One can be a Scientific Skeptic of Evolution Theory

[Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta]

Dear Sarvesh Gyawali ji

Namaskar.

 

In your response to our letter you have told “The fact that humans are not able to take care of their own selves or grow on their own or gain knowledge on their own "right after their birth" merely states the fact of faulty evolution.”

 

It is not due to faulty evolution but due to faulty education that we are forced to adhere to many misconceptions. It is a common trend that we often observe among modern scholars where they use (objective) evolution as a stereotype argument to support the appearance of different forms of living organisms and they also use the same argument for the behavioral and cognitive differences in living entities. This has to do with the kind of academic education and training that they have received. Modern educational system does not encourage a critical examination of credible scientific disagreement with evolution. It is very much essential to think whether such manipulation of thought process of human society is correct or not. If we try to take an unbiased stand toward the scientific research work that has been performed for past several decades then it is not that difficult to recognize the scientific dissent from evolution theory. We can easily find that many practicing scientists are indeed skeptical of evolution theory that is commonly taught in different universities and colleges across the world. However, ignoring all of that a notion is cultivated in the academic circle that the evolution theory is controversial only because a small religious section of society has social, religious, or political objections. Therefore, it is very important to realize that purely on the basis of empirical evidence it is very much possible that one can be a scientific skeptic of evolution theory.

 

We can see ample evidence that support small scale changes (microevolution) in a population of organisms. But that evidence is not enough to discourage a scientist to remain skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life that we observe on our Earth. This is purely because there is no convincing evidence that supports large scale changes (macroevolution) in populations of organisms which requires the appearance of fundamentally new biological features. Sadly, proponents of evolution theory often purposefully confuse these definitions where they cite the evidence for microevolution and then over extrapolate that evidence and claim it supports macroevolution. There is no empirical evidence that can support the idea that macroevolution is nothing but the repeated rounds of microevolution added up. An organism can choose an advantageous situation or site but there is no empirical evidence to show that it can bear small beneficial modifications and thus transform into something else. Therefore, a thorough analysis of the evidence for evolution theory should be encouraged because there are many scientific reasons for being skeptical of evolution theory.

 

Several prominent scientists believe that instead of building complexity, mutations cause harmful effect towards the organism. American evolutionary theorist and biologist Lynn Margulis was convinced that new mutations do not produce new species and rather they create offspring that are impaired. Similarly, French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé was also convinced that mutations do not create any kind of evolution. František Baluška from Institute of Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Bonn, Germany concludes in his paper Evolution in Revolution that “Random genetic mutations can happen but do not have a decisive role in driving biological evolution”. The proponents of evolution theory cannot explain how random changes in individual parts give rise to the origin of harmoniously working organs. Hence, evolution theory that is presently taught in universities does not have a valid scientific explanation for the essential problem of origin of a new character (evolutionary novelty).

 

Selection can only act on a character that already exists and hence it is a natural conclusion that the higher degree of organization of higher taxa cannot be explained in terms of (adaptive) utility alone. Hence, German geneticist Günter Theißen stated in his paper ‘Saltational evolution: hopeful monsters are here to stay’: “while we already have a quite good understanding of how organisms adapt to the environment, much less is known about the mechanisms behind the origin of evolutionary novelties, a process that is arguably different from adaptation. Despite Darwin’s undeniable merits, explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living beings on our planet originated remains one of the greatest challenges of biology.” The mechanism that evolutionist advocate cannot even explain how the cellular complexity of a simplest cell manifested. Hence, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry at Colorado State University Franklin M. Harold states in his book “The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life”: “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” In a book chapter “The Chronology of Geological Column: An Incomplete Tool to Search Georesources” we have also discussed the major problems that are associated with the Fossil Record based explanation of evolution. David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber have concluded in their paper ‘The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis’ that “Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope”.

 

In the body of an adult organism there are varieties of cells that are essential for the living organism. An immanent subjective process within a single cell zygote produces all these varieties of cells. All these cells and different organs of the organism are manifestation of a developmental process and they are not a product of evolution. This is the process of manifestation of organic whole. Whole comes from whole (life comes from life, cell comes from cell and individuals in a species come from the already existing individuals in the same species: bacterium comes from bacterium, grass comes from grass, dog comes from dog, cow comes from cow, elephant comes from elephant and human comes from human) and it does not come from external assembly/manipulation of parts. Similarly, we are living in an organic whole and different living forms that we witness on our Earth are manifestation of a developmental process. Symbiotic exchanges confirms that the sphere of life is like a net, with the different species representing the nodes of that net (network). Different living entities and also their environment are related to each other like an organic whole. The origin of the different living forms cannot be understood independent of the original organic whole in which each entity (including ourselves) is only an insignificant participant.  

 

Much beyond the above problems that are attached with the gross (observable by our five senses) bodily features of living organisms, modern evolution theory does not have any real idea about the subtle nature (cognition and consciousness) of living organisms. American philosopher Thomas Nagel’s book “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False” summarizes this issue and a summary about this book posted in Amazon states:

 

“In Mind and Cosmos Thomas Nagel argues that the widely accepted world view of materialist naturalism is untenable. The mind-body problem cannot be confined to the relation between animal minds and animal bodies. If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such. No such explanation is available, and the physical sciences, including molecular biology, cannot be expected to provide one. The book explores these problems through a general treatment of the obstacles to reductionism, with more specific application to the phenomena of consciousness, cognition, and value. The conclusion is that physics cannot be the theory of everything”

 

To comprehend the higher reality we have to go beyond the limited type of epistemology (pratyakṣa – knowledge acquired from faith in one’s own direct sense perceptions and parokṣa – knowledge from faith in other’s sense perception [inventions and discoveries of scientist]) that is adopted by the modern science. In the Conclusion section of our article “Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?” we have briefly discussed about the defects that are associated with the evidence collected by only direct sense perception and inference. According to Vedic literature śabda-pramāṇa (the revealed knowledge) is also a valid epistemological system. When evidence collected from direct sense perception and inference is guided by śabda-pramāṇa, they can also become perfect. Therefore, we have to learn to engage our senses in the process of higher inquiry under the guidance of authorities who are well versed with śabda-pramāṇa.

