Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Dear Devotees, In this context, members may like to read the the following two articles by (the late) Stephen Jay Gould, scientist in Theory of Evolution, appealing for coexistence of the religious and scientific belief systems: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html http://home.comcast.net/~surfings/Cogitation/Science_and_Religion.htm An extract: "Since every one of us must reach some decisions about the rules we will follow in conducting our own lives, and since I trust that nobody can be entirely indifferent to the workings of the world around us, all human beings must pay at least rudimentary attention to both magisteria of religion and science.The magisteria will not fuse; so each of us must integrate these distinct components into a coherent view of life. If we succeed, we gain something truly "more precious than rubies", and dignified by one of the most beautiful words in any language: wisdom." (magesteria = authoritative teachings) Dasan krishnaswamy m k - <> <> Wednesday, April 20, 2005 1:12 AM [RamanujaMission] Digest Number 468 Message: 9 Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Badri Veera <rugveera >Re: darwin theory - GodDear Vaishnavas: I think it is a unnecessary controversy that we as Vaishnavas should abstain from. In the United states, the Christian fundamentalists are opposed to Darwinian evolution due to the nature of the church-laity relationship. Indic religion is very exploratory and it should remain an inquisitive no-holds-barred type of inquiry in order to further human understanding of nature. The scientific evolution does not prohibit the existence of God and I do not see any reason to tie the two together. Further, evolution of species is not a theory in a conventional sense. It has been rationally demonstrated to be the case through countless archaelogical and bio-genetic studies. Additionally, science claims consciousness is nothing but a bunch of clever computer programs that have evolved over millions of years. So, the birth and death of species is nothing but the death of these programs and cells. hmm. enough of my spheeel! Also, this forum may not be even be the right place to discuss this. Finally, the spiritual quest for understanding God and the non-emotional purely-rational scientific pusuit of understanding nature are best kept in seperate compartments. RegardsBadri Veeraraghavan vinod sv <winode_sv (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote:!!srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha!! !!srI krishNa parabrahmaNE namaha!!!!srImAn nArAyaNa charaNau saraNam prapadyE!!dear vaishNavAs,Unfortunately in the modern society, every one talksabout science with half knowledge. If you ask anathiest why do not you care for God, he responds thatscience has already found how different beings aredeveloped, God is not responsible for our creation. Ifscience has really proved evolution theory, then thereis a rational reason why people do not believe inreligions. However it is notable that Darwin'sevolutionary theory is not accepted completely withinthe scientific communities itself, and there are manybasic deficiencies in that theory to be accepted as afact.To speak about the evolution of life, one should haveproper understanding of what life is, what birth is,and what death is. Unfortunately there is no idea ofany of these terms in the scientic literature. Thereader of this article can check in www.google.com orany search website to find the definition of life. Theauthor fortells the result of such a trial, thatscience factually doesnot know what life is.They(scientists) have some idea of symptoms of life(like growth, reproduction,...., but miss the mostessential feature consciousness), but they do not havea comprehensive understanding of life as a whole. Without even knowing what life is, many scientistsclaim that they know how life has evolved. There aremany other flaws in this theory and will not stand inthe test of time. Many such theories will come and go,but the truth of life is best explained in Vedas in acomprehensive manner. Unfortunately, the academicbooks and half knowledged science teachers areteaching darwin theory as a fact rather than a theory.Please save your self and your children from falsepropaganada. Please donot lose faith on God based onsome theories of flaws. dAsOham,srIperumbUdUru vEnkaTa vinOd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2005 Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 It still cannot prove that life has no spiitual basis because spirit by definition is an ontologically distinct entity that escapes empirical trials. But these events IF they happened will definitely weaken the case of vedanta and other religious denominations. "M.K. Krishnaswamy" <krishnaswamy (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote: Dear Devotees, In this context, members may like to read the the following two articles by (the late) Stephen Jay Gould, scientist in Theory of Evolution, appealing for coexistence of the religious and scientific belief systems: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html http://home.comcast.net/~surfings/Cogitation/Science_and_Religion.htm