evolution - Blog - ISKCON Desire Tree | IDT2024-03-29T09:10:22Zhttps://iskcondesiretree.com/profiles/blogs/feed/tag/evolutionEvolution Or Production? By Jnana Dasahttps://iskcondesiretree.com/profiles/blogs/evolution-or-production-by-jnana-dasa-12023-09-13T06:30:00.000Z2023-09-13T06:30:00.000ZISKCON Desire Treehttps://iskcondesiretree.com/members/iskcon_desire_tree<div><p><strong><em><img class="align-center" src="{{#staticFileLink}}8867758678,RESIZE_584x{{/staticFileLink}}" alt="8867758678?profile=RESIZE_584x" width="450" /></em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em>From Back to Godhead</em></strong></p>
<p>Implicit in current theories of evolution are two basic assumptions: first, that the myriad living forms have come into being exclusively by chance and the action of natural laws; and second, that consciousness and all life processes are nothing more than physiochemical interactions. In many arenas, both within and without the academic world, a debate is raging to determine the truth or falsehood of evolutionary theory and its implied assumptions. And for good reason. For if it is indeed true that life is ultimately nothing more than the interactions of atoms and molecules, then any foundation for belief in God or a transcendent purpose to life would be utterly devastated. On the other hand, if the still unproven theory of evolution could be replaced by a scientifically verifiable theistic explanation for the origin of life and living forms, there would exist a firm basis for faith in an intelligent creator who endows life with meaning and purpose.</p>
<p>Here we would like to present such an alternative to evolutionary theory an alternative which, for the sake of comparison, we shall call “the theory of production.” This theory proposes that biological forms do not arise from the spontaneous self-organization of matter, but rather under the direction of a superior intelligence. Furthermore, it suggests that life and consciousness are not material phenomena, the results of physiochemical reactions. Instead, they result from a distinct, irreducible, nonphysical principle or entity, which is present within the material body during an individual’s life time, and whose departure from the body leads to the change called death.</p>
<p>If we want to determine whether it is the theory of evolution or the theory of production that is scientifically more valid, we must test both against the fossil record. It is there alone that we will find concrete evidence of creatures that lived in bygone ages. The two theories differ in their predictions of what the fossil record will reveal. For example, the theory of evolution (in its simplest form) predicts that the fossil record will show a gradual change of living forms. There should be no sudden appearances of new, groups of organisms or of novel bodily features. In other words, the fossil record should not show that organisms suddenly acquired fins, legs, or wings; rather, the record should document a step-by-step development of these organs over the ages. The theory of evolution further requires that the principle of gradual change apply to all groups of organisms. Although some organisms may change more or less than others (because of differing circumstances), we should expect to see some degree of evolutionary change in all groups over the millions of years recorded in the geological column.</p>
<p>The theory of production, on the other hand, predicts that the fossil record will reveal a markedly different pattern ofchange. Why should this be so? Let’s consider an analogy: the historical development of various types of engines. Steam engines, internal combustion engines, diesel engines, electric engines none of these appeared by chance. Rather over the years men have designed and built them to drive vehicles, pump water lift weights, and so on. Now, we do not find that engines change gradually from one type to another. The reason for this discontinuity is that each type of engine is designed to take maximum advantage of particular chemical and physical processes, and it works by the interaction of precisely coordinated components Beyond a small tolerance, any variation in the size or shape of the parts, or in the kind of fuel used, will result in the dysfunction of the whole system.</p>
<p>When we survey the history of the development of engines, we do not find any record of an engine intermediate between, say, the steam engine and the internal combustion engine. In fact, such an engine is inconceivable. We might possibly convert a steam engine into an internal combustion engine, but at the point when we switch from external to internal combustion, we would have to install a carburetor, spark plugs, a coil, and so on. These would be entirely useless in the steam engine, so what question is there of a gradual transition from one to the other?</p>
<p>Even if we consider only the various kinds of internal combustion engines, we find little scope for gradual, step-by-step development between them. Slight discrepancies in piston-stroke timing or gas-air mixtures can play havoc with any engine, so how can we imagine a gradual transition from, say, a piston engine to a rotary engine, or from an Otto engine (in which ignition occurs by means of spark plugs) to a diesel engine? Such changes are always sudden and radical; they date from the time when the new design is first produced by an inventor.</p>
