The Intelligent Designer

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

You’re so correct!

 

These experts cannot separate the illumination from the light.

 

God is the cause of all causes - so without doubt science too - is a part of God – scientific understanding is only part of an ‘equation having one sum’ – God.

 

For example – as you know - the erroneous ideas which maintain that humans evolved from apes is clearly wrong – there isn’t a single real scientific evidence to support it – in fact - the fossil record clearly shows sudden appearance and sudden disappearance of species. It shows not one intermediary life form.

 

The process of creation wasn’t materialistic evolution – there is a supernatural creator – in the scriptures it states that material forms arise from non-material forms – the process of creation is dependant on the activity of a Creator.

 

Prabhupada says that science - is mostly useless.

 

I see in the Bible - a warning to science. In the book of Revelation [18.23] it is said that they will not repent of their Pharmacia – which is clearly – mad science – NOT drug use.

 

When the vision was given to John - it was seen by him that these scientists would look like sorcerers practicing witchcrafts – and - seeing all that mad science does - it’s not difficult to understand this point – through the eyes of this ancient visionary. Modern science would look like witchcrafts to an ancient visionary.

 

For one example – the mad science experts have genetically modified chickens - so they no longer have the maternal instinct – imagine – why would they do this?!

 

Isn’t that the sort of thing that Revelation 18.23 speaks of in using witchcrafts - to control things?

 

As for Mr. Carter – he is pretty much a hypocrite!

 

I look back so many years ago and I see one policy in particular – one issue where he could have initiated a good impact and - he failed.

 

Instead billions of dollars are still wasted each year and - thousands of lives are disrupted – how you ask – well Mr. Carter campaigned [in part] on the platform of legalizing marijuana – he pretended to care about this inequitable law that caused a serious waste of police and judiciary resources and - Mr. Carter promised change – then - after he was in the post of president – Mr. Carter relented to the various lobbies and - he pushed the war on marijuana - even deeper!

 

He lied to get votes then - he abused those who thus believed in him and voted for him – he betrayed so many people!

 

Our leaders need to be people prudent. The unabashed war on drugs is one important area where we see a lack of people prudence. The war on drugs - is a war on people.

 

The science that Mr. Carter so defends - clearly showed enough evidences that marijuana use - is less harmful than alcohol use – but - due to great pressure from various lobby groups [and more?] – Mr. Carter chose to ignore that evidence - after citing it to get elected.

 

That foolish decision made at a time when the serious increase in use of chemical drugs like crack coke heroin and crystal met-amphetamines was becoming epidemic [and it now is epidemic] – all these rotten CHECMICAL substances were growing in [ab]use - even as his term in Washington started – with such limited police resources to combat these CHEMICAL DRUGS – Mr. Carter never made good on the PROMISE to legalize marijuana – to at least free those police and judiciary resources - to combat the other factually seriously dangerous chemical substances.

 

In my opinion the illicit ‘drug’ issue is one point which shows how qualified a ‘modern’ enlightened leader is [or isn’t as the case may be] – if a leader of peoples cannot make broad-minded time and circumstances determinations and decisions - then - what business do they have taking the post of leader?

 

I hope that at some point Mr. Bush sees these past mistakes and makes the right adjustments – there is still hope for balance.

 

Mr. Jimmy Carter [no disrespect intended] is a sentimental ‘never was’ ‘never could-be’!

 

Let us not forget that Woodrow Wilson [and his Sedition Act of 1918] was a democrat!

 

Also - this “trained as a nuclear scientist” is smart enough to do the math - to smash atoms – but not bright enough to know these other things?

 

What kind of “nuclear scientist” is Mr. Carter?

 

“Following such conclusions, the demoniac, who are lost to themselves and who have no intelligence, engage in unbeneficial, horrible works meant to destroy the world.” [bG 16.9]

 

Is he helping to make earth better and safer – or opposite that? What did he do as president to make our lot better?

 

Finally – he’s smart enough to smash atoms and - to have hooked his way into the post of president – but he’s not smart enough to see that the evangelical slant is a complete delusion? Interestingly calculating…

 

YS,

 

BDM

[Guest guest]

Is Sri Ramanuja Acharyya a Vaishnava?

