Intended audience: People who find this useful. Others who have a different view and are satisfied with it should feel no need to change it on account of what I have written here. It's just another way of looking at things.
Purpose: I intend to demonstrate that evolutionary theory is not intrinsically atheistic, and that Vedic metaphysics are not intrinsically exclusionary with evolutionary theory. Those who accept evolution should not see this as an attempt to "prove" Vedic metaphysics. Those who accept Vedic metaphysics should not see this as an attempt to "prove" evolutionary theory. The intent is merely to demonstrate how they fit together.
That the Supreme Lord is all-perfect is confirmed in all sruti-mantras. It is said in the sruti-mantras that the all-perfect Lord threw a glance over matter and thus created all living beings. The living beings are parts and parcels of the Lord, and He impregnates the vast material creation with seeds of spiritual sparks [1], and thus the creative energies are set in motion to enact so many wonderful creations.[2] An atheist may argue that God is no more expert than a watchmaker, but of course God is greater because He can create machines in duplicate male and female forms. The male and female forms of different types of machineries go on producing innumerable similar machines [3] without God's further attention [4]. If a man could manufacture such a set of machines that could produce other machines without his attention, then he could approach the intelligence of God. But that is not possible, for each machine has to be handled individually. Therefore, no one can create as well as God. Another name for God is asamaurdhva, which means that no one is equal to or greater than Him. Param satyam, or the Supreme Truth, is He who has no equal or superior. This is confirmed in the sruti-mantras. It is said that before the creation of the material universe there existed the Lord only, who is master of everyone. [5]
- Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.1 purport
The undergirding of theistic evolution is mapped here by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in the opening purport of his commentary on Srimad Bhagavatam.
Life is spiritual in origin
[1] The first point is: "The living beings are parts and parcels of the Lord, and He impregnates the vast material creation with seeds of spiritual sparks"
This is a statement about the metaphysical nature of consciousness and life and their origin.
Biologists struggle with a definition of life, and although they are able to explain how the material nature causes varieties of bodies to develop, they are unable to explain how life begins.
In Bhagavad-gita 14.4 Krishna states: "It should be understood that all species of life, O son of Kunti, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed-giving father."
The bodies are products of material nature, and the spirit souls that animate them are parts of the Supreme Being, and are impregnated by Him into the material energy.
An official statement from the modern Catholic Church: "The theory of evolution is understood as an investigation of the origin of the human body from pre-existing living matter, for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold firmly that souls are created immediately by God." [source]
The material energy is responsible for the development of material bodies
[2] "and thus the creative energies are set in motion to enact so many wonderful creations"
The creative energies refers to the material nature, which goes on to produce an infinite number and variety of bodies to provide unlimited experiences for the living entities.
This is confirmed with the following verse from Bhagavad-gita 13.21:
Nature is said to be the cause of all material causes and effects, whereas the living entity is the cause of the various sufferings and enjoyments in this world.
Srila Prabhupada opens his purport: "The different manifestations of body and senses among the living entities are due to material nature."
Different bodies develop over time, naturally
[3] "The male and female forms of different types of machineries go on producing innumerable similar machines "
Male and female forms of different types of machineries - bodies - produce innumerable similar machines. The machines produced, bodies, are similar, but not the same - and that is how evolution takes place.
Observe:
This is me, or at least a photo of part of my body. I have white skin, because I descend from people who lived in a part of the world with low levels of sunlight. As a result their skin became pale. I now live in a part of the world with very strong sunlight, but my skin will not change color in my lifetime - that would take many generations.
This is a photo of my wife Param Satya. Her skin is a dark color because she is descended from people who lived in a hot, sunny part of the planet.
This is our son Prahlad. His skin color is a result of the mix of our genetic traits.
Because of the geographic isolation of two populations in different parts of the planet, with different environmental conditions, genes were concentrated for a particular skin color. You can see what the result of bringing these two populations back together again is: averaging out.
If the two populations remain isolated, the genetic trait remains, and is reinforced. Different populations in different locations reinforce different traits. Were the dark and light skinned populations to stay isolated for long enough, their genetics would drift further and further apart. They would stay averaging out in their own area - the dark people would breed and average their gene pool, and the light people would breed and average their gene pool. However, over time those two averages would drift further and further apart, as they already have for skin color. The result after a long period of time is that the two genetic averages become so far apart that breeding becomes first difficult, then produces sterile offspring (like a horse and a donkey which can produce an ass - see Interspecific Hybrids on wikipedia for more examples), and then completely incompatible, so that interbreeding cannot occur.