<p>Now, the theory of production proposes that what is true for engines is also true for the forms of living beings. Unlike the theory of evolution, the theory of production does not require that the changes between species be gradual and continuous. Rather, it proposes that a superior, guiding intelligence has produced a discontinuous series of living forms with no intermediate forms linking them. What does the fossil record actually reveal? In the words of the renowned evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson, “It is a fact that discontinuities are almost always and systematically present at the origin of really high categories [vertebrates, for example], and, like any other systematic feature of the record, this requires explanation.” ** (G.G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1953), p. 361.) The fossil record contains no evidence to back up evolutionists’ contention that multicellular organisms evolved from single-celled forms of life. Nor does it show how vertebrates evolved from the invertebrates; how spiders, crabs, trilobites, and insects evolved from simpler forms of life (supposedly some type of worm); how land plants evolved from marine vegetation; how flowering plants evolved from any previous type of plant; or how snakes, frogs, whales, and bats evolved from earlier, less specialized animals.</p>
<p>And just as major groups of organisms tend to appear in the fossil record without warning, so do new structural features, such as legs, wings, and feathers. Says evolutionist J. William Schopf, “Interestingly, almost any list of major evolutionary events could also serve as an inventory of major unsolved problems in paleobiology, for the fossil record has provided only limited insight into the nature of these important evolutionary transitions.” ** (J. William Schopf et al, journal of Paleontology, Vol. 47 (1973), No. 1, p. 1)</p>
<p>Another problem for the theory of evolution is the existence of “living fossils” organisms living today that according to the fossil record were present on the earth in the same form millions of years ago. Since the theory of evolution requires a continuous process of gradual change in living forms, it has great difficulty explaining living fossils. The theory of production, however, requires no such continuous change. This theory proposes that the various species are products of intelligent design, and thus as long as the design remains unchanged, successive generations may remain unchanged indefinitely.</p>
<p>So once again the fossil record supports the theory of production, rather than the theory of evolution. The presence of numerous living fossils requires the evolutionists to explain why, if evolution did take place, it seems to have done so millions of times faster in some sectors than in others. For example, during the same 200 million years in which certain types of fish were supposedly evolving into human beings, another type of fish (the coelacanth) has remained essentially unchanged up to the present day. If we go even further back in the fossil record, we find that squids, certain types of oysters, and the monoplacophoran (a mollusc with a hinged shell) all appeared suddenly in the Cambrian period, about 500 to 550 million years ago, and have survived to the present day virtually unchanged. During the same time span, say the evolutionists, certain worms (whose remains have not been found in the fossil record) supposedly evolved into homo sapiens!</p>
<p>Thus far we have discussed only the forms of living organisms. Now let’s consider the intelligence behind and within them. Here again, engines provide a useful analogy. A functional engine is made possible by two types of intelligence. First, there is the intelligence of the operator. Being independent of the engine, the operator can use his intelligence to work the engine, or he can direct his attention elsewhere and leave the engine sitting idle. Second, there is the intelligence of the engine’s manufacturer an intelligence that enables him to produce engines in great numbers and of various designs.</p>
<p>Now, the theory of production proposes that just as an engine works only when someone turns it on and operates it, so the body of a living organism is alive and functional only by virtue of the presence of the nonmaterial living entity. Further, as mentioned previously, the production theory suggests that the bodies of organisms are formed by a superior intelligence an intelligence capable of producing limitless numbers and great varieties of forms. Thus the direct evidence of the fossil record, illustrated by our engine analogy, seems to confirm not the theory of evolution but the theory of production.</p>