 

Sri Ramanuja Acharyya wrote that even if you could prove that a person (God) created this universe, it wouldn't necessarily mean that there might not be another universe somewhere else that was created by another god. So according to Sri Ramanuja Acharyya it is meaningless to try and assert that God created the world and that everyone must follow the scriptures that God gave to the world, since everyone will follow there own nature anyway - some having faith and love for God and others being indifferent to God and following the dictates of their desires.

 

Only those who God has revealed himself to can appreciate his existence. Others cannot. (Caitanya Charitamrta Madhya 6.81)

 

In this way, Sri Ramanuja Acharyya was opposed to the idea that we should "preach that the world was created by God" and instead he said that those with a little faith should instead avoid these arguments and engage in Bhakti.

 

 

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

 

Is Sri Ramanuja Acharyya a Vaishnava?

 

 

 

Vaisnavas are not to be so tightly stereotyped. Some preach some do not.

 

 

Sri Ramanuja Acharyya wrote that even if you could prove that a person (God) created this universe, it wouldn't necessarily mean that there might not be another universe somewhere else that was created by another god.

 

 

 

And we say this is actually the case and these god is called Brahma and other universes have there Brahma's as well. But then we say beyond all these Brahma's there is Govinda, the Primeval Lord, the one Cause of all causes. We say there is no limited to Krsna's manifested universes. So that objection is not very strong in my view.

 

I am taking your word for it that Ramanuja made such an argument for I don't know anything about him myself.

 

 

 

 

So acording to Sri Ramanuja Acharyya it is meaningless to try and assert that God created the world and that everyone must follow the scriptures that God gave to the world, since everyone will follow there own nature anyway - some having faith and love for God and others being indifferent to God and following the dictates of their desires. [/quote

 

Well I see that Srila Prabhupada has done exactly that and I would not call his work meaningless. Krsna means all-attractive. He can attract the minds of all through their own interests. The artist can learn to appreciate and approach Krsna through art. The musician through music. The warrior through war and the empirical scientist through his own scientific observations.

 

Jivas can be influenced to change directions. That is marginal energy. not that once a life direction is set in motion it can never be altered. No by force of course but through intelligence and attraction to God. Supersoul does that and if we are fortunate He will engage us in the process of drawing jivas towards Him.

 

 

 

Yes, so? If someone is dead set against accepting God leave him be. There are plenty that are innocent in that they are undecided, the honest agnostics, so we can speak to them.

 

 

 

I disagree. I believe we should preach it vigorously. But that doesn't mean speaking to walls of dead stone. Find the innocent.

 

Are you suggesting that Krishna does not empower preachers and that such empowered preaching is somehow not Bhakti?

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Quote:

 

Is Sri Ramanuja Acharyya a Vaishnava?

 

Reply:

 

Gee - from what I hear he is…

 

Quote:

 

Sri Ramanuja Acharyya wrote that even if you could prove that a person (God) created this universe, it wouldn't necessarily mean that there might not be another universe somewhere else that was created by another god.

 

Reply:

 

Have ya heard about Brahma? How many Brahma’s are there? One? Many?

 

Why does the Brahma of this universe have only four faces?

 

Of course no matter whom these Brahma’s are and - what universes you’ll find them in – they are all directed by God - in the process of creation.

 

Lord Krishna is the Primary Creator – the Vedas are quite clear about this.

 

Is Brahma scientific in his creative approach? There is plethora of evidences confirming he is - intelligent design is another way of saying that there is a creator – an intelligence behind the process of creation – but we do not know what that ‘process of creation’ is. Thus it is often mentioned that the process of creation is scientifically proven - as evolution and - that it must be God behind that process.

 

There are problems with the evolution model as mentioned in my other posting – the fact is there are no evidences of one species evolving into another.

 

Brahma creates eight million four hundred thousand basic species of material forms – from the single viral cell on up to subtle beings like himself – each form is gradually less conditioned than the other – indeed it might appear to a materialistic researcher that the fossil record shows one species arising out of a previous – but that isn’t the case – all these forms are created as is and – it is soul that ‘evolves’ through these forms – up and down.

 

There is more to this point of course – but that is the basic vedic outline.

 

Quote:

 

So according to Sri Ramanuja Acharyya it is meaningless to try and assert that God created the world

 

Reply:

 

That opinion takes leave of the Vedic version – now whether one can assert that he is really a personalist or not - is thus debatable.

