Hindu Creationism VS evolution

[St Giordano Bruno]

If you look up Hindu Cosmology you will find the answer but in a nutshell. Most Hindu Creationists believe man has been living on earth for over 2 billion years. Remember Hinduism deals with cycles, Cremo believes the "day of Brahma" lasts 4.32 billion years. He also believes that the "current day of Brahma" began two billion years ago. There is an infinite number of deaths and rebirths in hinduism.
Bramha's entire life equals 100 Brahma years which is 311 trillion, 40 billion years in human years. Once Bramha dies there is an equal period of unmanifestation for 311 trillion, 40 billion years, until the next Bramha is created.

Some scientists look on 311 trillion years as somewhat of an overkill because the observed age of the universe is said to be estimated as a far more modest 13.7 billion years. But then again they qualify that as being just the observed age, not the actual age. The actual age would probably be much older and would even make the life of Brahma look pretty short. The true age is actually masked out by our anthropic bias towards spacio-temporal districts friendly to us observers
Clicky here and read.

and here for the anthropic principle.

BTW I happen to a proponent of the weak anthropic principle because the strong one implies intelligent design.

 

[MiniBoglins]

BTW I happen to a proponent of the weak anthropic principle because the strong one implies intelligent design.

Well obviously you are entitled to your beliefs and it's interesting hearing them. But it seems you will do almost anything to avoid intelligent design. I do not understand why people such as yourself oppose intelligent design. You are a pantheist i see and a big fan of Bruno. But Giordano Bruno believed God created adam and eve, infact he believed God created an infinite amount of adam and eves becuase he believed the universe was infinite.

 

[RedOne77]

Well obviously you are entitled to your beliefs and it's interesting hearing them. But it seems you will do almost anything to avoid intelligent design. I do not understand why people such as yourself oppose intelligent design. You are a pantheist i see and a big fan of Bruno. But Giordano Bruno believed God created adam and eve, infact he believed God created an infinite amount of adam and eves becuase he believed the universe was infinite.

Even some Christians, like Ken Miller (biologist), only accept design in the broadest sense that there is a creator. Because there simply is not enough evidence (and a lot of evidence contrary) for the intelligent design idea. I cannot speak for Bruno, but as someone who accepts a form of pantheism, intelligent design as proposed by creationists is in conflict with pantheism as I understand it (in addition to lack of evidence). In pantheism there is no designer going into the creation and "designing" things like life; the closest you can really get to that is that the natural systems and processes brought about certain things like life as an inevitable consequence of the properties of the universe as set up from the beginning.

 

[MiniBoglins]

Even some Christians, like Ken Miller (biologist), only accept design in the broadest sense that there is a creator. Because there simply is not enough evidence (and a lot of evidence contrary) for the intelligent design idea. I cannot speak for Bruno, but as someone who accepts a form of pantheism, intelligent design as proposed by creationists is in conflict with pantheism as I understand it (in addition to lack of evidence). In pantheism there is no designer going into the creation and "designing" things like life; the closest you can really get to that is that the natural systems and processes brought about certain things like life as an inevitable consequence of the properties of the universe as set up from the beginning.

There seems to be many different types of pantheism so it's hard to put down some exact facts on pantheist beliefs. But panentheism is something i did look into, now nearly all of the panentheists i read about supported creationism.

 

[Madhuri]

Hi,

I am a hindu creationist, i follow all of michael cremo's works.

A really good book of his

"Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race ".

Is anyone else familiar with his work?

I watched the documentary as a teenager and was very convinced by it at the time. I have a definite skepticism of the scientific community, but at this point in time I am even more sceptical of Cremo.

I no longer take the Vedic creation stories literally. I most certainly believe in evolution.

 

[MiniBoglins]

I watched the documentary as a teenager and was very convinced by it at the time. I have a definite skepticism of the scientific community, but at this point in time I am even more sceptical of Cremo.

I no longer take the Vedic creation stories literally. I most certainly believe in evolution.

In my opinion if you do not take the vedic creation stories as true theres no point in reading the vedas at all. Otherwise you are just picking and choosing (this is fine if you are non religious) but from your avatar and some of your posts it seems you know alot on hinduism. But If you go down that route of picking and choosing how do you know what is literal and what is not literal? No point in claiming to be a hindu if you do not take the hindu holy texts as truth.

 

[Madhuri]

In my opinion if you do not take the vedic creation stories as true theres no point in reading the vedas at all. Otherwise you are just picking and choosing (this is fine if you are non religious) but from your avatar and some of your posts it seems you know alot on hinduism. But If you go down that route of picking and choosing how do you know what is literal and what is not literal? No point in claiming to be a hindu if you do not take the hindu holy texts as truth.