<p>Of course, evolutionists have put forward a number of hypotheses to explain living fossils and the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record. But no argument (however plausible it may seem) can obscure the lack of concrete evidence. One may be able to theorize about geological causes for the incompleteness of the fossil record; or about small, isolated populations evolving without leaving any fossilized remains; or about the possibility that evolution occurred by means of sudden extremely radical mutations, which would rule out the need for intermediate forms. But all these interpretations of the fossil record are indirect; they are based on the assumption that evolution has indeed taken place! The direct interpretation of the fossil record leads us inevitably to the theory of production, not evolution.</p>
<p>Many eminent men of science have stated that life is not reducible to chemistry and physics. These include Alfred Wallace (co-author of Charles Darwin’s first publication on evolution); Thomas H. Huxley (a contemporary of Darwin’s who championed Darwin’s evolutionary theory); and Nobel physicists Niels Bohr and Eugene Wigner. The eminent mathematician John von Neumann has shown how quantum mechanics implies that the consciousness of the observer (he called it the “abstract ego”) is distinct from all aspects of the observer’s body and brain. ** (J. von Neumann, mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), pp. 417-421.) This concept of an “abstract ego” corresponds to the irreducible nonmaterial entity posited by the theory of production and called the jivatma by Lord Krsna in Bhagavad-gita.</p>
<p>In Bhagavad-gita Lord Krsna says that He is the ultimate designer of all living forms: “Under My direction material nature is producing all species of moving and nonmoving beings.” Later Krsna says that the forms of living beings are like machines made of matter, and that within them the minute, spiritual living entity (the jivatma) resides.</p>
<p>And what is the nature of the jivatma? Krsna’s first instruction in the Bhagavad-gita is that the living entity is indestructible, eternal: “For the living entity there is never birth or death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.” How, then, could the living being be a product of chemical activity? Rather, he is an eternal particle of spiritual energy, completely distinct from the actions and reactions of matter. His presence in the material body diffuses consciousness throughout every part of the organism, just as the sun diffuses light and heat throughout the solar system.</p>
<p>Finally, we also learn from the Gita that it is Lord Krsna Himself, dwelling within each bodily form as the Supersoul, who provides every living being with the knowledge and understanding necessary to live within the world.</p>
<p>Thus we can see how the teachings of Lord Krsna in the Bhagavad-gita are confirmed, rather than contradicted, by the findings of modern science.<br /> <br /> <strong>Source: </strong><a href="http://www.dandavats.com/?p=31517">http://www.dandavats.com/?p=31517</a></p></div>The Origin and Evolution of the Vedic System by Saurav Sarmahhttps://iskcondesiretree.com/profiles/blogs/the-origin-and-evolution-of-the-vedic-system2023-07-10T11:30:00.000Z2023-07-10T11:30:00.000ZISKCON Desire Treehttps://iskcondesiretree.com/members/iskcon_desire_tree<div><p><img class="align-center" src="{{#staticFileLink}}2515162121,RESIZE_400x{{/staticFileLink}}" alt="2515162121?profile=RESIZE_400x" width="400" /></p>
<p>Veda means knowledge. The word Veda is related to the Sanskrit root ‘vid’ meaning ‘to know’. So, it encompasses the entire corpus of knowledge, both phenomenal and numinous. Actually, knowledge is established through three primary epistemological premises, viz., sense perception, logical-mathematical inference and reliable testimony. However, when a subject employs inductive methodology to acquire knowledge, it is inhibited by four defects, viz., limited senses, illusory perception, mistaken inference and cheating propensity. As a result, inductive methodology cannot reliably establish any type of knowledge, let alone the ultimate conclusions on reality. (For instance, throughout history, men have died and they continue to die; but we can never conclude that man is mortal applying induction because there may be an unidentified man or a future man who will never die).</p>
<p>On the other hand, Veda is ‘apauruseya’ meaning that it is not a composition of any agency, whether human, divine or demonic. Indeed it is co-eternal with God: His very cognitive and contemplative function. Therefore, Veda is untouched by the four defects. The unauthored Veda, also known as ‘sruti’, remains in the mind of God and at the beginning of material creation, He gives this infallible knowledge to the seers or ‘drsta’ in the form of ‘mantra’ or sound vibrations because they are qualified by their sinless character. The entire cosmos alongwith the laws of nature is designed according to this knowledge. Thereafter, the ‘sruti’ (including both the exact sounds and their meanings) is received by the worthy disciples of the seers through the aural medium and they in turn, instruct the next generation of qualified disciples and so on. Thus, the Veda has been preserved and transmitted through generations in its exact form.</p>
