Why Darwin's Theorie is a Failure

[suchandra]

Wonder if meanwhile modern evolutionary science is able to refue this argument: if the human form of life is a product of nature's evolution then all human beings' faces must be equally the same like apples on a tree dont differ that much from each other?

 

Prabhupada (SB 1.15.40, Sep 18 1973, Los Angeles):

"[...]If it is nature’s process, then all the bodies should have been equally the same. But why different? Just like in an apple tree the formation of apple is the same. So if it is nature’s evolution, then why there are white men, black men, colored men, deformed men and…? No one’s face will be equal to anyone. That Darwin cannot explain.[...]"

 

http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/731218SB.LA.htm?i=1973

"[...]The body even does not belong to him, because the body is awarded by God according to your karma. Just like according to your payment, the landlord gives you an apartment. The apartment does not belong to you. That’s a fact. If you pay $500 per week, you get very nice, good apartment. And if you pay $25, then you get another. Similarly, these different types of bodies we have got… Everyone we have got, different type. This is apartment. Actually, it is apartment because I am living within this body. I am not this body. That is the instruction of the Bhagavad- gītā. Dehino ’smin yathā dehe [bg. 2.13]. Asmin dehe, there is the dehī, the occupier, not proprietor. Occupier. Just like in any apartment, the occupier is somebody and the owner is somebody.

Similarly, this is apartment, this body. I am the spirit soul, occupier. I have rented it according to the payment or according to karma.

Therefore Darwin’s theory is a failure because he cannot explain that why there are different types of bodies. Even in human society, every man is different from the other man. Why? If it is nature’s process, then all the bodies should have been equally the same. But why different?

 

 

Just like in an apple tree the formation of apple is the same. So if it is nature’s evolution, then why there are white men, black men, colored men, deformed men and…? No one’s face will be equal to anyone. That he cannot explain. This is the explanation, that… Just the same example, just a man, as he pays for it, he gets a different apartment. So we have got different bodies, different apartments, according to our karma. And whose karma? The soul’s karma. But he has no information of the soul or how the soul is working, how he is getting a different body. Tathā dehāntara- prāptiḥ. This science is unknown to him, but still, he is known as the master of evolution, and people are following him. This is ignorance. Andhā yathāndhaiḥ. One blind rascal gives some theory, and the followers are also blind rascals; they follow. They do not take instruction from the perfect. Therefore our position is perfect, because we are not following rascals and fools. We are following Kṛṣṇa, the supreme perfect. I may be imperfect. That’s a fact. I am imperfect. Just like a child is imperfect. That’s a fact. But so long he follows the father, catching his hand, he is perfect.[...]"

[theist]

I am sorry but I don't think this argument disproves Darwinism. On the same apple tree I see a wide variety of apples produced. Some big some small. Most smooth and round but always some mishapen with bumps etc. The colors are also different even within the same type of apples. Some have a rosier color, some greener etc.

 

Why the differences? I would think it is do to the variety of influences on the growth of the forming apple. Some are exposed to more sunlight due to being produced on one side of the tree vs. the other side for example. I am sure there are many other factors involved as well.

 

For myself it is the lack of transformational forms in the fossil record that speaks loudest against Darwinian speculation.

 

On a broader front it is the reoccuring insistence from the materialistic philosophers and scientists that life force or consciousness is produced from a certain (as yet undetermined by them) magic combination of lifeless molecules that is a more important thing to me.

 

Darwin is just wrong as fact but even if it were true that one species evolved from another that in itself would not deny God (as being the originator of that system) and the existence of spiritual reality. Their false assumption does that life comes from dead matter instead of from Life I think is the centerpiece of their foul poisonist theories that needs to be challenged.

 

We need to drive a stake through the heart of the materialistic theories of death.