evolution & hinduism

[connyxoberst]

does evolution and hinduism mix? for example when the world was first created could the meditation not have lasted until humans were eventually formed? and then could we have not been animalistic until the conscious mind developed? leading to the birth of hinduism over 5000 years ago?

side question totally unrelated to this: before i asked for suggestions of what books to read first. if i'm leaning towards vishnu as my supreme beings, would that make a more definitive direction to take?

[Sherab]

does evolution and hinduism mix? for example when the world was first created could the meditation not have lasted until humans were eventually formed? and then could we have not been animalistic until the conscious mind developed? leading to the birth of hinduism over 5000 years ago?

side question totally unrelated to this: before i asked for suggestions of what books to read first. if i'm leaning towards vishnu as my supreme beings, would that make a more definitive direction to take?

study vaishnava books such as the bhagavad gita, ramayana and mahabharata... you can find them at krishna.com

namaste

[saidevo]

Although Hindu creation theory (chiefly in Srimd BhAgavatam) states that the gods were created first, then the worlds, man and only after that the animals, birds, and plants, Hinduism believes in evolution--not of the physical form but of the spirit, or rather the consciousness of the individual soul.

The Hindu view of evolution takes into account the truth of reincarnation. Thus an individual soul takes birth among lakhs of physical forms and 'evolves' towards Self-Realization. When Hinduism says that man has six senses, the animal kingdom has just five and the vegetable kingdom less than that, what is meant is that the consciousness of the Self is veiled by various levels of density of matter--the smaller the number of senses, the less the channels of consciousness for the Self to assert itself.

This is the reason that Hinduism regards human birth as the highest and most suitable for Self-Realization, and exhorts the humans towards it through 'shravaNa, manana, nididhyAsa' and satsangha (learning, chiefly through listening, contemplation of what is heard and read, meditation and keeping the company of the wise).

[Sherab]

wanted to add that "lakhs" means "thousands" :)

namaste

[devotee]

does evolution and hinduism mix? for example when the world was first created could the meditation not have lasted until humans were eventually formed? and then could we have not been animalistic until the conscious mind developed? leading to the birth of hinduism over 5000 years ago?

side question totally unrelated to this: before i asked for suggestions of what books to read first. if i'm leaning towards vishnu as my supreme beings, would that make a more definitive direction to take?

Namaste Connyx,

Hinduism has no problem with theory of evolution. Let's first understand that the Truth is so complicated that it needs very high level of understanding .... because you have to try going beyond all concepts we know through our mind. Therefore, there are various theories within Hinduism to satisfy people having different level of understanding.

The "Creation" & "Creator" theory is actually a very simplistic theory. You find the Truth in its closest form in Advait Vedanta. The Universe that we see has only relative existence in the form we see it & understand .... this existence is only relative to mind. Now without going into the complexity of the theory of Advait Vedanta, we have to understand that SELF is, was & will be always SELF ... even when human being was not born & when the dinosaurs ruled this earth & now when humans are ruling this earth & also when (if it happens) human being will be completely wiped out from this universe or evolves to a super being. It is not that this creation was for human beings only & everything started with these species alone .... it is all the expression of SELF in first two states ... sustained by the third state ... & all appearing on the Canvas of the fourth state of the SELF. So, the point before the Big Bang was SELF, this entire universe including the stars, the galaxies, the space, this earth & everything within is again the SELF & in future whatever will happen in this dream state is not going to change SELF.

Hinduism has no clash with logic, science or historical truth, because Hindus have not only believed in just a theory but have experienced it & also offer that anyone can experience it. The logic & reasoning are the tools which help you understand the Truth ... Hinduism doesn't discourage their use but encourages it. Whatever is not logical, is anything but Truth.

OM

[rkpande]

Sanatan Dharma has answers to all questions a man has.
Consider the Awatars of the God on the earth (as a process) as given in Purans (Vedas mention only Matsya awatar)
1 Matsya awatar (Fish) - life evolved in water
2 kachhapah awatar (Turtle) - a creature both water and land based
3 Varaha awtar (Boar) - purely a land based creature
4 narshing awatar (half man half animal)-
5 vaman awatar (a dwarf man) - a small man so intelligent that with his wits he got all three worlds.
6 Rama awatar- A perfect human being
& Krishna awtar- Some say he was more perfect than Rama.

Here it is. The evolution of the races.

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

Interesting rkpande, but these are incarnations of Lord Vishnu. I am trying to comprehend how this goes together with our physical evolution. Perhaps I am just not understanding correctly, please set me straight.

-juan

[connyxoberst]

Namaste Connyx,

Hinduism has no problem with theory of evolution. Let's first understand that the Truth is so complicated that it needs very high level of understanding .... because you have to try going beyond all concepts we know through our mind. Therefore, there are various theories within Hinduism to satisfy people having different level of understanding.

Hinduism has no clash with logic, science or historical truth, because Hindus have not only believed in just a theory but have experienced it & also offer that anyone can experience it. The logic & reasoning are the tools which help you understand the Truth ... Hinduism doesn't discourage their use but encourages it. Whatever is not logical, is anything but Truth.

OM


let me just say thank you all for responding. i love everyones original view point on how it can coincide. the paragraphs i quoted above made most sense to me and it makes my heart even warmer to this.. this way of life. to use the word religion feels almost cheap because its so much more than that. i've always trusted in proven science and therefore evolution. yet another example of why christianity and every other religion left me so unsatisfied.

rkpande
what an interesting answer to my question. it really combines evolution with the notion that we are created in god's likeness.

it seems to me that evolution and hinduism can and do fit together very nicely. as saidevo said, now we focus mainly on the spiritual evolution, how much we learn, how much control we have over ourselves, the process of reincarnation itsself. but it could be we started focusing on this once we stopped changing and evolving physically. after all primitive man was no better than the animals surrounding him. he was unable to speak let alone have the awareness needed for spiritual evolution.

again another topic that uniquely hinduism acknowledges as truth, or possibility as truth, and does not call for blind faith and does not accuse science as being deceitful and evil.

[bhaktajan]

Isha-Upanishad Mantra 16:
"The killer of the soul, whoever he may be, must enter into the planets known as the worlds of the faithless, full of darkness and ignorance."

Human life is distinguished from animal life due to its heavy responsibilities. Those who are cognizant of these responsibilities and who work in that spirit are called "suras" (those destined for Surya (Surya-Deva—the Sun Deity, thus, the Sun planet), and those who are neglectful of these responsibilities or who have no information of them are called "asuras".