 

Quote:

 

and that everyone must follow the scriptures that God gave to the world, since everyone will follow there own nature anyway - some having faith and love for God and others being indifferent to God and following the dictates of their desires.

 

Reply:

 

No matter the scriptures in question – they all assert that God [a person] is the creator – the semantics may vary but - they all assert that God is the Creator.

 

Those who ‘follow the dictates of their desires’ and ‘follow their own nature’ are - as Krishna says:

 

But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures do not attain God consciousness. For the doubting soul there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next. [bG 4.40]

 

Arjuna said, O Krishna, what is the situation of one who does not follow the principles of scripture but worships according to his own imagination? Is he in goodness, in passion or in ignorance?

 

The Supreme Lord said, according to the modes of nature acquired by the embodied soul, one’s faith can be of three kinds—goodness, passion or ignorance. Now hear about these.

 

According to one’s existence under the various modes of nature, one evolves a particular kind of faith. The living being is said to be of a particular faith according to the modes he has acquired.

 

Men in the mode of goodness worship the demigods; those in the mode of passion worship the demons; and those in the mode of ignorance worship ghosts and spirits. [bG 17.1-4]

 

Thus under these circumstances one accepts his particular authority - in which to repose his ‘faith’ – of course - those properly situated as Krishna’s servants are beyond these modes of material nature.

 

In terms of those in the mode of passion – the mentioning that they ‘worship the demons’ – that mustn’t be misunderstood to mean ‘spirit demons’ – [that is covered under the mode of ignorance] – the demons that Krishna here mentions are – humans.

 

If one places his faith in a human thinking him to be an authority - in his own right – that is the mode of passion.

 

People who place implicit faith in science and scientists – taking scientific information as the ‘all in all’ – are in the mode of passion.

 

Their understanding is critically materialistic in its approach – they submit that there is no evidence for the soul etc., and - they generally change their views every few years.

 

Krishna says:

 

They say that this world is unreal, that there is no foundation and that there is no God in control. It is produced of sex desire, and has no cause other than lust. [bG 16.8]

 

Don’t get me wrong – science has its place – but it’s not the center.

 

So in terms of the mode of passion - ordinary people - who may take to the many revelations of science - are essentially as dependant on ‘faith’ – as are those who read scriptures. The difference is that the object of faith for the readers of scriptures isn’t static – He’s the Supreme Dynamic – the object of faith for followers of science - is a dry speculative process - quite static – not dynamic – an impersonal process - not a person.

 

Check into some books by the devotees - M. Cremo and R. Thompson – they are very bright and are scientifically Krishna Conscious.

 

I think that our goal aught to be to bring the various scriptural creation narratives together and – to try to present these points - from a genuine scientific perspective.

 

Quote:

 

Only those who God has revealed himself to can appreciate his existence. Others cannot. (Caitanya Charitamrta Madhya 6.81)

 

Reply:

 

That is true – but we are talking about science – you say that if we are not careful science will spoil the faith of people on these topics - when it takes these points about creation by God and makes it look like myth.

 

However – if we accept that there is a God - then we accept that there are answers to these questions.

 

I agree that we have limited time to deal with ending the round of births and deaths – so wasting time on this is dangerous – however – if we are talking to people and they seem to reject God over this creation issue – then - we have to know how to answer.

 

AS you note – when God reveals Himself - someone can see Truth – but it’s Sukriti - Bhakti from a Bhakta - that initiates the whole process…

 

Quote:

 

In this way, Sri Ramanuja Acharyya was opposed to the idea that we should "preach that the world was created by God" and instead he said that those with a little faith should instead avoid these arguments and engage in Bhakti.

 

Reply:

 

The problem then isn’t these arguments – the problem is ‘little faith’ – this is rectified by knowing that there is a proper understanding of shastra – we choose to take the authorized statements of scripture and accept them – or not.

 

People who resign to their doubts on one level and continue to try to feign to others ‘an understanding’ - [on the topic] - becomes conflicted. That of course is the nature of the noted scientific breakdown …

 

YS,

 

BDM

[Guest guest]

Yesu Bhaktan,

 

you say "we should preach it vigorously".

 

you also say this about Sri Ramanuja Acharya "I don't know anything about him myself"

 

Well, if you don't even know who Ramanujacharya is then you are certainly not qualified to preach to anyone at all.