They are now a different species.
See wikipedia's article on Ring Species for more examples of this phenomenon.
This an emergent result of the machines producing similar, but not identical machines. It's a complex phenomenon that emerges from the massive repeated interaction of simple principles. Ingenious mechanism, eh?
God is not personally involved in the functioning of material nature
[4] "without God's further attention"
No divine intervention here folks.
Arguing for an interventionist God in the matter of the development of the material bodies is illogical, inconsistent with the empirical evidence, and inconsistent with the version of Vedic scripture.
The Vedic description of God is that His involvement with running of material affairs ends with the impregnation of the spirit-souls into matter, which is "done by His glance", which is to say, without His direct contact with the material energy even in that phase.
Because He glances over material nature, there is undoubtedly activity on the part of the Supreme Lord, but He has nothing to do with the manifestation of the material world directly. This example is given in the smṛti: when there is a fragrant flower before someone, the fragrance is touched by the smelling power of the person, yet the smelling and the flower are detached from one another. There is a similar connection between the material world and the Supreme Personality of Godhead; actually He has nothing to do with this material world, but He creates by His glance and ordains. In summary, material nature, without the superintendence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, cannot do anything. Yet the Supreme Personality is detached from all material activities.
- Bhagavad-gita 9.10
The only time the Supreme Being interacts with the material energy in for the purpose of lila, or play, as the avatara. This is another topic, but suffice it to say that the Supreme Being in Vedic metaphysics is not a glorified workman.
Metaphysical statement: God is ontologically the direct cause of the universe, and thus the indirect cause of evolution
[5] "It is said [in the Vedic scriptures] that before the creation of the material universe there existed the Lord only, who is master of everyone."
However, that the Lord is not directly involved in the process of evolution of material bodies does not lead to an atheistic conclusion, and Darwin's theory is not contradictory or exclusionary with the existence of God.
Evolutionary theory explains the mechanism by which material bodies develop - and it is an awesome system. However, it presupposes the existence of the fabric of space-time with particular physical constants, and a universe with matter in it. Science cannot answer the question of where this universe comes from. The details of the manifested universe is a matter of physical science. The ontology (the origin) of the manifested universe is an metaphysical concern.
If God is the origin of the universe, as the Vedic metaphysic asserts that He is, then the emergence of the mechanism of evolution is just another of His glories.
In this post I have demonstrated that theistic evolution is not incompatible with Vedic metaphysics, and is in fact the result of applying the Vedic metaphysics to the evolutionary theory of contemporary empirical science.
I will address in another article why a strong atheist agenda has become linked with science in general and evolution in particular, and why many adherents of science reject metaphysics completely.
Drawing unrelated conclusions from scriptural evidence
The scriptures do say that the material energy takes care of the material creation and that God impregnates it with souls. The purports that you quoted support this conclusion.
However, what in God's name do those purports have to do with your theory of "theistic evolution"? There is absolutely nothing in them that would lend any credence to your theory.
Try to
Try to understand.
Evolutionary theory is empirical science. It's physical.
The narrative of the impregnation of souls is metaphysical.
When you put the scriptural tradition (theism) together with the empirical scientific understanding of evolution you get theistic evolution. It's a physical scientific understanding with a metaphysical system underlying it.
The scripture does not support or prove evolution. That is the realm of the physical science. What the scripture does is add the theistic dimension to it.
Evolution is not my theory. Theistic evolution is not my theory either. Theistic evolution is what you get when you apply the metaphysical understanding of the Veda to the contemporary scientific working model.
Your understanding of
Your understanding of genetics is faulty and therefore your understanding of how simple evolution can be is faulty.
The difference between skin color or the shape of a nose or height between members of the same species is in no way related to speciation (developing of one species into a different one). You have simplified something which would demand the necessity of adding vast amounts of new genetic information (say from having no eyes to having eyes) from something very complex into something trivial and happenstance by simple breeding.
That is exactly what Darwin taught but was rejected when genetics was discovered, the new theory is that mutation had to be the cause of speciation, not breeding, because breeding doesn't add new genetic information to the genome, it only messes about with what is already there. What you propose is that because we see variation within a species genome (microevolution) that therefore that variation in gene pool can lead to macroevolution (speciation).