Throughout the universe there are only these two types of human being. In the Rg Veda it is stated that the suras always aim at the lotus feet of the Supreme Lord Vishnu and act accordingly. Their ways are as illuminated as the path of the sun.
Intelligent human beings must always remember that the soul obtains a human form after an evolution of many millions of years in the cycle of transmigration.

The temporary material body is certainly a foreign dress. The Bhagavad-gita (Chap 2 verse 20) clearly says that after the destruction of the material body the living entity is not annihilated, nor does he lose his identity.

The identity of the living entity is never impersonal or formless; on the contrary, it is the material dress that is formless and that takes a shape according to the form of the indestructible person. No living entity is originally formless, as is wrongly thought by those with a poor fund of knowledge.

In the material world, material nature displays wonderful workmanship by creating varieties of bodies for the living beings according to their propensities for sense gratification.

The living soul who wants to taste stool is given a material body that is quite suitable for eating stool—that of a hog.

Thus, one who wants to eat the flesh and blood of other animals may be given a tiger’s body equipped with suitable teeth and claws.

But the human being is not meant for eating flesh, nor does he have any desire to taste stool, even in the most aboriginal state.

But in any case, the material bodies of all animals and men are foreign to the living entity. They change according to the living entity’s desire for sense gratification.

In the cycle of evolution, the living entity changes bodies one after another.

When the world was full of water, the living entity took an aquatic form. Then he passed to vegetable life, from vegetable life to worm life, from worm life to bird life, from bird life to animal life, and from animal life to the human form.

The highest developed form is this human form —when it is possessed of a full sense of spiritual knowledge.

The highest development of one’s spiritual sense is:

One should give up the material body, which will be turned to ashes, and allow the air of life to merge into the eternal reservoir of air.

The yogis generally study how to control the airs of the body. The soul is supposed to rise from one circle of air to another until it rises to the brahma-randhra, the highest circle. From that point the perfect yogi can transfer himself to any planet he likes.

The process is to give up one material body and then enter into another.



Here in the material world, material nature forces the living entity to change his body due to his different desires for sense gratification.

These desires are represented in the various species of life, from germs to the most perfected material bodies, those of Brahmä and the demigods. All of these living entities have bodies composed of matter in different shapes.

The intelligent man sees oneness not in the variety of the bodies but in the spiritual identity. The spiritual spark, which is part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, is the same whether he is in a body of a hog or in the body of a demigod, or any living being within the manifest material cosmos.

The living entity takes on different bodies [B]according to his pious and vicious activities.

The human body is highly developed and has full consciousness. According to the Bhagavad-gita (Chap 7 verse 19), the most perfect man surrenders unto the Lord after many, many lifetimes of culturing knowledge.

The culture of knowledge reaches perfection only when the knower comes to the point of surrendering unto the Supreme Lord, Vasudeva.

Otherwise, even after attaining knowledge of one’s spiritual identity, if one does not come to the point of knowing that the living entities are eternal parts and parcels of the whole and can never become the whole, one has to fall down again into the material atmosphere.

Indeed, one must fall down even if he has become one with the brahmajyoti.

Sometimes these living Souls want to enjoy their senses, and therefore they are placed in the material world to become false lords under the dictation of the senses.

The desire for lordship is the material disease of the living being, for under the spell of sense enjoyment he transmigrates through the various bodies manifested in the material world.

Becoming one with the brahmajyoti does not represent mature knowledge. Only by surrendering unto the Lord completely and developing one’s sense of spiritual service does one reach the highest perfectional stage.

One who is completely under the rule of material nature remembers the heinous activities he performed gets another material body after death.

The Bhagavad-gita (Chap 8 verse 6) confirms this truth:
“Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, O son of Kunté, that state he will attain without fail.”

Thus the mind carries the living entity’s propensities into the next life.

Unlike the simple animals, who have no developed mind, the dying human being can remember the activities of his life like dreams at night; therefore his mind remains surcharged with material desires, and consequently he cannot enter into the spiritual kingdom with a spiritual body.

The Bhakti-yoga yogis, however, develop a sense of love for Godhead by practicing devotional service (Bhakti-yoga) to the Lord.

Even if at the time of death a devotee does not remember his service to the Lord, the Lord does not forget him.

Unless one is accustomed to devotional practice (Bhakti-yoga), what will he remember at the time of death, when the body is dislocated, and how can he pray to the almighty Lord to remember his sacrifices?

Sacrifice means denying the interest of the senses. One has to learn this art by employing the senses in the service of the Lord (Bhakti-yoga) during one’s lifetime. One can utilize the results of such practice at the time of death.

[bhaktajan]

rkpande wrote:
Sanatan Dharma has answers to all questions a man has.
Consider the Awatars of the God on the earth (as a process) as given in Purans (Vedas mention only Matsya awatar)
1 Matsya awatar (Fish) - life evolved in water
2 kachhapah awatar (Turtle) - a creature both water and land based
3 Varaha awtar (Boar) - purely a land based creature
4 narshing awatar (half man half animal)-
5 vaman awatar (a dwarf man) - a small man so intelligent that with his wits he got all three worlds.
6 Rama awatar- A perfect human being
& Krishna awtar- Some say he was more perfect than Rama.

Here it is. The evolution of the races.


This is not anything to do with evolution!
God incarnates as an avatar according to the level of the intelligence of the time & culture and explains "Eternal Duty" (lit., "sanatana-dharma").

Each of the above Avataras appeared among the royal dynasties of antiquity. Even Varaha (the Boar) appeared to fight with a descendent of the Devatas/Daityas/Adaityas (Kasaypa's grandkids) namely, Hiranyaksha, brother of Hiranyakashipu.

Vishnu Avataras appear to facilitate material affairs within the material world to re-claim the fallen souls by establishing, at the minimum, yogic-discipline for the sake of free-will pursuance of "Love-of-God" versus "beastial pleasure".

[rcscwc]

Evolution can be thought of in two ways. That of world and that of life.

In Hindu thought, Sankhya evolution of the world has influenced Vedanta too. Periodic evolution and dissolution is very much there.

As for evolution of life. Common origin of man and apes? Hindus were not at all surprised. Abrahmic religions still have not reconciled to evolution of life, far be of the world. These are essentially against the creation myth of genesis, the very foundation. Islam is even wprse straits. Adam is variously claimed to have been created from clay, a clot or blood or water etc. It still begs the question: Where from the clot or blood came?

Hinduism separates religion from secular physical sceinces. Religion never tried to dominate, regulate or guide the sceintific research. Galilleos were persecuted by xians. Brunos never got burnt in Hindu cultural history.

[ScottMalaysia]

Evolution is a load of rubbish. It's necessary for atheists as they need some way to explain how the world got here without a Creator. Which is as preposterous as claiming that the Mona Lisa got the way it did without being painted by someone.