<p>The Veda holds a unique status among all sources of knowledge that it is the authoritative parameter for establishing the validity of any other source of knowledge, which may be based on empiric, rational or prophetic evidence, because the Veda contains the perfect cognition and contemplative logic of God. Hence, even God respects its authority and His statements (like those in Bhagavad Gita) conform to the Vedic conclusions. Only in special circumstances, when He wants to delude the demons that He may criticize the Veda. (For instance, Lord Buddha preached atheism to stop animal slaughter in the pretence of Vedic injunctions).</p>
<p>Moreover, in the absence of Vedic authority, there would only remain contending and evolving schools of thought, with their separate gods, prophets, theologians, philosophers, etc. As a result, it would be impossible to create a universal standard of morality and the society would gradually degenerate to moral relativism, which means, each person would abide by his own whims and societal consensus, although uncertain and unreliable, would assume the guise of authority.</p>
<p>Due to the existence of the stated properties, the Vedic injunctions have to be accepted as self-evident or axiomatic standard of reality. However, one need not accept the Vedic authority on blind faith. It is not a revelation to a single person or a group of persons at a particular point in history and at a particular geographical location. It is an eternal tradition of plurality, which is based, not only on philosophical disputation but also progressive levels of self-realization. We can accept the Veda only if the stated results of its injunctions, according to the merit of place, time and subject, are attained. Throughout the Vedic history, we have many instances of personalities who have lived according to the Vedic standard and achieved proper results, including the most conclusive realization of direct audience with God. Thus, the validity of Veda is established.</p>
<p>Since the Veda is unauthored and self-evident, its authority does not depend on any other source of knowledge. Indeed, only the assertions issued by the agencies recognized by the Veda can be accepted as authoritative. The recognized agencies are ‘sastra’ (scriptures: Veda, Pancharatra, Purana, Ramayana and Mahabharata), ‘sadhu’ (statements of the bona fide teachers affiliated to or honoured by any of the four traditions: Sri, Brahma, Rudra and Kumara) and ‘guru’ (the bona fide teacher or spiritual master who initiates or instructs an individual subject). The mechanism of sastra-sadhu-guru (together known as ‘sabda pramana’) is fine-tuned to resolve all contradictions inherent in the process of knowledge acquisition.</p>
<p>The Vedic authority is not limited to any geographical, temporal or cultural co-ordinates. It is applicable in all circumstances. So, it is improper to refer to the Veda as Hindu or Indian scripture. In fact, societies paying allegiance to Vedic authority existed throughout the entire planet Earth about 5000 years ago (corroborated by Purana, archaeology and local traditions). Of course, misinterpretations (Nyaya, Vaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, etc.) and deviations (Pasupata, Shakta, Jaina, Lokayata, sophism, paganism, animism, etc.) also prevailed in many places. The core of this knowledge-based civilization remained within the territory bound by the Himalayas in the north and the ocean in the south. On February 18, 3102 BC, the Earth entered a temporal phase known as Kali-yuga, in which quarrel and hypocrisy are the pre-dominant qualities among human species. Since then, the true import of the Veda, gradually, faded from the collective memories of several societies, reducing them to uncivilized (non Aryan) status.</p>
<p>The first major split within the core of the Aryan civilization occurred in the vicinity of the great river known as Sindhu. A philosopher known as Zarathustra (Zoroaster) rejected the conclusion of the Veda that God is the singular cause of material creation and preached the doctrine of two separate and antagonistic causes. He thus introduced a rival to God (later referred to as Satan within the Semitic tradition) and rejected His omnipotence. This doctrine became popular within the Persian Empire and assumed the status of state religion. The Persians (from Cyrus the Great to Nadir Shah) invaded the Sindhu valley and beyond several times. They used to pronounce Sindhu as Hindu (because the Vedic sound S is pronounced as H in the Avestan language), which in the course of time, became the name for the entire civilization beyond the river. Later, when the Greeks (under Alexander the Great) overran Persia and intruded into the Sindhu/Hindu valley, they began to refer to the river as Indus (dropping the H), from which the name Indika/India is derived. Hence, both the terms Hindu and Indian are based on limiting co-ordinates and are foreign to the Veda.</p>
<p>The Vedic civilization weakened further when the priestly class forgot the conclusion of the Veda (Vedanta) and continued indiscriminate slaughter of animals in sacrifices meant for the satisfaction of Vishnu (God). Then, out of compassion, Vishnu descended as Buddha, deluded the demons (in the guise of priests) by preaching atheism and wrecked havoc on the infallible status of the Veda. The message of Buddha spread throughout the Asian continent (except perhaps the Western reaches beyond Persia). Another threat to Vedanta philosophy emerged in the form of Adi Shankara, when he twisted the meaning of Upanishadic statements to deny God’s personal qualities and His eternal dominion over all living entities. The demonic class of men became his followers all over the Indian sub-continent and thus, he tacitly re-established the Vedic religion (after a prolonged period of atheistic dominance).</p>
