Science and Religion - Friend or Foe?

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Yajvan

Legal laws and moral laws for example or even scientific laws. There is an interesting scientist, Pierre Bourdieu, who says that scientific laws have only a scientific value they are scientific ways of explaining nature way of working and not to be confound with real Nature Laws. He says that science has grow a lot in terms of production of consciousnesses in a recent past, but the job is not yet done and every day's new answer's come and destroy the already existing presumptions.
Interesting debate isn't it?

Pranams

Om namah Shivaya!

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

I have seen people get absolutely sideways over this. A recent article in Discovery Magazine had various scientists in revolt over the theory of Intelligent Design. ... I have not spent enough time with this to form an opinion on Intelligent Design, yet only looked at the level of ire it instilled in some of these scientific folks.

Namaste,

I Have just watched a two hour NOVA originated program on Evolution(E) vs. Intelligent Design (ID). This was about the court case that took place in 2004, in Pennsylvania.

I learned a lot by viewing this. The argument is not ID is better and the right way then E, but that it (ID) should be taught along side E. And that E is a theory and not fact and the final word. [This was the ID's position on this matter].

Bottom line - the court ( by judge only, no jury) ruled ID was not in fact a science. He also made the observation that the proponents of ID saw E as antithetical to God and felt their religious beliefs were being challanged and needed to respond.

I have no issues or see no challenges in my mind with either side. Here's a few points for those that have interest.

• Intelligent Design [ID] at its core is base upon a simple premise - many organisms on this planet are just to complex biologically to not have been designed. Hence God created the species i.e. fish, man, dogs, horses, and from there they evolve accordingly to meet the demands of the environment.
• ID proponents never mention God, as they see this as a challenge to the scientific community.
• When defining 'design' the definition was 'the purposeful arrangement of parts'
• the ID part that is NOT discussed is that of the links to Creationism. The NOVA program made that sound like a bad thing. Creationism is based upon Genesis. That the earth is ~ 4,000 to 10,000 years old. That does not pass the common sense test when one looks at fossels, but so what. There are multiple things on the Darwin E side that does not compute either, but we can leave that for another post.

All of the Evolutions' arguments was predicated on Darwin's work.

• There was an 'in fact' attitude that this theory is accurate and is improved over time.
• The facts that were offerd were compelling and connected the data together. Many scientists offered their views and work. Very compelling. There was a general distain for ID from this commuinty overall ( IMHO).
• Now what I find interesting is this key point: That of natural selection of species to adapt to its environment. I think that is brilliance and accurate. Yet what I see at its core is the 'intelligence' for this adaption to occur. The intelligence in the Universe for this ability to take place. That was not discussed and completely dismissed to 'trial and error' of DNA changing to mistakes or mis-queues that happened chemically.
• The other example that was not challanged was various animals that came from the sea. Okay. Why did they come out of the water? If they came of out the water initially, they will die , as they need gills to breathe, yes? So how could they mate to evolve to an adaptable species e.g. amphibians. These questions were not entertained.

The key issue with the E folks vs. ID folks is not that ID is true-or-false, but it cannot be tested. If it cannot be tested, therefore it cannot fall in the realm of a scientific discipline.

I also must say as a 'neutral' viewer of this program, NOVA ( a science based organization) was biased. They made the ID folks look suspect i.e. the bad guys, and the E folks the good guys. I did not see it as a balanced analysis.

As I see it, there is the Creative Intelligence of this Universe that powers this whole creation... we cannot put that in a test tube , as it is self-realized. Yet there are plenty of foot prints that lead back to this Great Intellect.

For one, we always hear of the Big Bang Theory and scientists relish in this notion as fact. Yet where are the questions of before Big Bang? or where the the raw materials for this to happen. Many think it came from zero mass. Okay... now take me from there, backwards, I am all ears.

To me, I find no issues with E or ID existing together. But that is not what the scieince community wants. So , perhaps it is not taught in science class but in a phiolosophy class ( that is usally not offered in high school).

pranams,

[sarabhanga]

There are multiple things on the Darwin E side that does not compute.

Such as ??? The principle of evolution through natural selection is robust, and the science of biology relies on this well supported understanding (without which biologists can describe nature but not fully explain it).

[sm78]

The motivation behind E is "Spirit of Inquiry", while it is only "politics" behind ID.

I am not a biologist, but what little I know, E is a very sound and robust explanation of biological evolution of species.

As I see it, there is the Creative Intelligence of this Universe that powers this whole creation... we cannot put that in a test tube , as it is self-realized. Yet there are plenty of foot prints that lead back to this Great Intellect.

And how does it "hurts" this creative intelligence to postulate that man came from monkeys ?? Natural Selection is just a causal explanation as to how this was done. I don't see how it undermines this creative intelligence.
Infact for me it is a bright proof how creative this force really is, so as to conceive man from monkeys .