There is no proof of the kind of evolution that the atheistic scientists claim is true. There are two main kinds of evolution:

1. Micro-Evolution - natural variations among species. An example of this is the finches observed byCharles Darwin (who wasn't a scientist; he had a theology degree). There are variations in the shapes of the beaks. But the finches are still finches. They're not on their way to becoming something else.

2. Macro-Evolution - This is the unproven theory that one kind of life-form turns into another. For example, evolutionists claim that fish turned into amphibians and that amphibians turned into reptiles. There is no proof of this because nobody saw it happen. There are no "transitional fossils" which show that such a thing happened. And one kind of animal turning into another has never been observed in nature.

The evolutionists will present evidence for micro-evolution and then use that as proof for macro-evolution. This is because they have no proof for macro-evolution. Most biology textbooks will mention Darwin's finches and/or the peppered moth of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution). Neither of these show one species turning into another.

Evolutionists claim that mutations are what drives evolution forward. But mutations are a reshuffling of genetic information - they cannot create new information which is what evolutionists claim that they do. And most mutations are harmful, not beneficial.

The theory that humans are descended from apes is garbage. The pictures that you see in textbooks are based on a few bones and the artist's imagination. All the bones of man's supposed "ancestors" would fit on a pool table. But because the evolutionists are desperate to prove their theory, they get artists to create drawings of these supposed "pre-humans". The older they think the specimen is, the more hair they put on it and the more ape-like they make it. These drawings are pure fiction.

All of man's supposed ancestors have been proven to be either all ape, or in the case of the Neanderthal Man, all human. The Neanderthal could be a race of human that died out (possibly one from the previous ages). The bones of your eyebrows never stop growing, so jutting eyebrows could indicate a person of several hundred years of age (people lived longer during the Dwapara-Yuga).

So evolution is nothing but garbage. Garbage designed to make people doubt their faith in God and believe that the world got here by chance. Because they've removed God from the equation, these evolutionists claim that life got started on its own - a theory which flies in the face of science, as it has been proven that life only comes from life (the law of biogenesis). No-one has managed to create life from non-living matter because it cannot be done. The numerous experiments that have been done in an attempt to demonstrate how life could have arisen by chance show just how desperate evolutionists are to prove their theory.

Real science is observable, testable and demonstrable. It must be able to be observed, tested and demonstrated. Evolution fails on all three counts. No-one has seen one species change into another. It cannot be tested in a laboratory and no-one has demonstrated scientifically how it takes place. Real scientists observe phenomena, make a hypothesis based on their observations, and perform experiments to test the hypothesis. If the experiments prove the hypothesis wrong, then they come up with a new hypothesis, and then test that. The hypothesis is based on the observations.

Darwin, however, wrote his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (yes that's the full title) without any proof for what he claimed except the microevolution that he observed among the finches. The people who came after Darwin liked the theory (mainly because it showed how life could have arisen without God), and they fitted the new evidence as it arose to Darwin's hypothesis. They already had the theory in place and they fitted the evidence to it, rather than the real scientific method of fitting the theory to the evidence.

This method of fitting the evidence to the theory sent an innocent man to jail for 13 years in my hometown. The police were convinced that the man in question committed the murders, so they fitted all the evidence to that theory without considering alternative theories. The man was finally acquitted in June 2009.

[sanjaya]

Hello Scott. I took a look at your problems with evolution, both the scientific and theological/philosophical ones. Speaking respectfully, I believe you may be mistaken. Speaking as a scientist (specifically an astrophysicist), I do not believe there to be any conflict between belief in God and the theory of biological evolution. There are problems between biological evolution and Western religious theology/Greek philosophy, hence the furious debate in the Western world. But let us not reduce religion to Western religion (or any other belief system that requires a literal belief in a creation mythology). Regarding the theological issues, it's important to consider the act of creation in a Hindu context. Our Scriptures state that the creation of the universe is, to some extent, unknown.

He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not. (Rig Veda, Book 10, Hymn 129, Verse 7)
Without contradicting God's omnipotence, this verse actually agrees with the quantum theory of cosmology. In physics we see that the universe loves symmetry. Particles and anti-particles are always created in pairs (to conserve charge), and are created moving in opposite directions (to conserve momentum). So when the universe was created, physics would suggest that it should have been perfectly symmetric. There should be no galaxies, no solar systems, no nebulae, etc. However, cosmologists suggest that when the universe was very small in size, quantum fluctuations broke that symmetry, and when the universe experienced rapid inflation, these assymetries allowed the universe to be the interesting place that it is today. This has deep philosophical implications, because it means that the universe arose from quantum uncertainty. Quantum uncertainty is not merely uncertain due to some limit on human technology, it is a fundamental uncertainty that is intrinsic to the universe. Whereas many of the worlds creation stories disagree with this idea, Hinduism seems to concur pretty well by allowing for such an uncertainty.

Here's the reason for my digression into cosmology. Evolution is actually a very general principle which applies to more than just biological systems. The universe as a whole has been evolving for the past 13.7 billion years. The classical Western notion of creation conjures up images of a God speaking things into existence. But I think Hinduism allows for God to create the universe through less direct means. So one needn't reject the existence of God by believing in scientific theories such as evolution. I agree that atheism is a problem in the scientific community and that it is bad for societies. But Western creationism isn't the only alternative.

Regarding your scientific problems with evolution, there are resources online which describe evolutionary theory in-depth, and there are solutions to many of the problems you pose. For example, regarding the issue of mutations: it's true that most mutations are harmful. But harmful mutations get filtered out through the deaths of organisms carrying them, so this puts pressure on the beneficial mutations to be selected. And computer simulations employing evolutionary algorithms have shown that new information can indeed arise through mutation. When searching online, I would advise you to beware of Christian sites, which unconscionably promulgate lies in order to protect their creation doctrines (nothing against Christians, but this is precisely what Christian creationist websites do). I could direct you to some helpful resources, if you'd like.

