contradiction. Now, according to the Puranas, all species of life were created by Brahman and his sons (especially through the progeny of Dakhsha Prajapati). This account is found in Srimad Bhagavatam canto 6 chapter 6 and is confirmed by Visnu Purana. Furthermore, the Puranas claim that humans have been on this earth from the beginning, dating millions of years back (this is in accordance with the concept of cyclic time, or Yugas). This is in direct contradiction with modern day evolutionists who say that humans as a species only came into being a few thousand years ago. For further archaeological proof refer to "Forbidden Archaeology" by Michael Cremo. The book provide primary archaeological evidence published later in many scientific journals, of human artifacts and remains which date further back than current evolutionary theory can explain.

You are correct. There is a significant difference between how epistemology is done within Vaisnava schools and how it is done within Nyaya-Vaiseka and probably Advaita Vedanta schools. For Nyaya school (and probably Advaita as well) only those parts of the scripture (even within Vedas and the 12 major Upanisads) that pertain to ultimate transcendant truths are classified within sabda-pramana. If a section's exegesis can be done in two seperate dimensions, one that pertains to the physical world and society (laukika) and another that pertains to the transcedant aspects of reality (alaukika) - then its the transcendant meaning that is primary and authoritative while the mundane meaning fallible and hence subject to verification/falsification. These latter laukika parts can be accepted as long as there is no source of doubt from contradicting this secondary meaning, but when doubt comes up, one needs to argue about it using pramana theory and accept/modify/reject the lesser meaning.
The vaishnava school does not accept this formulation of sabda pramana. Why not?

The second objection to modern day evolutionary theory, is given by the Vedantic opposition to Abiogenesis. As I have expressed quite thoroughly in my previous post, the modern concept of abiogenesis (i.e consciousness can arise from chemical interactions) is opposed to the Vedantic understanding (that consciousnesses is altogether separate and superior to material elements). The Vedantic view has been expressed quite scientifically in this article by Bhakti Nishkama Santa (Ph.D). He also wrote a scientific refutation of Darwanist abiology using evidence from 21st century biological findings. That report can be found here.

This is odd. I always thought that Vedanta (the non Advaita type) considered the mind to be physical and a subtler manifestation of the same 3 gunas (sattva, rajas, tamas) that characterize the rest of prakriti, following Samkhya philosophy in this matter. Are you mixing up consciosuness (manas) with the Self (Atman)?
The articles are interesting but necessarily superficial as they critique everything from Bacon's philosophy to emergence! So I would like it that you quote small parts of the article or Cremo's book that you like through an argument of own so that we have a live discussion. We can go step by step and slowly. No hurry.

So from these two oppositions above, hopefully I have shown why the Vaishnav schools of Vedanta, disagree and reject Darwin's theory of evolution and instead put forth their own theory in which it is consciousness that evolves through various species, while the species themselves remain the same. We are happy for other schools to complete believe in it, but evolution is incompatible with our philosophy.

I understand why your school disagrees with evolutionary theory (and the entirety of science if you guys are starting your criticism from Roger Bacon!) . Hopefully as the thread goes on, we will go into the justifications behind your and my own positions in more detail. I will make two points:-
1) Contrary to what the articles are stating many of the modern biologists who the author states as refuting Darwinian evolution (like Shapiro) consider their ideas as continuation and elaboration/improvement of the evolutionary theory that began with Darwin's work. There is some misunderstanding going on here, for reasons I do not understand.
2) I would say that the pragmatic justifications for science as espoused by Bacon is in line with Nyaya philosophy at least. The second article by Niskama Shanta states Bacon as saying that utility is the measure of truth. This is exactly what Nyaya philosophers had been saying for 2000 years ,noting also that freedom from suffering and rebirth by moksa is also an utility! Vatsayaana in his Nyayabhasya writes (this is from my notes, do not have the book right now):-

By cognition, a cognizer (jnani) grasps an object in his conscious mind. This then creates either a desire for that object or an aversion from it. Then he makes an effort to either obtain it or to avoid it. Success is then the coming together of that activity with its reward (actually obtaining or avoiding the object) and the contentment one feels due to this. Such success can only be produced if the original cognition of the object and its qualities were veridical (as opposed to a mirage of water say). And veridical cognition can only be guaranteed if the cognition was obtained by an accredited method of knowing (pramana). Nyaya then, is the study of identifying when such accredited methods of knowing occurs and a systematic study of what is cognized through them.

Operative success in an endeavor is the criteria for determining truth. This holds true for spiritual as well as material endeavors, and hence pramana theory can apply to all four aims of life equally. Bacon is saying exactly the same thing in his own narrower field of the pure sciences. I see no contradiction here. Furthermore Bacon wrote explicitly in his work that "Nature can only be commanded by obeying her" and that ": that mankind should seek knowledge not for pleasure, contention, superiority over others, profit, fame, or power; but for the benefit and use of life, and that they perfect and govern it in charity".
I can go on, but by now it is clear that it is somewhat silly to quote a single line from what is a voluminous work and use it to justify your own favored conclusions. This is an atrocious way of argumentation.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Sayakji, please see post #18 - it does not reject the 5th veda i.e. purAN, and also accepts the basic general idea of the biological evolution as a partial material side-effect of the spiritual evolution. The details of scientific reports may have to be improved, as the change is not linear but multi-dimensional. e.g. homo-erectus ---> homo-sapiens may be an over-simplification of the reality.