 

First become a student, then become a teacher. Find a genuine Guru you can take initiation from, someone like Ramanuja, and surrender to him. Then preach. But don't preach about things you don't understand, such as Krishna Consciousness.

 

For your information Sri Ramanuja was probably the most incredible preacher of Krishna bhakti the world had ever seen, prior to the birth of Mahaprabhu Sri Chaitanya.

 

[Guest guest]

In my opinion, there is absolutely no problem in accepting

scientific opinion regarding the origin of species and the

universe, and at the same time being a devout Vedantin and

follower of Sri Ramanuja.

 

Let me explain why.

 

The philosophers of Vedanta typically posit three ways

of "knowing" things: (a) pratyaksha -- perception or

direct observation, (b) anumAna -- inference or logical deduction

such as "where there's smoke, there's fire", and

© Sabda -- the Vedas.

 

Each one of these ways of "knowing" are independently

valid (svatah prAmANya). One does not need corroboration

from another source of information in its sphere of

influence.

 

Each way of knowing (pramANa) operates in its own

sphere of influence. The Vedas and ancillary scriptures

are part of the 'adhyAtma SAstra', meant for understanding

the supra-sensory, such as the nature of the self, the

nature of God, the nature of consciousness, and the

relation between all of these. Obviously, science has

little bearing in this area.

 

Similarly, pratyaksha and anumAna (i.e., science) is meant

to understand the world that we see and live in. Whatever

is posited by the Vedas and other scriptures has to agree

with scientific observation. Sri Ramanuja makes the brilliant

point that when one's understanding of the Veda disagrees

with knoweldge obtained through scientific investigation, the

scientific observation is preferred; the Veda

must be reinterpreted to fit with the observation.

Two ways of knowing simply cannot be in conflict.

This principle, in my opinion, reflects a unique genius,

and blends the scientific and religious outlooks.

 

For example, if the Veda says "the moon is made of

green cheese", but our observations indicate that the

moon is indeed not made of such a substance, the Veda

must be reinterpreted to fit our observation. Perhaps

the Veda means something symbolically or metaphorically --

whatever the case, our observation simply cannot be wrong.

 

Similarly, science simply cannot tell us about God. It

cannot say anything about whether God exists or doesn't

exist, or whether God plays a helping hand in creation,

whether we have free will, whether there is more to life

than bodily experience, or whether God is the ultimate

reality. Science deals only with what we can see, and

what we can deduce from this observation.

 

Let's analyze the matter further to answer the present

question.

 

Darwin's theory of natural selection is accepted by

nearly all scientists in some form or another. There are

some so-called scientists who espouse "scientific"

creationism, but most of this theory consists of misquotation

of learned articles and a misunderstanding of the scientific

record. Unfortunately, some of this dubious science

is even propagated by some Vaishnavas today, when before

it was purely the mainstay of extremist Christians.

 

Should acceptance of evolution, a scientific fact, in any

way affect one's beliefs as a Vedantin? Absolutely not.

There is nothing in our primary shastras that cannot be understood

in the light of commonly accepted science; after all, these texts

are meant to inform us about what we *cannot see* or *reason*

about. (By primary texts, I mean the Upanishads, Gita,

and Brahma Sutras. There are countless secondary texts that

posit illogical and irreconcilable theories of the universe.

But these secondary texts are just that -- secondary.)

 

Finally, realize that our tradition in particular is a

tradition of experience -- anubhavam. Its foundation does

not lie in a dogmatic assertion of the creation of the earth

at a point of time, or some personality's exuberant vision.

It relies on certain *principle* of life and religious

experience, which are elucidated by the Upanishads, Gita

and Sutras, and reaffirmed and experienced by our Alvars.

These principles neither stand nor fall on the acceptance

scientific evidence about the world around us.

 

This is one of those issues where the tradition of Vedanta

really stands head and shoulders above the others.

 

rAmanuja dAsan

Mani Varadarajan

 

http://www.ramanuja.org

 

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

Dear guest,

 

I don't know much about any saint or even God Himself but what little crumb of knowledge I do happen to acquire I plan on sharing with others. If that disturbs you well frankly...I could not care less.

[Guest guest]

Sri Ramanuja and other acharyas who are in the authorized spiritual successions inaugurated by God are empowered to preach. If we listen to them then we can learn. If we study their writings, their voices will speak to us from the distant past. If we have faith in them we will advance in our practice of devotional service.