Perhaps one of the best testaments to the strength of Hinduism is that we can debate issues of evolution and creation without declaring one another heretics. :)

[ScottMalaysia]

Hello Scott. I took a look at your problems with evolution, both the scientific and theological/philosophical ones. Speaking respectfully, I believe you may be mistaken. Speaking as a scientist (specifically an astrophysicist), I do not believe there to be any conflict between belief in God and the theory of biological evolution. There are problems between biological evolution and Western religious theology/Greek philosophy, hence the furious debate in the Western world. But let us not reduce religion to Western religion (or any other belief system that requires a literal belief in a creation mythology). Regarding the theological issues, it's important to consider the act of creation in a Hindu context. Our Scriptures state that the creation of the universe is, to some extent, unknown.
He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not. (Rig Veda, Book 10, Hymn 129, Verse 7)
Without contradicting God's omnipotence, this verse actually agrees with the quantum theory of cosmology. In physics we see that the universe loves symmetry. Particles and anti-particles are always created in pairs (to conserve charge), and are created moving in opposite directions (to conserve momentum). So when the universe was created, physics would suggest that it should have been perfectly symmetric. There should be no galaxies, no solar systems, no nebulae, etc. However, cosmologists suggest that when the universe was very small in size, quantum fluctuations broke that symmetry, and when the universe experienced rapid inflation, these assymetries allowed the universe to be the interesting place that it is today. This has deep philosophical implications, because it means that the universe arose from quantum uncertainty. Quantum uncertainty is not merely uncertain due to some limit on human technology, it is a fundamental uncertainty that is intrinsic to the universe. Whereas many of the worlds creation stories disagree with this idea, Hinduism seems to concur pretty well by allowing for such an uncertainty.

Here's the reason for my digression into cosmology. Evolution is actually a very general principle which applies to more than just biological systems. The universe as a whole has been evolving for the past 13.7 billion years. The classical Western notion of creation conjures up images of a God speaking things into existence. But I think Hinduism allows for God to create the universe through less direct means. So one needn't reject the existence of God by believing in scientific theories such as evolution. I agree that atheism is a problem in the scientific community and that it is bad for societies. But Western creationism isn't the only alternative.

I never said that belief in evolution was incompatible with a belief in God. Hinduism has little to lose if evolution is proven true (which it would only be if someone saw one kind of animal evolve into another). Christianity on the other hand has an awful lot to lose. Evolution states that the fittest survive and the rest die out. However, the Bible states that there was no death at all on earth before Adam and Eve sinned. The two theories cannot be reconciled, which is why Christians fight so hard against evolution.

However, if God is all-powerful, why would He create living things through such a horrific process of death, where the fittest survive and the rest die? Why would God use death to create life when He could simply create life?

I know that Western creationism isn't the only alternative - Hindu creationism is another one, as well as Intelligent Design, which states that the universe and mankind was "designed" by a higher being but gives no details on this higher being, leaving that to religion.


And computer simulations employing evolutionary algorithms have shown that new information can indeed arise through mutation. Can you give me a link to some sites that explore this? I'd like to read about it.


When searching online, I would advise you to beware of Christian sites, which unconscionably promulgate lies in order to protect their creation doctrines (nothing against Christians, but this is precisely what Christian creationist websites do). I could direct you to some helpful resources, if you'd like.

Christian creationist websites have good refutations to many of the arguments used by evolutionists, but yes, they do have lies as well. Mainly about the age of the earth. If you read the Bible literally, then the world would seem to be around 6000 - 14,000 years old (there are Christian sites which put forward each figure and others in between). However, we know from the Hindu scriptures that the world has existed for several million years (Satya, Treta and Dwapara Yugas, plus 5000 years of Kali Yuga).

Perhaps one of the best testaments to the strength of Hinduism is that we can debate issues of evolution and creation without declaring one another heretics. :)[/quote]

Yes, that is true. There is even an atheistic school of Hinduism (Carvaka) and they are considered Hindus.

However, the debate isn't science versus religion. It's religion versus religion. Evolution is a scientific theory that hasn't been proven - you have to believe in it. My wife, who has a degree in anatomy and much more of a scientific background than me, admits that evolution cannot be proven to be true because it happened over a long period of time and therefore could not be observed. However, she states that she believes in it. The important point being belief. You can believe that we're all the children of a giant sheep called Baarry, but don't treat it as scientific fact.

However, evolution is taught in schools as if it's scientific fact, not a theory that cannot be proved since it is not observable, testable and demonstrable. Teachers who tell their students about the problems with the evolution theory in the US are fired for teaching "religion", even though they mention nothing about God or creationism. Evolution is their sacrosanct religion and questioning it will get you fired and "excommunicated" from the scientific community who refuse to admit the existence of a Supreme Being.

[sanjaya]

I never said that belief in evolution was incompatible with a belief in God. Hinduism has little to lose if evolution is proven true (which it would only be if someone saw one kind of animal evolve into another). Christianity on the other hand has an awful lot to lose. Evolution states that the fittest survive and the rest die out. However, the Bible states that there was no death at all on earth before Adam and Eve sinned. The two theories cannot be reconciled, which is why Christians fight so hard against evolution.

I think you're right. Many Christians believe in "young earth creationism," positing that God created the universe in the space of six days, six-thousand years ago. Others believe in a (slightly) more relaxed doctrine called "old earth creationism," suggesting that the universe is billions of years old, but that humans were specially created. Many young earth people believe in "no death before the fall," which runs them into serious trouble with evolution. The old earth people do not believe that death was introduced before the fall, but they still believe in the special creation of man, so evolution poses an equally severe problem for them. This is the motivation for their willingness to use deceit and misinformation to attack evolution.


However, if God is all-powerful, why would He create living things through such a horrific process of death, where the fittest survive and the rest die? Why would God use death to create life when He could simply create life?

That's a good question, and I admit that it's one I haven't considered very seriously before. It's true that animals have souls just like us, but we are different from animals in a few significant ways. We have the ability to reason, and to worship God. Animals, for example, don't do puja or know how to repeat the names of God. So perhaps in some sense, the principle of non-violence is directed more at us than them.

Why would God create this seemingly horrific process? I'm not sure. Maybe the fact that humans don't (or rather shouldn't) kill animals is why God puts peoples' souls in animals as punishment for their sins. But the problem exists whether or not evolutionary biology is true. It can be observed that animals kill each other in a fight for survival. Evolution only says that this process resulted in the creation of humans.


I know that Western creationism isn't the only alternative - Hindu creationism is another one, as well as Intelligent Design, which states that the universe and mankind was "designed" by a higher being but gives no details on this higher being, leaving that to religion.

Of course. But I would caution you once again to be very careful about looking up Intelligent Design resources. Here in America, virtually all ID material is written by and for evangelical Christians, and is merely a tool for converting others to Christianity. There are very few notable exceptions, like Ben Stein's movie "Expelled!" Ben Stein is Jewish, but even here all of the ID proponents featured are Christians.


Can you give me a link to some sites that explore this? I'd like to read about it.

Of course. I think the Talk Origins article gives a fairly detailed explanation of evolutionary algorithms:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html


Christian creationist websites have good refutations to many of the arguments used by evolutionists, but yes, they do have lies as well. Mainly about the age of the earth. If you read the Bible literally, then the world would seem to be around 6000 - 14,000 years old (there are Christian sites which put forward each figure and others in between). However, we know from the Hindu scriptures that the world has existed for several million years (Satya, Treta and Dwapara Yugas, plus 5000 years of Kali Yuga).