<p>The Vedic superstructure nearly crumbled under the sword of Islam, which defeated the weakening and unpatriotic ruling class and ruled for about 800 years. The so-called Hindus were persecuted and their places of worship and pilgrimage were destroyed. In fact, the entire trace of the ancient civilization was wiped out from the Sindhu valley (now in Pakistan). However, the mechanism of sastra-sadhu-guru was preserved by great teachers like Visnuswami, Ramanuja, Nimbarka and Madhva and the pure theistic message of the Veda was gradually propagated in different parts of the sub-continent. The devotional fervour induced the appearance of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who inaugurated the Sankirtana Movement (the pristine form of Vedic religion recommended for the invincible Kali-yuga) for the deliverance of the entire planet Earth from clutches of nescience.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Europe had emerged from the Dark Ages (when knowledge was choked by the doctrines of the Church) and the Crusades (the inconclusive contest of arms between two great Semitic faiths, viz., Christianity and Islam). The project of colonial expansionism took the European adventurers, traders, missionaries and mercenaries to all the continents of the planet and the indigenous cultures alongwith their traditional socio-religious structures and self-sufficient economies succumbed to the European onslaught. Although the physical control over the planet was reluctantly ceded by the Europeans, they continue to control the global knowledge system (elitist culture, school curricula, universities, mass media, pseudo religious institutions, etc.) and people have been turned into consumers to pump profits for the corrupt business class. Therefore, there are so many resistant movements like Jihadism, Maoism, local nationalist insurgencies and civil society protests. However, such forms of material struggles have failed to resolve the real problems of our existence.</p>
<p>Until the late 19th century, the Sankirtana Movement was limited within India, where it got lost amidst the conglomeration of false doctrines (voidism, impersonalism, mysticism, ritualism, casteism, etc.) and illicit practices (Tantric sex, ganja smoking, etc.). Due to the efforts of three great teachers in the lineage of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, viz., Bhaktivinoda Thakur, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Prabhupada, the Movement was purged of the degrading elements, institutionalized and then transformed into a global phenomenon.</p>
<p><strong>Source: </strong><a href="http://www.dandavats.com/?p=10260">http://www.dandavats.com/?p=10260</a></p></div>Evolution and Beyond by Dr. Richard L. Thompsonhttps://iskcondesiretree.com/profiles/blogs/evolution-and-beyond-by-dr-richard-l-thompson2022-05-21T07:50:00.000Z2022-05-21T07:50:00.000ZISKCON Desire Treehttps://iskcondesiretree.com/members/iskcon_desire_tree<div><p style="text-align:center;"><img class="align-center" src="{{#staticFileLink}}8874436671,RESIZE_400x{{/staticFileLink}}" alt="8874436671?profile=RESIZE_400x" width="350" /><br /> <span style="font-size:12pt;"><strong>Video: <a href="https://youtu.be/9DLGnAIoqyE" target="_blank">Click here</a></strong></span></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Although not an advocate of creationism, Sadaputa Dasa (Dr. Richard L. Thompson) demonstrates in this lecture that most evidence for the evolution theory also supports the theory of intelligent design. And since Darwinism leaves so much about human nature unexplained, he suggests we broaden our view and approach alternate outlooks with an open mind.<br /> <br /> <strong>Source: </strong><a href="http://www.dandavats.com/?p=94991">http://www.dandavats.com/?p=94991</a></p></div>Teaching evolution in schools: what science explains and what explains science by Chaitanya Charan Dashttps://iskcondesiretree.com/profiles/blogs/teaching-evolution-in-schools-what-science-explains-and-what-expl2020-01-05T08:30:00.000Z2020-01-05T08:30:00.000ZISKCON Desire Treehttps://iskcondesiretree.com/members/iskcon_desire_tree<div><p><strong><img class="align-center" src="{{#staticFileLink}}2515230575,original{{/staticFileLink}}" alt="2515230575?profile=original" width="400" /></strong></p>