 

First learn. Listen and learn.

 

Then preach.

 

But don't think you can preach when you haven't heard the sacred diksa mantra from the lips of realized saint. That kind of "preaching" is not authorized by Sri Krishna.

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

Listen learn then preach. That sounds like good advice. thank you.

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

 

 

 

 

Intelligent Design Debate

BY: SUN STAFF

 

 

 

Nov 7, DOVER, PENNSYLVANIA (SUN) — Arguments were made before a federal judge on Friday by the attorney representing eight families, who want the court to overturn a policy requiring that discussion of Intelligent Design be included in biology class curriculum, saying the policy violates the constitutional separation of church and state. The plaintiffs claim that this policy improperly promotes religion in schools. The school board's lawyer defended the policy on the basis that it intends to call attention to a new "science movement." Dover is the first school system in the U.S. to require that students be exposed to the intelligent design concept.

 

 

Intelligent design asserts that the universe is so complex, it must have been created by an 'intelligent' higher force. Critics charge that Intelligent Design is simply creationism in the disguise of scientific language.

 

 

Eric Rothschild, the attorney representing the families, claims that the concept promotes a Biblical view of creation, asserting that evolution cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. In closing arguments, Rothschild said "Intelligent Design became the label for the board's desire to teach creationism".

 

 

The school district's policy puts forth to students a statement saying that Charles Darwin's theory is not a fact and has inexplicable gaps. Students are encouraged towards further reading and research.

 

 

During the six-week trial, many expert witnesses represented both sides of the argument, debating the scientific merits of both intelligent design and Darwinism. University of Idaho microbiology professor Scott Minnich, who supports Intelligent Design curriculum, said that Intelligent Design articles are not found in major peer-reviewed scientific journals because it is a minority view. "To endorse intelligent design comes with risk because it's a position against the consensus. Science is not a democratic process," he said.

 

 

The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The school district is being represented by the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Thomas More Law Center, whose mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians. Federal Judge John E. Jones III hopes to issue a ruling in the case by January.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[krsna]

 

 

 

 

 

Nov 8, VATICAN CITY, ROME (ANSA) — Congress will seek harmony between science and religion

 

 

The Vatican is to host an international conference next week aimed at finding common ground between two worlds often seen as mutually exclusive: science and religious faith.

 

 

Some of the world's most authoritative scientists, philosophers and theologians will gather at the Pontifical Lateran University for three days of debate focused on the idea of infinity.

 

 

The meeting has been organised as part of a wider, Vatican-sponsored project to promote dialogue between religion and science. The current pope's predecessor, John Paul II, issued an important document - Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) - arguing that the two universes were inextricably intertwined.

 

 

Among the scientists due to attend are Argentinian Juan Maldacena, an internationally renowned figure in quantum gravity and string theory; Italian Enrico Bombieri, a star in number theory and geometric algebra; and Britain's Joseph Silk, the Oxford University professor famed for his work on theoretical cosmology and dark matter. American Nino Cocchiarella, the Indiana university professor famed for his work in the field of logic, will be holding the flag for the philosopher's contingent.

 

 

The theologians, meanwhile, will include Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Vatican's culture 'ministry' and Cardinal Georges Cottier, the pope's official theologian.

 

 

There will also be two Jewish theologians, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz of the Israel Institute of Talmudic Publications and Rabbi Benedetto Carucci of the Rabbinical Seminary in Rome.

 

 

"Dialogue between science and faith is becoming a stimulus for deeper inter-religious dialogue, because the challenges of science are an issue for all religions," said Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, the congress organiser.

 

 

The three-day event, which starts on November 9, will examine the concept of the infinite in four contexts: Physics, Mathematics, Philosophy and Theology.

 

 

The goal is to gauge to what extent concepts of infinity in these areas may share points of reference.

 

 

[krsna]

11.09.2005

 

Board of Education votes to include challenges to Charles Darwin's widely accepted theory in curriculum.

 

 

 

By a 6-4 margin, the Kansas Board of Education voted Tuesday to mandate that students learn about the "controversial" aspects of Charles Darwin's widely accepted theory of evolution. The move was seen as a victory for religious conservatives who question Darwin's theory in favor of one of "intelligent design," which suggests that life is too complex for evolution to have happened without the assistance of some higher power.

