Mythical Evolution and Real Flying Mountains

The other day I read an article about a Brigham Young University information pack on evolution.

Personally I resonated more with the presentation given by the Presbyterians and Catholics than by the Hare Krishna representative, Caru das.

Now, as a caveat: I recognise that I am reading an article written by someone else summarising the situation. Also, Caru is speaking to a particular audience with this, and it's not me. However, I'm going to go ahead and use this as an example, in the interests of discussion and dialogue, and not as anything personally directed at Caru (my comment at the end is tongue-in-cheek). Having said that...

The Presbyterians and Catholics basically said that if it didn't involve a foundational principle of their faith, they could accomodate it. As far as evolution is concerned their position is that life comes from life, not from dull matter, but after that evolution may occur, and they are open to empirical evidence either way.

According to the article, the Hare Krishna, Caru das, outright denied evolution as a possibility, stating:

“Evolution is a myth. There is no evidence to support it.”

To me, that's a problematic position to take.

From Madhava Ghosh's post Ten signs of Intellectual Honesty

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

In this case, Caru das' position is that there is no evidence to support evolution, therefore it is a myth. Or more precisely: it is a myth, therefore there is no evidence to support it.

At the same time, if he is to fly the Hare Krishna flag at full mast he believes in "flying mountains". And where is the evidence for those?

If "no evidence = myth" is consistently applied to that, then...?

At the same time there *is* empirical evidence for evolution, certainly more than there is for flying mountains. Take for example the recently concluded 20 year study that examined 30,000 generations of a bacteria, and observed distinct evolutionary changes through mutation. An article on Ars Technica examines the reaction of Christian conservatives to that research: Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount.

When I read about research like that I don't find myself having to fanatically reject it or else become an atheist. I think to myself: "What great intelligence has created such a system that life forms evolve in this way? How majestic and mind boggling. God does not act like a bigger version of a human creator, fashioning animal species from clay. Instead he lays the principles of the universe and lets them work naturally. He is orders of magnitude removed."

One pithy explanation of the way in which God is ultimately in control, yet we bear responsibility for our lives is that "God is the architect of the universal system, but we are the authors of our own destiny."

In Bhagavad-gita Krishna explains both that material nature is the source of all bodies, and that he is the seed-giving father.

So I don't see that the research that these scientists have done, and the findings that they report contradict this. As I discussed it with a friend at work he said to me: "Science has no definition for life. It's problematic. We can't define what life is."

The genetic expression (the bodies) of living entities *does* mutuate and evolve over time, as demonstrated in this research, but again we come back to the point: the difference between spirit and matter.

How does the living force come into contact with the bodies, being so expertly produced by the material nature? That's the area where science leaves off, and we pick up.

Richard Dawkins reacts strongly to the imposition of religious thought into the scientific process. Science started out as the enemy of religion. It was the philosophical system that enabled a social revolution that broke the political strangehold of the church. Established religion tried to maintain its power in society by attacking science. However, science has demonstrated itself to be valid as far as it goes. However, while it excels in the empirical area, it does not extend into the metaphysical.

If we can stop trying to defeat science in areas where it is valid, we can be more rigorous about not allowing science to impose itself into the metaphysical arena. Scientific atheism is a reaction to religious fundamentalism. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The more fundamentalist religious representatives become, the more atheistic scientists will become.

The solution to this impasse is to recognize the strengths and contribution of each - "the lame man and the blind man".

Unless, of course, you get funding from the Mormons, in which case you should preach something close to their doctrine in your local area to be practical.... ;-)

What do you think?