I just left the following comment on Dandavats, on the post New Book Reveals Fundamental Flaw in Darwin’s Theory.
I would like to read something that is not a reactionary "Darwin is dogma, we reject it", and something that is more contributive to human understanding. How do you explain the development of different species of life? A magical one-off event of interventionist creation by the intelligent designer is the Judeo-Christian idea. However, a fossil record that demonstrates multiple mass extinctions and the appearance of new species renders that insufficient as an explanation. Without another mechanism it seems that magical intervention creationist will have to postulate multiple magical interventions. The Srimad Bhagavatam does not describe multiple magical interventions. And by magical I mean an event that suspends the ordinary operating laws and procedures of nature - the birth of any living entity is in one sense a "magical" moment, but it is within the ordinary operating parameters of nature. The Bhagavatam speaks of a single magical creation event by the Supreme Being who afterwards remains aloof from the creation, which then carries on under the influence of His energies. Evolution of a species by natural selection is an explanation for species development that places it within the operation of nature. In that sense it seems more in tune with both observable phenomena (the fossil record) and the scriptural version of a single magical event followed by the operation of natural forces. Arguing that only magical interventionism can be theistic, and that any attempt to explain development of species through natural forces is a priori atheistic, to me, seems incorrect. The origin and nature of life (as in consciousness) is a different issue, and theories of evolutionary development of species should be examined separately from explanations of "consciousness from matter". This isn't to say that "Darwin's theory is right!", but rather that I want to see another alternative explanation that tallies with the observed facts (and doesn't rely on the "well, science is wrong anyway because it's based on sense perception" get-out-of-jail-free card) and also tallies with philosophy of the Bhagavatam. I don't find fundamentalist Christian explanations do this, and I don't find that neo-Christian-fundamentalist-Vaisnava mash-ups do either. Am I the only one?
The comment is still in moderation, but it will be interesting what discussion it generates (aside from the predictable "this is illegal thinking!"). As you probably know, it's a topic I am quite interested in.
Thank you for expressing
Thank you for expressing this in such an eloquent way. I also feel that it would be very foolish for the leadership of ISKCON to make a blanket condemnation of evolutionary theory, without actually addressing the individual points in a scientific manner.
I also find it interested that you posted "Dawkins" as one of the categories of this post. To actually refute an argument, you need to be aware of your opponents' arguments. So if the GBC or whoever is seriously about refuting evolution, they should start with some of Richard Dawkins books, such as "The Selfish Gene".
Anyway, thanks for such a thoughtful and reasonable post.