 

According to the Los Angeles Times, the new standards — which were seen as a free-speech victory by supporters and a move into questionable science by detractors — allege a "lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code." The move makes Kansas the fifth state to adopt standards that question evolution.

 

"This is a great day for education. ... This absolutely teaches more about science," said Steve Abrams, the Republican board chairman who voted with the majority, which overruled a 26-member science committee and ignored the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association in passing the standards.

 

Opponents of the measure on the school board accused Abrams and his colleagues of using a smokescreen of science to mask the injection of religion into public schools. According to the Times, they called the decision bad for education and bad for the state's reputation.

 

"This is a sad day, not only for Kansas kids, but for Kansas," said Janet Waugh, who voted against the new standards. "We're becoming a laughingstock, not only of the nation but of the world."

 

The new standards suggest that several aspects of evolution that the majority of scientists believe to be fact, including the concept that all living things are biologically related, have been "challenged." But prominent scientists and science organizations say there is no significant controversy, and evidence from fields ranging from paleontology to molecular biology shows all life on Earth originated from a single simple life form.

 

Intelligent design "does not provide any natural explanation that can be tested," said Francisco Ayala, an expert in evolutionary genetics and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He told the Times that the Kansas standards "are an insult to science, an insult to education and an insult to the American Constitution."

 

The Board's decision does not mandate what public school students will be taught, which is left to local school boards. But by determining what students are expected to know for state assessment tests, state standards typically influence what students are taught in the classroom.

 

In 1999, Kansas approved standards that eliminated all references to evolution. But after the conservative majority on the board was booted in 2000, the anti-evolution standards were repealed. The latest reversal came when religious conservatives regained a majority on the education board last fall.

 

While Ohio, Minnesota and New Mexico have already adopted standards that encourage questions about evolution, a verdict is expected in January in a Pennsylvania trial over whether teaching "intelligent design" violates the Constitution's ban on state promotion of religion. The eight Dover, Pennsylvania, school board members who introduced "intelligent design" to the curriculum were voted out of office Tuesday, replaced by candidates who challenged the policy.

 

— Gil Kaufman

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

I heard this on the news last night. It's like a small hole being drilled through the Berlin wall. It's a start. I am more for the breaking up of the present education monopoly entirely but I can appreciate all the hard work these people did.

[krsna]

 

 

 

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican By Martin Penner November 07, 2005

 

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

 

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin’s theory of evolution were “perfectly compatible” if the Bible were read correctly. His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

 

“The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim,” he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that “the universe didn’t make itself and had a creator”.

 

 

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to “understand things better”.

 

Advertisement: His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the “intelligent design” view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

 

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

 

He said the real message in Genesis was that “the universe didn’t make itself and had a creator”.

 

 

I agree with the above statement. The Bible doesn't even attempt to explain details on how the universe was created as far as I can tell. "The universe didn't make itself and had a creator", this is all I care about.

 

Evolution or no evolution is a topic that misses the essential portion of the debate.

 

This why ID must be put forward separate from the fundmental Christians, some of whom believe the universe was created in six earth days. They are also loony but at least give cedit to God.

 

Let them theorize and speculate day and night about how God creates as long as they acknowledge the Lord as the Supreme Cause.

 

Molecular evolutionists are incorrect in assuming life comes from random mixing of dead molecules. Life comes from Life.

 

[Guest guest]

 

Gee...anyone scared?

 

http://us.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/religion.robertson.reut/index.html

 

Here is a dude venting his frustration by cursing the evolution supporters of what he calls 'God's wrath'. We may as well go back to caveman times to eat raw meat and wear bones as beads around the neck.

 

How can people be so blind to to lose sight of reality? Religion and science do not mix. Their basic premises are completely different.

 

Cheers

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

 

Religion and science do not mix. Their basic premises are completely different.

 

 

Wrong. Every part of creation somehow points to God's presence. To me the Lord's secrets are codified in nature. Science may point some of these out and when they do I accept it as another form of scripture.

 

I can't state how opposite my views are from yours. But to each his own.

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

Wrong. Every part of creation somehow points to God's presence

 

 

Wrong :-)

 

Nature is eternal (not created) and self-sustaining. By virtue of it's own properties, it transforms itself to change dynamically with time. No external entity needs to be "created" by man to explain this.

 

If you are unwilling to accept that nature is eternal and capable of transformation, then the same logic applies to the alleged creator. Who created the creator? Any answer you provide to this question will automatically fault your own position.