Indeed Hinduism does do a much better job of estimating the age of the universe. As for the Christian creationist websites though, I've yet to find any significant truth in them. They cast doubt on evolution, but offer no alternatives of their own. Their desperation is pretty apparent, I think.


However, the debate isn't science versus religion. It's religion versus religion. Evolution is a scientific theory that hasn't been proven - you have to believe in it. My wife, who has a degree in anatomy and much more of a scientific background than me, admits that evolution cannot be proven to be true because it happened over a long period of time and therefore could not be observed. However, she states that she believes in it. The important point being belief. You can believe that we're all the children of a giant sheep called Baarry, but don't treat it as scientific fact.

I think I see what you'e saying. Science in general does require us to believe in one statement without proof: that the universe operates according to the same laws in all places and times. If the laws of physics were different millions of years ago, then this would most likely invalidate evolution, along with a lot of other theories. But I think that one you can accept this fundamental premise of science, most theories can be deduced from logic and empirical observations.


However, evolution is taught in schools as if it's scientific fact, not a theory that cannot be proved since it is not observable, testable and demonstrable. Teachers who tell their students about the problems with the evolution theory in the US are fired for teaching "religion", even though they mention nothing about God or creationism. Evolution is their sacrosanct religion and questioning it will get you fired and "excommunicated" from the scientific community who refuse to admit the existence of a Supreme Being.

It's true that many people in America do treat evolution as a sort of religion, and teachers can get in trouble for teaching Intelligent Design. But again, in America all of the ID proponents are evangelical Christians. These are the same people who send missionaries to India and who engage in deceptive "friendship evangelism" with Hindus on college campuses. The anti-evolution campaign is an evangelical Christian campaign. So there's a danger in offering support to these people. If we support the ID proponents, then we are ultimately funneling money and political support into the very operation that tries to convert Hindus to Christianity. If children come home from school with the belief that God did not create the universe, this atheistic view can easily be corrected by parents. In fact, I think that if parents take the time to explain to their children why we perform pujas and recite God's name, then no high school biology teacher will be able to take away a Hindu child's faith. But it's much harder, I think, to combat the Christian worldview, especially when we are fighting for the minds of children in America. The pressure to convert to Christianity is great; it offers social acceptance in school, greater community involvement with other Americans, and a sense of conformity.

Right now ID proponents are fighting merely for the right to say that the universe could have been created by a "Supreme Being," without making reference to who he is. But this is only one front in American Evangelicalism's war against other religions. As we speak they are fighting for prayer in school and other public facilities, public display of Ten Commandments monuments, and the right to integrate faith with the government. By "faith," they mean Christianity. They would cry "idolatry!" if we were to display some text from the Bhagavad Gia alongside the Ten Commandments monuments. And to see how far their idea of public prayer extends, we only need to look a couple years back to when Rajan Zed offered the first Hindu prayer to open the Senate session. For years Christian and Jewish clergy have offered the opening prayer without incident. But when Zed did so, three Christians began protesting in the Senate chamber and had to be removed. Whatever correct points ID might make in terms of science, it is a dangerous arm of Evangelical aggression, and so I think we need to be wary of supporting this movement.

[ScottMalaysia]

That's a good question, and I admit that it's one I haven't considered very seriously before. It's true that animals have souls just like us, but we are different from animals in a few significant ways. We have the ability to reason, and to worship God. Animals, for example, don't do puja or know how to repeat the names of God. So perhaps in some sense, the principle of non-violence is directed more at us than them.

Why would God create this seemingly horrific process? I'm not sure. Maybe the fact that humans don't (or rather shouldn't) kill animals is why God puts peoples' souls in animals as punishment for their sins. But the problem exists whether or not evolutionary biology is true. It can be observed that animals kill each other in a fight for survival. Evolution only says that this process resulted in the creation of humans.

I'd never thought about it this way before. Srila Prabhupada did say that if you want to eat meat, God will give you the body of a tiger in your next life, but I'd never thought of it as a punishment for general sins.




Of course. But I would caution you once again to be very careful about looking up Intelligent Design resources. Here in America, virtually all ID material is written by and for evangelical Christians, and is merely a tool for converting others to Christianity. There are very few notable exceptions, like Ben Stein's movie "Expelled!" Ben Stein is Jewish, but even here all of the ID proponents featured are Christians.

It makes sense. They can't teach religion in science class, so they come up with the "intelligent design" theory saying that the universe is so complex it must have had a Creator. Then, when people are convinced in the belief of the Creator, they shove all the other Christian doctrines down their throats.




Of course. I think the Talk Origins article gives a fairly detailed explanation of evolutionary algorithms:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html


Thanks for this. I'll look through it when I have more time (which is not at the moment)



Indeed Hinduism does do a much better job of estimating the age of the universe. As for the Christian creationist websites though, I've yet to find any significant truth in them. They cast doubt on evolution, but offer no alternatives of their own. Their desperation is pretty apparent, I think.

The alternative they offer is a literal interpretation of the Bible saying that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh (why does God need to rest, anyway?)


I think I see what you'e saying. Science in general does require us to believe in one statement without proof: that the universe operates according to the same laws in all places and times. If the laws of physics were different millions of years ago, then this would most likely invalidate evolution, along with a lot of other theories. But I think that one you can accept this fundamental premise of science, most theories can be deduced from logic and empirical observations.


Creationist Kent Hovind mentions this in one of his videos - the theory that "because it happens this way now it has always happened this way" (there is a name for it but I can't remember it at the moment). Hovind, a Young Earth Creationist, believes that the order of fossils in the geologic column was due to the Great Flood of Noah and not the result of gradual evolution.



It's true that many people in America do treat evolution as a sort of religion, and teachers can get in trouble for teaching Intelligent Design. But again, in America all of the ID proponents are evangelical Christians. These are the same people who send missionaries to India and who engage in deceptive "friendship evangelism" with Hindus on college campuses. The anti-evolution campaign is an evangelical Christian campaign. So there's a danger in offering support to these people. If we support the ID proponents, then we are ultimately funneling money and political support into the very operation that tries to convert Hindus to Christianity.

So ALL religion should be kept out of science class - creationism, intelligent design, and evolutionism. If a student asks "Where did we/earth/the universe come from?" then the teacher should reply "No-one has been able to prove this scientifically. However, various religions have theories which attempt to answer this question" or something similar. In fact, I remember asking my primary school teacher where humans came from. She told me that there were two theories - one was that we evolved from apes and the other was that there were two people called Adam and Eve and that they had children. (I didn't actually remember the names at that time, but it's obvious that that's who she would have said).