I disagree. I think that like most holy texts, many of hte stories are allegorical. Once upon a time, people were smart enough to figure out what those hidden meanings meant. There are even places in the Srimad Bhagavatam that mention how we humans are not intelligent enough to understand the true reality and the descriptions provided are not exactly true (ie/ story of Bramha being born from Maha Vishnu).

IMO, Sanatan Dharma is not about having blind faith. It's a journey to Self Realisation. The truth is given to us from within. We won't know it from just reading a book. But yes, the Vedas are an important guide and as we progress through life the deeper meanings become more and more apparent.

 

[RedOne77]

There seems to be many different types of pantheism so it's hard to put down some exact facts on pantheist beliefs. But panentheism is something i did look into, now nearly all of the panentheists i read about supported creationism.

Granted I don't know a lot of pantheists or panentheists, but I can't think of any on the top of my head that accept creationism beyond those that believe that there is a creator. However that really is not the same as creationism.

I think it has been established that pantheism (or something very similar) is the foundation for a lot of pagan religions - which I truly know nothing about. Perhaps many of the old-style pantheists do believe in some sort of creation.

IMO, Sanatan Dharma is not about having blind faith. It's a journey to Self Realisation. The truth is given to us from within. We won't know it from just reading a book. But yes, the Vedas are an important guide and as we progress through life the deeper meanings become more and more apparent.

IMO this is basically how a lot of faiths view things when you get down to it. It isn't about believing a specific set of stories, rather it is a journey about realizing and connecting/harmonizing with our supreme good. I don't know about you, but for me I see holy writings and books as compilations of those throughout history that have felt moved by the spirit. And it is not only their journey, sometimes it is also the progression of the religion/culture as a whole as it strives towards a complete picture of the universe's unseen order and how to harmonize ourselves to it.

 

[fantome profane]

There seems to be many different types of pantheism so it's hard to put down some exact facts on pantheist beliefs. But panentheism is something i did look into, now nearly all of the panentheists i read about supported creationism.

Odd, I have known a lot of Panentheists, and there are quite a few Panentheists on this board. But I have never heard of a Panentheist that supported creationism. Quite the contrary, they tend to blend evolution into their spirituality.

I think perhaps the problem here is that you are using a strange and perhaps vague definition of creationism. Would you answer these questions for me?

What is your definition of Creationism?

Is it possible to believe in “God” without being a creationist?

Is it possible to be a creationist and still accept the concept of evolution (including common decent)?

 

[iamfact]

Hi,

I am a hindu creationist, i follow all of michael cremo's works.

A really good book of his

"Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race ".

Is anyone else familiar with his work?

Rig Veda's Creation Hymn : Nasadiya Sukta
[Rig Veda 10.129]
Then was neither being nor non-being;
There was no realm of air nor sky beyond.
What covered it, and where? What sheltered it?
Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal;
No sign was there, nor day's and night's divider.
That One being, breathless, breathed by its own nature:
Apart from it there was nothing else.
Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness
All was indiscriminate chaos.
All that existed then was void and formless:
By the great power of warmth was born that unit.
Transversely was their severing line extended:
What was above it then, and what below it?
There were seminal begetters, there were mighty forces,
Free action here and energy up yonder.
Who knows and who can say, whence it was born and whence came this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's creation.
Who knows then whence it first came into being?
He*, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not,
He who surveys it all from his highest heaven,
He verily knows it, or perhaps even he does not.

*"He" is of neutral gender, and should be substituted with "It"

- Evolutionist

The hymn states that no one was there at the moment of creation, and by the uncertainty of when it happened and where, it can be understood that men were not present even after a few moments of this creation, thus it cannot be Creationism. Hymn or no hymn, the theory of evolution is far too accurate and is very logical that I would be an evolutionist, either way.

 

[Madhuri]

The hymn states that no one was there at the moment of creation, and by the uncertainty of when it happened and where, it can be understood that men were not present even after a few moments of this creation, thus it cannot be Creationism. Hymn or no hymn, the theory of evolution is far too accurate and is very logical that I would be an evolutionist, either way.

I also believe in evolution, but I want to point out that creationists do not believe the earth was populated moments after creation.

 

[iamfact]

I also believe in evolution, but I want to point out that creationists do not believe the earth was populated moments after creation.

If that's the case with Hindu creationists, sure, but Christian creationists usually believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago, with Adam, Eve, and the dinosaurs present. *Creation Museum*