 

There is also the matter of experience. There is not a single shred of evidence of a hidden creator other than what we make up for ourselves or pick up from books written by people who made up these evidences for themselves. In short, due to absence of evidence, science categorically rejects the ID fantasy and rightfully so.

 

Perhaps if Narada can drop in for a few minutes into the whitehouse to address a press conference and clarify, things may change. But until then...

 

Cheers

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Can you prove nature is eternal - what is the real meaning of anything eternal as understood by those who are so temporary?

 

To see is to believe or to believe is to see?

 

No evidence of a creator? Whatever evidence really is?!

 

Where are your intermediary forms in the fossil record - there is no evidence for your evolution - the real evidence shows sudden appearance/disappearance of species.

 

You say that there is no evidence for God - but then in the same token you feign evidence to support your theory of materialistic evolution?

 

I know you will have some nice dry answer to rebutt this with but that doesn't change the fact that you will find out one day that there is a Supreme Being.

 

'Cheers'

 

 

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

Same old worn out arguments by atheists. For those with enogh intelligence it is easy to understand that matter on it's own is inert and only becomes animate when in contact with the living force.

 

You won't understand this but...oh well.

[Guest guest]

guest you wrote:

 

 

Nature is eternal (not created) and self-sustaining. By virtue of it's own properties, it transforms itself to change dynamically with time. No external entity needs to be "created" by man to explain this.

 

 

If nature was nothing but chaos then that line of reasoning could be supported. But since nature is comprised of a very large amount of complex designs then to state that nature is not created is suspect. If there are created things in nature then that means that aspects of nature are created, why then should "nature" itself be accepted as uncreated?

 

What is nature? What you can see and nothing else? Science has a history of discovering things never before seen i.e radio waves, ultra violet light, etc. So just because "nature" appears to someone to be limited to certain phenomena and attributes that doesn't negate the possbibility that there is much more to nature then what you see.

 

To say that nature is not created is a vacuous statement unless you can give a succinct description of what you mean by nature and created. If by nature you mean all empirically verfiable phenomena then it is a fallacy to state uncategorically that nature is uncreated. It is accepted knowledge in scientific fields today that matter exists in 4 different states. From subtle to gross they are 1) plasma 2)gas 3)liquid 4)solid.

 

It is accepted by physicists that stars create various elements from nuclear fusion. Also recently it has been discovered that some plants create elements from cold nuclear fusion. It was discovered that elements not present in the soil and water nor the seed of a plant where found to exist after the plant grew. Also living creatures create offspring, fruit, flowers, leaves etc. Creation of various things is the norm on earth.

 

So we see that in fact some aspects of nature are being created all of the time. The argument can be made that nature may create things all of the time but that all that is really going on is transformation of an already existing eternal non created substance into a variety of things.

 

And that is exactly what the Vedic philosophy teaches. God is uncreated and God is the substratum or ground of being of all manifest phenomena. Matter in it's 4 states and possibly more unknown states are taught as being trasformations of God's uncreated nature or being. This is a philosophy known as panentheism (not pantheism). Panentheism teaches that nature is comprised of God, that all material phenomena is a transformation of God's inherent nature. God is the uncreated eternally unchanged "nature" you speak of. Panentheism also teaches that the universe we see is only the tip of the iceberg. God comprises the universe and God also exists in dimensions beyond what what we can see of the universe.

 

So the Vedic conclusions teach a type of panentheism. We teach that a unified field of sub quantum energy is the ground of being or substratum of the visible universe. All matter is a transformation of that energy. All material objects are created by and designed by that energy. We teach that that energy is a single conscious entity and that it has immense and wondrous talents. The energy is energetic and conscious and vastly intelligent and extremely ancient. It is eternal. All transformations of that energy are created and destroyed by that energy according to it's sweet will.

 

We call him Krishna. His spoke the Bhagavad Gita.

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

 

We call him Krishna. His spoke the Bhagavad Gita.

 

 

 

Here we see where science meets philosophy and where they both meet religion.

[krsna]

 

BY: SUN STAFF

 

 

 

 

 

Nov 12, USA (SUN) — In Dover, Pennsylvania, a local school board who voted to teach both evolution and competing theories were ousted from their positions on the board this week, being defeated in a local election. Meanwhile, the lawsuit they supported has reached the end of trial in Federal court, and a decision is expected early in January.