If children come home from school with the belief that God did not create the universe, this atheistic view can easily be corrected by parents. In fact, I think that if parents take the time to explain to their children why we perform pujas and recite God's name, then no high school biology teacher will be able to take away a Hindu child's faith. But it's much harder, I think, to combat the Christian worldview, especially when we are fighting for the minds of children in America. The pressure to convert to Christianity is great; it offers social acceptance in school, greater community involvement with other Americans, and a sense of conformity.

Possibly this view can be corrected by parents; I don't know as I'm not a parent yet and I have no experience in child-rearing. However, I do remember Kent Hovind mentioning on one of his videos that (I think) 75% of Christians who go to college reject their faith in their first year. He claims that this is due to evolution teaching them that there is an alternate explanation for the origin of the universe.

I read about the "Friendship Evangelism" tactics in the latest issue of Hinduism Today. The incident mentioned happened here in Malaysia, which is quite a religiously tolerant country. Christians are a minority here, but they're the majority in America, and I could understand the pressures that they could put on Hindu students, who feel that they could become "cool" by converting to Christianity.


Right now ID proponents are fighting merely for the right to say that the universe could have been created by a "Supreme Being," without making reference to who he is. But this is only one front in American Evangelicalism's war against other religions.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. First step: acknowledge the theory that a Supreme Being created the Universe. Second step: Now that we have a Supreme Being in the picture, people want to know about Him, so they bring in the Bible to teach them about this Supreme Being.


As we speak they are fighting for prayer in school and other public facilities, public display of Ten Commandments monuments, and the right to integrate faith with the government. By "faith," they mean Christianity. They would cry "idolatry!" if we were to display some text from the Bhagavad Gia alongside the Ten Commandments monuments.

Just imagine "Whatever form a devotee with faith wishes to worship, I make that faith of his steady" (BG 7:21) beside "I am the LORD thy God....Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:1)

Prayer in school may work if it's an ecumenical prayer that doesn't make a reference to any religion or specific form of God. But then the Christians would be up in arms against that.

I think the best thing to do would be to open Hindu schools where students are taught Sanskrit and Shastra in addition to the normal American curriculum, with the Hindu view of Creation (including Rig Veda 10.129, the third verse of which was copied into Genesis 1:2).


And to see how far their idea of public prayer extends, we only need to look a couple years back to when Rajan Zed offered the first Hindu prayer to open the Senate session. For years Christian and Jewish clergy have offered the opening prayer without incident. But when Zed did so, three Christians began protesting in the Senate chamber and had to be removed. Whatever correct points ID might make in terms of science, it is a dangerous arm of Evangelical aggression, and so I think we need to be wary of supporting this movement.

Christians and Jews pray to the same God, however, they think that Hindus worship lots of gods, and they wouldn't want prayer to some other god in the Senate.

I understand your points about ID. However, I don't think it is even an issue here in Malaysia, and I've never heard of it in New Zealand, where I will be returning to at the end of the year. But I still think the best idea is to set up Hindu schools. Catholics have their schools, as do Muslims, Jews and Protestants, so why not Hindus?

[sanjaya]

I'd never thought about it this way before. Srila Prabhupada did say that if you want to eat meat, God will give you the body of a tiger in your next life, but I'd never thought of it as a punishment for general sins.

Very interesting. The idea of being put in a carnivore's body for being a carnivore seems like a very direct effect of karma. As for the animal birth as punishment for sins, that's what my parents always told me. I didn't know that this wasn't a common Hindu belief. Maybe it's just something that parents say to scare their kids into believing. But I'd certainly like to study the issue of reincarnation further, if only I knew the pertinent Scriptures.



It makes sense. They can't teach religion in science class, so they come up with the "intelligent design" theory saying that the universe is so complex it must have had a Creator. Then, when people are convinced in the belief of the Creator, they shove all the other Christian doctrines down their throats.

That's basically the way it works here in the States. Here people don't know that there are any religions out there besides Christianity. So when someone wants to "leave the faith" per se, the only alternative they know of is atheism. Thus atheism is very common over here, and Christians need to get over that hurdle in order to start preaching Christianity to others. Furthermore, evangelical Christians are taught a sort of all-or-nothing approach to faith. Either the Bible is absoutely free of all error, or it cannot be from God. Maybe that's why so many Christians here are turning to atheism. But when I was growing up and going to public school, my parents never taught me any fundamentalist approach to Hinduism (is there even such a thing as fundamentalist Hinduism?). So every time I learned new science, I felt no need to discard my belief in God.


Creationist Kent Hovind mentions this in one of his videos - the theory that "because it happens this way now it has always happened this way" (there is a name for it but I can't remember it at the moment). Hovind, a Young Earth Creationist, believes that the order of fossils in the geologic column was due to the Great Flood of Noah and not the result of gradual evolution.

Funny thing about Kent Hovind. The guy is currently serving a prison sentence for tax evasion. Many evangelicals seem to only interpret the Bible literally when it helps them condemn others. Anyway, I can see Hovind attacking this fundamental tenet of science, probably because he doesn't understand it. From what we've seen in nature, the laws of nature do operate in the same way at all places and times. To say otherwise is baseless speculation.

If you ever encounter a young earth creationist who says that the laws of physics can change, try asking him: how do you know that the universe wasn't created 47 seconds ago along with your __ year old body and all of your memories? That's the problem with making non-falsifiable speculations. Literally anything is possible once you stop requiring scientific theories to be falsifiable.


So ALL religion should be kept out of science class - creationism, intelligent design, and evolutionism. If a student asks "Where did we/earth/the universe come from?" then the teacher should reply "No-one has been able to prove this scientifically. However, various religions have theories which attempt to answer this question" or something similar. In fact, I remember asking my primary school teacher where humans came from. She told me that there were two theories - one was that we evolved from apes and the other was that there were two people called Adam and Eve and that they had children. (I didn't actually remember the names at that time, but it's obvious that that's who she would have said).

Setting aside for the moment the issue of whether evolution is scientifically valid or not, I completely agree with you. I don't really care to have Hinduism taught in the classroom, because I'm quite content for all people to practice the religion they were born with. So I'm happy to keep Hinduism out of schools and other public facilities if the Christians will likewise stop trying to force their religion on others. But given that evangelical Christians have so much power in America, they have a great capacity to force their faith on the rest of us. As such, I'll take atheistic evolution in the classroom before I'll take evangelical Christianity. At least the atheists aren't out to destroy Indian culture and Westernize everyone.