The universal intelligence according to our scriptures is beyond any "knowing". It is theories (****) like ID which tries to limit it to some pervert human imagination. I don't see any problem with causal explanation of a natural phenomena. But I see much greater problem and avidya with theories (****) which seeks to speculate how God works, motivation being purely political.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

The motivation behind E is "Spirit of Inquiry", while it is only "politics" behind ID. I am not a biologist, but what little I know, E is a very sound and robust explanation of biological evolution of species.

And how does it "hurts" this creative intelligence to postulate that man came from monkeys ?? Natural Selection is just a causal explanation as to how this was done. I don't see how it undermines this creative intelligence.
Infact for me it is a bright proof how creative this force really is, so as to conceive man from monkeys .

The universal intelligence according to our scriptures is beyond any "knowing". It is theories (****) like ID which tries to limit it to some pervert human imagination. I don't see any problem with causal explanation of a natural phenomena. But I see much greater problem and avidya with theories (****) which seeks to speculate how God works, motivation being purely political.

Namaste singh.
you mention you are not a biologist... me too!

Also I take no sides on E or ID. That was my notion of this Universal Creative Intelligence (UCI). I do not see E hurting this one bit. The notion of why wouldn't this UCI work though natural laws, since IT created the laws anyway. It's [ the natual laws ] are UCI's tools in its infinite tool box. Yep , agree this makes sense to me.

I also laugh to myself... I think ID has the right words 'Intelligent Design' as that is what UCI does, but then tries to squish it into a format that binds IT and constrains it and this misses the mark for me.

Does it make them [ID's] bad people? For me, no, as I am patient with their ideas and concepts. Is it politically motivated in some ways, sure looks like it.

I differ with your POV on how God works and how humans speculate on His/Her workings. I see this in various schools of thought on how the unmanifest manifests... the various tattvas or mahabhutas, tanmantras, karmendriyas, and jnanendriyas. His/Her expression into the Manifest.

Does it suggest humans know what Siva/Visnu or The Divine Mother is thinking ( if this is even the process of this Being)? I do not know. But if one reads the Upanishads, the agamas, the Purusha Suktam it suggests we know something about this Beings workings from the rishi's cognition of the truth.

Is this a point of reference for the ID's or the E's? Most Likely not. Yet for me its a formidable baseline to suggest the risi's have a clue on this Beings workings ( still unfathomable albeit).

Two other items:

• I did not comprehend the (****) in your post and what was to be communicated. Let know the definition so I can get the full jest of your post.
• sarabhanga asked on the previous post: Such as ??? The principle of evolution through natural selection is robust.
  The issue that was offered on the show was the transition point from Species A to Species B. That is an interim species that bridges the gap. There was little explanation of why this event occurred. I found It to be a less then robust juxtaposition offered. And the only data was one fossil fish-amphibian found in 2004 ( so fairly recently) as the missing link. One species , one fossil was offered to suggest without question that yes, this is the product of natural selection and that is that.
  I found it suspect. Enough to suggest that E is not a science that is well thought out and has multiple data points of integrity? Absolutely Not, not at all; Yet I seen the scientists a bit too eager with their own findings i.e. not being agnostic enough and say we have one data point we think. Now lets look for more.
• That was my point... Not to dis-credit , but to have a balanced view. More on this if you wish, as the conversation goes to the bone structure they say looks like a wrist, arm configuration. The sample uses a 20% fish-remains fossil; they filled-in-the-blanks as a 'mock up ' with clay, pseudo-bone structure. For me it did not look like a reasonable assumption to make, but what do I know? My business card does not say paleontologist on it.

One POV I think is delightful:
The reason why the Universe is eternal is that it does not live for itself; it gives life to others ( other forms) as it transforms...Lao Tzu 600 BC

For me, the universe is seated in evolving, the transformation as Lao Tzu suggests. It is the Infinite Dynamic of Creativity - that is the Intelligence I rejoice in and hope to know personally. That is, evolving, new forms, permutations is what IT rejoices in... so the Intelligent Design on this matter is E+ID = UCI. This Supreme Universal Creative Intellignce I humbly bow to and give my pranams... Brahman, Siva, Visnu , the Divine Mother.


Thanks again for considering the post...

pranams

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Yajvan,

What is Natural Selection? In any natural assemblage there will be some individuals or configurations that are more stable or better suited to their environment, or better able to reproduce themselves, with characteristics promoting the survival of their offspring. And those variations best suited or most successful will survive in greater numbers than those less suited and consequently less successful. Some varieties will become extinct, through competition or environmental change, and others will flourish; but so long as some natural variability exists in a population the process of natural selection will continue to direct its gradual evolution.