 

 

In Kansas, the conservative majority on the state board of education has pressed their support for teaching intelligent design along with evolution. They just voted to revise and rewrite the state's science standards to permit ideas other than evolution to be presented, including intelligent design. While the curriculum will not point to a specific "designer" or creator, critics charge that intelligent design is simply disguised creationism, a view being advanced by fundamentalist religion.

 

 

Kansas is now embroiled in a debate with the National Academy of Sciences, who have revoked their permission for Kansas to use the NAS's national science guidelines. NAS charges that the Kansas board has changed the definition of science by omitting a key sentence which says that science can only rely on natural explanations - not the supernatural.

 

 

Some Kansas residents are concerned that the state will become a laughingstock, while others see the intelligent design debate from a much broader view. Followers of Vedic philosophy, for example, recognize that intelligent design and fundamentalist western religion are not one and the same, by any means. For us, intelligent design is a matter of philosophy, not religion. Where eastern philosophy and western science will meet head to head in this debate remains to be seen.

 

 

Drutakarma dasa (Michael Cremo) is perhaps the only devotee currently active worldwide in advancing the Vedic position in this matter. All devotees are encouraged to become well educated on this subject, so they can assert the Krsna Conscious understanding of intelligent design at the local level. The window of opportunity for this critically important preaching work is open now.

 

 

Elsewhere in the media this week, NPR's "All Things Considered" reported on a battle that has long been brewing at the Smithsonian Institute, a bastion of all things scientific. Scientists associated with this venerable institution were furious over publication of a pro-Intelligent Design article published in an associated journal.

 

 

"Intelligent design -- the idea that life is too complex to have evolved through Darwinian evolution -- is stirring up controversy not only in high school classrooms but also at universities and scientific research centers.

 

 

Richard Sternberg, a staff scientist at the National Institutes of Health, is puzzled to find himself in the middle of a broader clash between religion and science -- in popular culture, academia and politics.

 

 

Sternberg was the editor of an obscure scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution, where he is also a research associate. Last year, he published in the journal a peer-reviewed article by Stephen Meyer, a proponent of intelligent design, an idea which Sternberg himself believes is fatally flawed.

 

 

"Why publish it?" Sternberg says. "Because evolutionary biologists are thinking about this. So I thought that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse. That's what I thought, and I was dead wrong.""

 

 

According to Sternberg, the science community banded together in an attempt to ruin his reputation by accusing him of fraud, a charge related to his supposedly calling an article "peer reviewed" when it was not. In fact, Sternberg proved himself right, although the system he appealed to for professional protection did little to help him.

 

 

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

 

Kansas is now embroiled in a debate with the National Academy of Sciences, who have revoked their permission for Kansas to use the NAS's national science guidelines. NAS charges that the Kansas board has changed the definition of science by omitting a key sentence which says that science can only rely on natural explanations - not the supernatural.

 

So where is the science that causes them to make such a statement as this? They have none, just a prejudice against God. They are demons under the employment of Hiranyakasipu.

 

Supernatural- beyond ordinary sense perception

Natural - within ordinary sense perception

Unnatural - motivated by the dark desire to eliminate God from the equation.

 

These atheists are unnatural "scientists".

[Yesu_Bhaktan]

 

Some Kansas residents are concerned that the state will become a laughingstock, while others see the intelligent design debate from a much broader view. Followers of Vedic philosophy, for example, recognize that intelligent design and fundamentalist western religion are not one and the same, by any means. For us, intelligent design is a matter of philosophy, not religion. Where eastern philosophy and western science will meet head to head in this debate remains to be seen.

 

 

Drutakarma dasa (Michael Cremo) is perhaps the only devotee currently active worldwide in advancing the Vedic position in this matter. All devotees are encouraged to become well educated on this subject, so they can assert the Krsna Conscious understanding of intelligent design at the local level. The window of opportunity for this critically important preaching work is open now.

 

 

This means learning to put the same truth in more recognizable english. Just repeating the breathing of Maha-vishnu and Brahma on the Lotus flower won't convince anyone. It will strengthen the preconception that religious people and their old myths are stuck in a primitive mind frame with their "god".

 

We were talking about this just recently. So many younger devotees have modern scientific understanding as well that I wouldn't think this would be hard for them.