I think your example with the teacher is a good one, and I think it characterizes the experience of us American Hindus as well. As I said earlier, in America there is only Christianity and atheism. Many Americans seem to think that other faiths only exist on the other side of the world. So if you allow public servants to start bringing "religion" into schools and the workplace, the only religion you'll get is conservative, evangelical Christianity.


Possibly this view can be corrected by parents; I don't know as I'm not a parent yet and I have no experience in child-rearing.

I guess we're in the same boat then; I too know nothing about child-rearing. But I do credit my faith in God to my parents. My dad made sure I knew all of India's stories about God, and he took the time to explain to me why we did pujas. When we visited temples, he pointed to all of the murtis and explained the stories behind each God. Granted, for most of my life I never took it seriously, and I even strayed quite far from Hinduism in college. But ultimately I came back. So I believe that parents can have tremendous power over how their children's faith develops.

Of course most children also believe in logic, which leads me to your comment about college students...


However, I do remember Kent Hovind mentioning on one of his videos that (I think) 75% of Christians who go to college reject their faith in their first year. He claims that this is due to evolution teaching them that there is an alternate explanation for the origin of the universe.

I think this goes back to the all-or-nothing doctrine that I mentioned above. If you teach your kids that the Bible is God's word because it contains no errors whatsoever, and then they find out that the creation story, when taken literally, is nonsense, the only logical thing to do is throw the Bible out. And that's unfortunate, because the Bible does contain a lot of good teachings which lead most Westerners to live decent lives. Most Hindus are never taught to interpret our Scriptures with this ultra-literal approach. In fact, most of our creation stories would seem quite silly if taken as historical truth. But when understood properly, I think that Hindu Scriptural commentaries on creation are quite profound.


I read about the "Friendship Evangelism" tactics in the latest issue of Hinduism Today. The incident mentioned happened here in Malaysia, which is quite a religiously tolerant country. Christians are a minority here, but they're the majority in America, and I could understand the pressures that they could put on Hindu students, who feel that they could become "cool" by converting to Christianity.

I read that article too. Is it the one about the Hindu medical student? I've seen similar things happen at my school. Strangely, the evangelicals mostly left me alone throughout college. I've run into a few Campus Crusade people and other proselytizers, but that's about it. During my time in graduate school though, I've known many Indians who were befriended by Christians and started becoming involved in their church. Strangely, they still call themselves Hindu (probably due to Indian aversion to changing one's religion). But the evangelicals only tear them from their Hindu culture and leave them confused about their religious identity. This friendship evangelism is insidious in a way that even many evangelicals don't fully understand. I don't think they comprehend the fact that Indian culture is deeply rooted in Hinduism, and that asking a Hindu to convert is tantamount to asking him to reject his entire culture.

Part of the problem (I think) with being Hindu in America is that Christianity permeates American culture. Christianity does bring a strong sense of belonging, and perhaps many Hindus are attracted to this. I wish that Hindu groups on college campuses made more of an effort to develop community so that Hindus wouldn't run to the church for this.




Just imagine "Whatever form a devotee with faith wishes to worship, I make that faith of his steady" (BG 7:21) beside "I am the LORD thy God....Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:1)

Heh, I think this would only serve to drive more people away from Christianity (maybe that's why some evangelicals object). When the open-minded teaching of Sri Krishna is placed beside the Bible, I think that Hinduism becomes the obvious better choice. But as Krishna says, I'm fine with Christians practicing their faith with diligence. I just wish they would allow us to do the same.


Prayer in school may work if it's an ecumenical prayer that doesn't make a reference to any religion or specific form of God. But then the Christians would be up in arms against that.

Yes, I think they would strongly object to this. Christians pour so much time and money into allowing prayer in public places, and then reel back when Hindus avail ourselves of the same right. In addition to the incident in the Senate, there have been instances of Christians suing schools because Hindu meditation was taught. I wish they would make up their minds about whether they want prayer in school or not.



I think the best thing to do would be to open Hindu schools where students are taught Sanskrit and Shastra in addition to the normal American curriculum, with the Hindu view of Creation (including Rig Veda 10.129, the third verse of which was copied into Genesis 1:2).

I think that would be a great idea! If only Hindus in America (and India, for that matter) could become more unified, then this might be viable.


Christians and Jews pray to the same God, however, they think that Hindus worship lots of gods, and they wouldn't want prayer to some other god in the Senate.

That's the reasoning of many evangelicals. Jewish prayers are OK, and in fact there isn't even that much opposition to Muslim prayers. But Hindus are viewed as polytheists and pagans (even though we are neither). Actually, Jews in America are very supportive of Hindus, and Jewish activist groups have politically supported Hindus in the past. But evangelical Christians and Jews have a very funny dynamic here. Jews are no fans of Christianity, but Christians seem to think that Judaism is "Christianity without Christ." So Christians will allow Jewish prayers, but not Hindu prayers.


I understand your points about ID. However, I don't think it is even an issue here in Malaysia, and I've never heard of it in New Zealand, where I will be returning to at the end of the year. But I still think the best idea is to set up Hindu schools. Catholics have their schools, as do Muslims, Jews and Protestants, so why not Hindus?

It's good to hear that you don't have the same problem in Malaysia. Still I think we should always be careful when dealing with issues like this involving Christianity. Historically, when Christians have gained political power, they have tended to abuse it.

[Ramakrishna]

This is not anything to do with evolution!
God incarnates as an avatar according to the level of the intelligence of the time & culture and explains "Eternal Duty" (lit., "sanatana-dharma").

Each of the above Avataras appeared among the royal dynasties of antiquity. Even Varaha (the Boar) appeared to fight with a descendent of the Devatas/Daityas/Adaityas (Kasaypa's grandkids) namely, Hiranyaksha, brother of Hiranyakashipu.

Vishnu Avataras appear to facilitate material affairs within the material world to re-claim the fallen souls by establishing, at the minimum, yogic-discipline for the sake of free-will pursuance of "Love-of-God" versus "beastial pleasure".

But I think it has a lot to do with evolution. It shows the evolution of life on earth, plain and simple. This article explains it very well: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/101713

Sure, Varaha (the boar) fought Hiranyaksha, but he was a demon. It's not like Varaha was fighting a Homo sapien. He was fighting a demon who could be on earth at any time in history.

I see the avatars of Vishnu as supporting the concept of evolution because they show Vishnu incarnating on earth in the same lifeforms that were on earth at the time. This is one of the most convincing things about Hinduism to me. Evolution contradicts other religions like Christianity so much, but I always thought that evolution supports Hinduism.

[ScottMalaysia]

I always thought that evolution supports Hinduism.

As far as I know, the Hindu scriptures state that Lord Brahma created all kinds of life forms as they are.