That is unscientific because you are leaving out the basis of macroevolution (mutation) which has never been shown to create a new species, either in the fossil record or in living things. This would be expected by someone without an agenda to promote evolution no matter the evidence, mutations harm complex organisms just like corrosion harms machines. It's illogical to assume that mutations can build comlex organic life forms especially when you consider irreducible complexity:
"A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
For example: for the eye to function all of the parts need to be in working order. How can the eye be the result of evolution which cannot see into the future and plan out all the parts required for the eye to work? At every stage until the eye works it serves no useful function and therefore would be eliminated by natural selection. This applies to all body parts for all animals.
The determined evolutionist will see no problem with anything which falsifies evolution because he has an agenda.
As for your idea about "material nature" being independent working as being what is taught or should be taught by Krishna, you should stick to trying to learn what the truth from shastra is instead of trying to use shastra to support your views.
Srimad Bhagavatam, 4.9.7
Krishna creates everything through the material energy, the material energy is not independent doing anything because:
From Jaiva Dharma by Thakura Bhaktivinoda
From Vaishnava Siddhanta Mala by Thakura Bhaktivinoda
A. It is not that Bhagavan is one thing and the shakti is another; just as the burning power of the fire is inseparable from the fire, similarly Bhagavan’s shakti is inseparable from Bhagavan
Everything is Krishna and everything is controlled by Krishna. The material world is an illusion controlled by Krishna.
Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.28.6-7
Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.13.24
From the Gita:
sadhibhutadhidaivam mam
sadhiyajnam ca ye viduh
prayana-kale 'pi ca mam
te vidur yukta-cetasah
Those who know Me as the Supreme Lord, as the governing principle of the material manifestation, who know Me as the one underlying all the demigods and as the one sustaining all sacrifices, can, with steadfast mind, understand and know Me even at the time of death.
yo mam pasyati sarvatra
sarvam ca mayi pasyati
tasyaham na pranasyami
sa ca me na pranasyati
For one who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, I am never lost, nor is he ever lost to Me.
Let me reiterate: missing
Let me reiterate: missing links in the fossil record (which is debateable) do not "falsify" evolutionary theory.
What is your explanation of the mechanism that the Lord uses to produce the different species?
You don't win by falsifying a theory like evolution. You win by advancing another theory with greater empirical support.
I'm happy with theistic evolution, but the evolution part is a theory which is interchangeable with other theories. That's science. Happy to replace it with another one.
If not genetic mutation and natural selection, then what?
I'm all ears.
It's not debatable, it's a
It's not debatable, it's a fact which paleontologists know is a fact, and also Darwin was aware of and wrote about.
That is only one problem with evolution, there are many many more, but you don't seem to be aware of any of it. See darwinismrefuted.com
Evolution is all about blind chance, theistic evolution is an oxymoron because if God is guiding evolution then it is not evolution, it is intelligent design.
Falsification of a theory is usually all it takes to debunk a theory, you prove it is impossible, done. Regardless of any other theories. If I can prove that I didn't come from Jupiter because the atmosphere of Jupiter is incapable of supporting human life, that doesn't require that I prove where I came from that Jupiter is impossible to have been my source.
Look, I don't know why you are pushing evolution, you are obviously not well educated on the topic and are simply repeating disinformation propaganda put out by the evolution lobby, they have a clear cut anti-religion motivation to deceive, they are open about it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
Shastra is clear that all life is created. Why argue? Life forms are vastly too complex to have come into existence by blind forces, as Fred Hoyle famously said:
From wikipedia on Fred Hoyle
Shiva das, thanks for the
Shiva das, thanks for the link. I read it and it's interesting.
I am not pushing evolution. I am pushing theistic evolution. Lots of people believe in evolution. Whatever, that's ok. My point is that it does not have to be atheistic.
Now you give me another empirical explanation to push and I'll promote a theistic version of that too.
Still waiting to hear it.
If I had to deduce it, I'd say that at the moment it goes something like this:
"In the beginning God created a planet with single-celled organisms on it. Then he left that hanging around for a few billions of years, while He was busy working on other things. Then a few hundred million years ago, around the time of the Cambrian period, he got around to doing something more on the hobby project and came Himself, or sent someone down, who did some genetic engineering and unleashed all the phylum of all the different species of life that we see today. And that's how the different bodies developed. After that there has been micro-evolution, with various phlyum developing into distinct species within their phylum. However, this is something that He introduced for kicks, and is not related in any way to the original development of the life forms, which was a special one-off event carried out by God / extraterrestrials. Oh, and the various life forms have no relation to the predecessor one-celled creatures, who were just here to keep things ticking over."
It's not scientific, it's not scriptural, and it's not something that I would push personally.
That must be a horrible misrepresentation of your narrative, and I apologise for my failure to grasp it properly so far. Please enlighten me.