<div style="text-align:justify;">An Indian Union Minister of State recently triggered a furor by stating that evolution is unproven scientifically and shouldn’t be taught in schools.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">Before examining the tenability of this statement, we need to understand what is implied by the word evolution. It refers to different things in different contexts.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">In today’s public discourse, evolution is used in three broad senses:</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">1. Adaptation of species</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">2. Emergence of new species</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">3. All-explaining naturalistic ideology</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">Adaptation of species: Evolution can refer to the variation that happens within species as they adapt to their environment by developing certain features. For example, flora and fauna in deserts develop mechanisms to store water. Such adaptation is a well-documented phenomenon that doesn’t need to be doubted or disputed. Nature has endowed living beings with the capacity to adapt to their environment – in that sense, living beings do evolve. Almost all the hard evidence provided by science textbooks for evolution is for such biological adaptation, which can be termed as micro-evolution.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">Emergence of new species: Evolution also refers to the mechanism by which one species changes into another – a phenomenon that can be termed macro-evolution. Whereas micro-evolution connotes a mechanism for the survival of the fittest, macro-evolution connotes a mechanism for the arrival of the fittest, or, in general, for the emergence of any entirely new species. The notion that incremental variation within a species can lead to the formation of another species – that such gradual change explains the origin of all species – is a gigantic leap in speculative inference that begs for evidence. This change is believed to happen so gradually that it can’t be observed, so proponents of macro-evolution turn to the fossil record as evidence. However, the fossil record doesn’t provide much help, as is admitted by prominent evolutionists themselves.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">· “The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places.” – Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">· “Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study.” – Stephen J Gould, The Panda’s Thumb</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">Of course, being evolutionists by belief, they don’t let the paucity of evidence challenge their belief – instead, they come up with new theories. Whether those new theories actually address the problem remains debatable.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">Nonetheless, evolution has many aggressive proponents who try to shut down any debate by labelling evolution’s critics as anti-scientific fanatics who want to take the world back to the Stone Age.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">Embarrassingly for such evolutionists, many of those who question evolution are credentialed scientists. And not just a handful, but several hundreds, as is evident from the list at dissentfromdarwin.org. It has over 800 scientists, with the number continuously increasing.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">As a society, we value freedom of expression. So, shouldn’t we value the freedom of expression of those scientists who question evolution’s scientific tenability?</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">All-explaining naturalistic ideology: Beyond macro-evolution, evolution is often used to refer to something much bigger: philosophical naturalism. Herein, evolution becomes like a magic wand that explains everything existing in nature: the emergence of human beings to the emergence of all pre-human species and even the emergence of consciousness. Evolution expands to go beyond biological evolution to chemical evolution that claims insentient chemicals gave rise to conscious life.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">However, evolution of consciousness is an intractable problem. The 125th anniversary issue of Sciencelisted 125 questions for which science had no answer. The second question was about the origin of consciousness. (The first pertained to the origin of the universe.) That question about consciousness remains unanswered even today, despite much high-sounding evolutionary psychobabble broadcast in the media.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">· Nobel Prize winning neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles observed: “If you look at most modern texts on evolution you find nothing about mind and consciousness. They assume it just comes automatically with the development of the brain. But that’s not the answer. (International Herald Tribune, 31 March 1981)</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">· Physicist Nick Herbert underscores in his book Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics: “Science’s biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot.”</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">In fact, when evolution becomes an all-explaining truth-claim, it no longer remains a science, but becomes an ideology. Philosopher of science Wolfgang Smith points out, “Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality, the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe.” The doctrine Smith refers to is philosophical naturalism, which holds that everything in existence can be explained solely through natural mechanisms.