Evolution is a pseudoscientific "religion" that goes hand in hand with atheism. Atheists need to have an explanation for the beginning of life and the universe without God, or else their belief system looks stupid (which it is).

As I stated above, there are two kinds of evolution macro and microevolution. Microevolution has been observed - it refers to changes within species, such as Darwin's finches. Macroevolution has never been seen and thus remains as much a religious belief as a belief in God. Therefore evolutionists use evidence for microevolution to "prove" macroevolution.

Darwin himself had no other evidence for his theory than his observation of finches in the Galapagos Islands. He said that the evidence would be found later. People liked his idea as it seemed to explain how life could have arisen without God. Therefore, when new evidence was found, they fitted it to the theory of evolution, which is unscientific. Scientists fit the theory to the evidence, not the other way around.

I disagree with evolution as it is necessary for the atheist agenda. I consider atheism to be a pernicious belief, akin to stating that Da Vinci did not paint the Mona Lisa or that Tolkien did not write The Lord of the Rings. The universe was created by God and atheism states that it came together by chance.

[Jivattatva]

I agree with you Scott that Darwinism is not science it's religion ; its based on faith.

Sanjaya, I think you are not exactly right when you say Hinduism do not make scientific assertions. Some parts of the Vedas make scientific assertions, like in Srimad Bhagavatam and I think that I read somewhere that the Vedas asserts a steady state of the universe contrary to the inflationary state which seems to be consistent based on observations and based on Einstein Theory of Relativity.

About the mathematical models on computer to test probability of mutations to come up with a new stronger species. I think that is not so conclusive. The evolution of the eye for example, some scientist says, is very improbable to happen in a lateral evolution -- just impossible.

I thought that the conclusion of Hindusim is that the only evolution that happened is evolution of consciuosness. Not evolution of the material bodies. All living things have consciousness and depending on our karma, vasanas etc we evolve from one type of living entity to another.

[Onkara]

Namasté
I have a couple of thoughts to add. :)


I agree with you Scott that Darwinism is not science it's religion; its based on faith.

I thought that the conclusion of Hinduism is that the only evolution that happened is evolution of consciousness. Not evolution of the material bodies. All living things have consciousness and depending on our karma, vasanas etc we evolve from one type of living entity to another.

Both the living and the non-living exist in consciousness (chit). It takes consciousness in order for both the living (me & you) and the non-living (e.g. rocks & trees) to come into existence; to be. So everything might be evolving or changing within consciousness and it appears to be that consciousness is limited to the body, but it is not on further investigation.





I disagree with evolution as it is necessary for the atheist agenda. I consider atheism to be a pernicious belief, akin to stating that Da Vinci did not paint the Mona Lisa or that Tolkien did not write The Lord of the Rings. The universe was created by God and atheism states that it came together by chance.

I agree with you and your examples. Atheism is a philosophical system of ideas and it is suitable to the atheist to agree with evolution in order to explain the materialism. Atheists are happy to stop at the point and will argue that point as the foundation.

However we can go one step further; even the Big-bang or "chance creation" must have a substratum or foundation in which to occur. We cannot accept logically that something can come from nothing. Nor can we accept infinite regress if we are to understand nature clearly without imagination. By infinite regress I mean that something comes from something which comes from something ad infinitum; it is absurd. In order for something to exist it must come from something existing, experience shows that and that is what evolution explains. That which all this comes is Brahman. Brahman is the name for that substratum.

AUM

[ScottMalaysia]

I agree with you and your examples. Atheism is a philosophical system of ideas and it is suitable to the atheist to agree with evolution in order to explain the materialism. Atheists are happy to stop at the point and will argue that point as the foundation.

It's not just suitable for atheists to agree with evolution, it's necessary. They need some way to explain how everything got here without God, and there aren't any other theories (except religious ones, which are out of the question for them).


However we can go one step further; even the Big-bang or "chance creation" must have a substratum or foundation in which to occur. We cannot accept logically that something can come from nothing.

As Creationist Kent Hovind puts it: "Nothing exploded and created everything".

[soham3]

Hinduism is evolutionistic in the sense of its karma theory of sow & reap. Karma is mainly progressive but partly retrogressive too. Buddhism has philosophy of kaama which is continuous progression. Aurobindoism stands upon evolution of Consciousness in Matter.

[rainycity]

It's not just suitable for atheists to agree with evolution, it's necessary. They need some way to explain how everything got here without God, and there aren't any other theories (except religious ones, which are out of the question for them).



As Creationist Kent Hovind puts it: "Nothing exploded and created everything".

you can't seriously be quoting Kent Hovind? The theory doesn't state that nothing exploded and created everything, it states that everything including time and space was in a small dense potential state, and it expanded rapidly. It didn't explode because there was nothing to explode into. "The Big Bang" is a term coined by an early critic of the theory. Do you realise the vedas state virtually the same thing as the theory?

[dead_man]

it states that everything including time and space was in a small dense potential state, and it expanded rapidly.... Do you realise the vedas state virtually the same thing as the theory?

I for one would be very interested to see which vedic text says about time itself coming into existence only after the bang. It is something my linear mind can never comprehend.

[sambya]

I for one would be very interested to see which vedic text says about time itself coming into existence only after the bang. It is something my linear mind can never comprehend.


nasadiya sukta of rig veda gives a very similar description to a big bang of modern scientists ------ the pralaya----- involution and expansion as explained in shastras .

[rainycity]

12345

[rainycity]

I for one would be very interested to see which vedic text says about time itself coming into existence only after the bang. It is something my linear mind can never comprehend.

Somebody with more detailed knowledge of scripture would be helpful with specific references. Time is a complicated subject, I've seen it described as eternal, and I've seen eternity described as transcending and/or pre-existing time. Hiranyagarbha of the Rg Veda is the golden orb, embryo or singularity, resplendent as a sun, out of which the universe expanded.

The pralaya or lila is the cyclic expansion and contraction of the universe; after being destroyed the universe is drawn back into its potential state and then evolves again and so on. I'm not sure how old this complete concept is but it at least has its beginnings in the Rg Veda.

The "Big Bang" is not literally a bang or explosion, but a very rapid expansion. There would have been no bang, because there was no space, space itself came into existance with the expansion. That begs the question, what did the space expand into? Vedanta deals with that question :)

'That is full; this is full.
This fullness has been projected from that fullness.
When this fullness merges in that fullness,
all that remains is fullness.'

'Completeness is that, completeness is this,
from completeness, completeness comes forth.
Completeness from completeness taken away,
completeness to completeness added,
completeness alone remains.'

'That is the whole, this is the whole;
from the whole, the whole becomes manifest;
taking away the whole from the whole,
the whole remains.'

- Isha Upanishad

Beautiful, I think