What is a Species? A species is the basic unit of classification, which is a �self-breeding� group of successfully reproducing individuals that are reproductively isolated (by genetic, geographic or behavioral barriers) from other such groups.

And, over time, reproductively isolated populations will naturally drift apart, each evolving along a different path due to natural selection in its own particular environment.

An �interim species that bridges the gap� can be seen in the many cases where very closely related (only recently separated) species yet retain the ability for cross-breeding when returned to close contact or forced to interbreed.

Doubters can call for physical evidence of missing link after missing link, and evolutionists will never be able to produce concrete examples of every extinct stage in the evolution of every living thing ~ but natural selection, itself, is a logical necessity which cannot reasonably be denied (with or without fossils).

In general terms, the �missing link� between fish and reptiles is an amphibian. And the �missing link� between fish and amphibians is something like a lung-fish or an axolotl (a neotenous salamander).

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, and the embryos of all vertebrates (including humans) develop branchial clefts (�gill slits�) and a tail during the early stages of their development.



Sanatana dharma has always accepted the idea of evolution ~ indeed brahma could be translated exactly as a commandment to �evolve!�.

[sm78]

Thanks sarabhanga for this beautiful diagram.

Yajvan, the main reason why dislike theories like ID is because, where as sanatana dharma talks about underlying unity these "theories" push hard to establish an inherent division. I can put the it many other ways...but essentially creationism of the west is not compatible with my understanding of dharma...and if I am not wrong it is driven by christian politics.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Thanks sarabhanga for this beautiful diagram.

Yajvan, the main reason why dislike theories like ID is because, where as sanatana dharma talks about underlying unity these "theories" push hard to establish an inherent division. I can put the it many other ways...but essentially creationism of the west is not compatible with my understanding of dharma...and if I am not wrong it is driven by christian politics.

Namaste singh,
Yes I see your point...


sarabhanga,
Thank you for your post... for me I am at home with the notions you offer.
Yet the interesting question for me is not so much

What is Natural Selection? In any natural assemblage...

but why this selection occurs.

I ask that rhetorically - as for me, the Intelligence of this Cosmos is at work, and why wouldn't it want to adapt the beings in life to its environment. For it its a delight to see this.

Yet from a scientific view, the 'scientist' will accept that natural selection is the way that nature does business... yet the conversation of the intelligence behind this, is not a subject that is addressed, as for them it cannot be proven. For me, its a matter of observation. This does not make them 'wrong', yet sooner or later this will have to be addressed by them, which I believe will be a true awakening of science.


pranams

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Yajvan


" but why thus selection occurs."

As I eared 4 years ago when I was in my 3 year of University, doing Social Sciences, in a semester on the subject of sociobiology. That stated that natural selection in fact is neutral. So now a days, I think, the Neutralist theory still occupy as a reference point the main place in the dominant paradigm i.e. ultimate scientific knowledge on the subject.

pranams

[nirotu]

Sanatana dharma has always accepted the idea of evolution ~ indeed brahma could be translated exactly as a commandment to �evolve!�.

I am quite surprised by the above statement from Sarabhanga. You have mixed �spiritual evolution� with �biological evolution�. This has far reaching negative consequences.

While, I agree that evolution is a fact, but should not be interpreted in the sense Darwinists mean it! If you define evolution as �change�, then certainly living beings have evolved. But this evolution is �microevolution� and not �macroevolution�. There is not only lack of evidence but truly, there exists positive evidence that has not occurred.

Firstly, Darwinists say microevolution within types proves that macroevolution has occurred. That is fundamentally flawed statement. A common example is the study of fruit flies. Because of their short life span many generation of fruit flies can be studies in a relatively short period of life. Despite the best efforts of intelligent scientists to manipulate fruit flies, their experiment never turned out anything but more fruit flies. Dog breeders try many permutations and combinations in an attempt to create new breeds of dogs are always finding dogs always remain dogs. There is genetic limitation!

Secondly, for example, from scriptural point of view, using the idea that we all came from monkeys does not hold water against �karma � reincarnation� principle. The very purpose of suffering (working out karma) is to develop conscious awareness of the pain and, with that pain and suffering, to bring us to terms with the truth and transform us by way of repentance and good karma. All this is possible because humans are conscious of self. Do you think animals have self-consciousness to undergo such a transformation? A wounded dog would simply lick its wound and move along. Do you think any remorse is developed in that animal? Refer to my previous post �if humans ever de-evolve in to animals?�

Thirdly, ss a Hindu if you claim �Sanatana Dharma� is �eternal� then there must have been humans, with a well developed brain, all along from the beginning to be responsible for that dharma. The very definition �eternal� is meaningless without the existence of humans to justify it from the very beginning!

Blessings,