An extract: "Since every one of us must reach some decisions about the rules we will follow in conducting our own lives, and since I trust that nobody can be entirely indifferent to the workings of the world around us, all human beings must pay at least rudimentary attention to both magisteria of religion and science.The magisteria will not fuse; so each of us must integrate these distinct components into a coherent view of life. If we succeed, we gain something truly "more precious than rubies", and dignified by one of the most beautiful words in any language: wisdom." (magesteria = authoritative teachings) Dasan krishnaswamy m k - <> <> Wednesday, April 20, 2005 1:12 AM [RamanujaMission] Digest Number 468 Message: 9 Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Badri Veera <rugveera >Re: darwin theory - GodDear Vaishnavas: I think it is a unnecessary controversy that we as Vaishnavas should abstain from. In the United states, the Christian fundamentalists are opposed to Darwinian evolution due to the nature of the church-laity relationship. Indic religion is very exploratory and it should remain an inquisitive no-holds-barred type of inquiry in order to further human understanding of nature. The scientific evolution does not prohibit the existence of God and I do not see any reason to tie the two together. Further, evolution of species is not a theory in a conventional sense. It has been rationally demonstrated to be the case through countless archaelogical and bio-genetic studies. Additionally, science claims consciousness is nothing but a bunch of clever computer programs that have evolved over millions of years. So, the birth and death of species is nothing but the death of these programs and cells. hmm. enough of my spheeel! Also, this forum may not be even be the right place to discuss this. Finally, the spiritual quest for understanding God and the non-emotional purely-rational scientific pusuit of understanding nature are best kept in seperate compartments. RegardsBadri Veeraraghavan vinod sv <winode_sv (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote:!!srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha!! !!srI krishNa parabrahmaNE namaha!!!!srImAn nArAyaNa charaNau saraNam prapadyE!!dear vaishNavAs,Unfortunately in the modern society, every one talksabout science with half knowledge. If you ask anathiest why do not you care for God, he responds thatscience has already found how different beings aredeveloped, God is not responsible for our creation. Ifscience has really proved evolution theory, then thereis a rational reason why people do not believe inreligions. However it is notable that Darwin'sevolutionary theory is not accepted completely withinthe scientific communities itself, and there are manybasic deficiencies in that theory to be accepted as afact.To speak about the evolution of life, one should haveproper understanding of what life is, what birth is,and what death is. Unfortunately there is no idea ofany of these terms in the scientic literature. Thereader of this article can check in www.google.com orany search website to find the definition of life. Theauthor fortells the result of such a trial, thatscience factually doesnot know what life is.They(scientists) have some idea of symptoms of life(like growth, reproduction,...., but miss the mostessential feature consciousness), but they do not havea comprehensive understanding of life as a whole. Without even knowing what life is, many scientistsclaim that they know how life has evolved. There aremany other flaws in this theory and will not stand inthe test of time. Many such theories will come and go,but the truth of life is best explained in Vedas in acomprehensive manner. Unfortunately, the academicbooks and half knowledged science teachers areteaching darwin theory as a fact rather than a theory.Please save your self and your children from falsepropaganada. Please donot lose faith on God based onsome theories of flaws. dAsOham,srIperumbUdUru vEnkaTa vinOd.Do You ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2005 Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 SrI: Dear List Members : The nonoverlapping Magisteria and the empirical nature of science are excellent topics for intellectual discussions . They are taking us haltingly towards the summit of accumulated insights enshrined in the revelations of the Vedic seers . The Vedic and Upanishadic insights in to Creation and the origin of the Universe is more appealing to me in its grand sweep and universality . The Unification theory they provide is grand enough that satisfies me . V.Sadagopan - Rajaram Venkataramani Oppiliappan ; Cc: tiruvenkatam ; Oppiliappan Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:25 AM Re: Darwin theory & God It is difficult to accept that micro-evolution, which is more of the nature of controlled mutations in the labs is a proof of evolutionary theory. Secondly, similarities are not proof of common ancestry though it is one possibility. In any case, there is no substantial evidence to show that chemicals automatically assembled in to self-replicated biological structures that we call life today. There