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">From what science explains to what explains science</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">Science presumes the existence of some natural order which it tries to understand. But it can’t explain the rationale for the existence of this natural order. Consider, for example, the scientific theory that fruits fall because of the force of gravity. But why does gravity exist in the first place? Even if it is attributed to some further scientific construct, such as the curvature of space-time, that only takes the question one step back: Why does space-time have such features? Ultimately, science requires the pre-existence of some natural order. Pertinently, physicist Paul Davies points out, “Science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview … even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of a law-like order in nature that is at least in part comprehensible to us.”</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">To better appreciate the implications of this founding presumption of science, we need to recognize that what science explains is different from what explains science. “What science explains” refers to the explanations in terms of natural laws or natural mechanisms, such as gravity, that science comes up with on observing the natural world. In contrast, “what explains science” raises the question why nature works according to the laws that science uncovers.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">Let’s compare science with eyes. We may look with our eyes and explain what we see. But explaining what we see doesn’t explain why there exists something worth seeing and explaining. Similarly, explaining the mechanisms operating in nature doesn’t explain why nature has any mechanism at all. Actually, what science does is describe how nature operates; it doesn’t explain why nature operates that way. If Ajay hits Vijay, describing how Ajay’s fit smashed Vijay’s jaw doesn’t explain why Ajay did what he did. German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein puts it succinctly: “The great delusion of modernity is that the laws of nature explain the universe for us. The laws of nature describe the universe, they describe the regularities. But they explain nothing.”</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">That’s why the truth-claim that evolution is a grand non-theistic alternative for explaining everything goes beyond the range of valid science. It becomes scientism, the ideological imperialism of science extended into all domains of knowledge.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">Allowing such scientism to be taught in schools is a disservice to science because it gives a misleading picture of reality. People who use science to search for the deepest answers, for answers to question about the meaning and purpose of life, will find science falling short of their expectations. This is no fault of science, for no field of knowledge can be expected to answer questions outside that field. But when education sets up the expectation that science has the answer to all questions, the ensuing frustration only alienates people from science.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">Nobel Laureate Sir Peter Medawar, despite being an atheist himself, cautions scientists in his book Advice to a Young Scientist: “There is no quicker way for a scientist to bring discredit upon himself and upon his profession than roundly to declare – particularly when no declaration of any kind is called for – that science knows, or soon will know, the answers to all questions worth asking, and that questions which do not admit a scientific answer are in some way non-questions or ‘pseudo-questions’ that only simpletons ask and only the gullible profess to be able to answer.”</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">Summary</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">Thus, by recognizing the multiple connotations of the word evolution, we can address the question of teaching evolution in an appropriately sophisticated, multi-faceted way.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">· Evolution as adaptation of species can be taught.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">· Evolution as a mechanism for the emergence of new species, indeed all species, is debatable. This debate exists for real in the scientific world, and its existence needs to be acknowledged in educational curricula.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;">· Evolution as an all-explaining ideology – where it becomes a convenient tool of atheists to arrogate the prestige of science to themselves and to brand anyone who opposes atheism as unscientific or even anti-scientific – is a misrepresentation of reality and a misappropriation of science. It needs to be strongly contested and corrected.</div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"> </div>
<div style="text-align:justify;"><strong>Source:</strong> <a href="http://www.dandavats.com/?p=58663">http://www.dandavats.com/?p=58663</a></div></div>