is an investigation in to transgerity and if the researchers are successful, they may be able to explain how inorganic chemicals assembled in to organic chemicals and then in to self-replicating biological structures. If old age disease and death can be stopped, it will prove that these events have a physio-chemical basis rather than any metaphysical connotation. It still cannot prove that life has no spiitual basis because spirit by definition is an ontologically distinct entity that escapes empirical trials. But these events IF they happened will definitely weaken the case of vedanta and other religious denominations. "M.K. Krishnaswamy" <krishnaswamy (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote: Dear Devotees, In this context, members may like to read the the following two articles by (the late) Stephen Jay Gould, scientist in Theory of Evolution, appealing for coexistence of the religious and scientific belief systems: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html http://home.comcast.net/~surfings/Cogitation/Science_and_Religion.htm An extract: "Since every one of us must reach some decisions about the rules we will follow in conducting our own lives, and since I trust that nobody can be entirely indifferent to the workings of the world around us, all human beings must pay at least rudimentary attention to both magisteria of religion and science.The magisteria will not fuse; so each of us must integrate these distinct components into a coherent view of life. If we succeed, we gain something truly "more precious than rubies", and dignified by one of the most beautiful words in any language: wisdom." (magesteria = authoritative teachings) Dasan krishnaswamy m k - <> <> Wednesday, April 20, 2005 1:12 AM [RamanujaMission] Digest Number 468 Message: 9 Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Badri Veera <rugveera >Re: darwin theory - GodDear Vaishnavas: I think it is a unnecessary controversy that we as Vaishnavas should abstain from. In the United states, the Christian fundamentalists are opposed to Darwinian evolution due to the nature of the church-laity relationship. Indic religion is very exploratory and it should remain an inquisitive no-holds-barred type of inquiry in order to further human understanding of nature. The scientific evolution does not prohibit the existence of God and I do not see any reason to tie the two together. Further, evolution of species is not a theory in a conventional sense. It has been rationally demonstrated to be the case through countless archaelogical and bio-genetic studies. Additionally, science claims consciousness is nothing but a bunch of clever computer programs that have evolved over millions of years. So, the birth and death of species is nothing but the death of these programs and cells. hmm. enough of my spheeel! Also, this forum may not be even be the right place to discuss this. Finally, the spiritual quest for understanding God and the non-emotional purely-rational scientific pusuit of understanding nature are best kept in seperate compartments. RegardsBadri Veeraraghavan vinod sv <winode_sv (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote:!!srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha!! !!srI krishNa parabrahmaNE namaha!!!!srImAn nArAyaNa charaNau saraNam prapadyE!!dear vaishNavAs,Unfortunately in the modern society, every one talksabout science with half knowledge. If you ask anathiest why do not you care for God, he responds thatscience has already found how different beings aredeveloped, God is not responsible for our creation. Ifscience has really proved evolution theory, then thereis a rational reason why people do not believe inreligions. However it is notable that Darwin'sevolutionary theory is not accepted completely withinthe scientific communities itself, and there are manybasic deficiencies in that theory to be accepted as afact.To speak about the evolution of life, one should haveproper understanding of what life is, what birth is,and what death is. Unfortunately there is no idea ofany of these terms in the scientic literature. Thereader of this article can check in www.google.com orany search website to find the definition of life. Theauthor fortells the result of such a trial, thatscience factually doesnot know what life is.They(scientists) have some idea of symptoms of life(like growth, reproduction,...., but miss the mostessential feature consciousness), but they do not havea comprehensive understanding of life as a whole. Without even knowing what life is, many scientistsclaim that they know how life has evolved. There aremany other flaws in this theory and will not stand inthe test of time. Many such theories will come and go,but the truth of life is best explained in Vedas in acomprehensive manner. Unfortunately, the academicbooks and half knowledged science teachers areteaching darwin theory as a fact rather than a theory.Please save your self and your children from falsepropaganada. Please donot lose faith on God based onsome theories of flaws. dAsOham,srIperumbUdUru vEnkaTa vinOd. Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection around Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.