 

Thanking you.

 

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
+91-(9748906907)	Donate  www.scsiscs.org
#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

[VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL]

Respected Dr. Shanta,

Thanks.

 

Highly enlightened and  knowledgable   article highlighting the scientific inadequacy  of Darwinism as well as Neo-Darwinism to account for the appearance of different species on our planet. No doubt, any person with unbiased mindset will recognize the fact that   Darwinism is grossly incapable of explaining  the emergence of a multitudes of species. Some of these species are so widely separated in their anatomy, intelligence, beharoural and personality traits that none of the  selection and mutation mechanisms, however rigorous it may be, can explain very high degree of diversity and complexity for among different species.But any unbiased and rational person will also raise the issue of how did so many species having  high degree of diversities and some having inconceivable complexity appeared on our planet. for the first time. But your letter is silent on this aspect. It would have been in the fitness of things if your  article would have articulated adequately and clearly on this aspect also as supplemented by excerpts from scriptural texts, current scientific findings and as supported by logic and rationale. No doubt life comes from life.  Humans comes from humans, cow comes  cow, horses come from horses. mosquito  comes from mosquito and snakes come from  snakes. This we also observe from our daily life. But the complex riddle to solve is how did first human,  first cow,  first horse,  first mosquito and  first snake  appeared on earth and what was their timeline?

Regards

Vinod Sehgal

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/505062628.7412050.1492854921204%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta]

Dear Vinod Sehgal ji

 

Namaskar.

 

Your question “how did so many species having  high degree of diversities and some having inconceivable complexity appeared on our planet” has been already answered in our article:

 

In the body of an adult organism there are varieties of cells that are essential for the living organism. An immanent subjective process within a single cell zygote produces all these varieties of cells. All these cells and different organs of the organism are manifestation of a developmental process and they are not a product of evolution. This is the process of manifestation of organic whole. Whole comes from whole (life comes from life, cell comes from cell and individuals in a species come from the already existing individuals in the same species: bacterium comes from bacterium, grass comes from grass, dog comes from dog, cow comes from cow, elephant comes from elephant and human comes from human) and it does not come from external assembly/manipulation of parts. Similarly, we are living in an organic whole and different living forms that we witness on our Earth are manifestation of a developmental process.  

 

Following an inconceivable developmental process a single cell zygote produces many varieties of cells and develops into several organs that are essential for the body of the organism. Similarly, Vedānta advocates that different forms (biodiversity) originate from the ādi-puruṣa or primeval personal Absolute, and in the reflected material sphere, the various species of life are subject to a developing principle of evolution of consciousness. If someone never witnessed the developmental process from zygote to adult organism and tries to understand the origin of different cells and organs using a reductionistic approach then he/she will never understand their origins. Similarly, the origin of the different living forms cannot be understood independent of the original organic whole in which each entity (including ourselves) is only an insignificant participant.  

 

Thanking you.

 

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
+91-(9748906907)	Donate  www.scsiscs.org
#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 7:03:23 PM UTC+5:30, vinodsehgal1955 wrote:

Respected Dr. Shanta,

Thanks.

 

Highly enlightened and  knowledgable   article highlighting the scientific inadequacy  of Darwinism as well as Neo-Darwinism to account for the appearance of different species on our planet. No doubt, any person with unbiased mindset will recognize the fact that   Darwinism is grossly incapable of explaining  the emergence of a multitudes of species. Some of these species are so widely separated in their anatomy, intelligence, beharoural and personality traits that none of the  selection and mutation mechanisms, however rigorous it may be, can explain very high degree of diversity and complexity for among different species.But any unbiased and rational person will also raise the issue of how did so many species having  high degree of diversities and some having inconceivable complexity appeared on our planet. for the first time. But your letter is silent on this aspect. It would have been in the fitness of things if your  article would have articulated adequately and clearly on this aspect also as supplemented by excerpts from scriptural texts, current scientific findings and as supported by logic and rationale. No doubt life comes from life.  Humans comes from humans, cow comes  cow, horses come from horses. mosquito  comes from mosquito and snakes come from  snakes. This we also observe from our daily life. But the complex riddle to solve is how did first human,  first cow,  first horse,  first mosquito and  first snake  appeared on earth and what was their timeline?

Regards

Vinod Sehgal

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

[Kun Ádám]

Dear All,

We are back to bashing evolution for no apparent reason. Good that you
agree that microevolution happens. So we cleared most of evolutionary
theory. It is not easy to do experiments on macroevolution. It is called
macroevolution for a reason, and usually takes quite some time.
Definitely more than the length of the average grant. The fossil record
on the other hand is full of examples of great changes. Why not accept that?

As for practicing scientist not believing in evolution. Please show me a
BIOLOGIST who do not believe in evolution. It is rather cheap to say
that one does not believe in something another branch of science do.
Furthermore, please do not cite the "third way" people. They are firm
supporters of evolution. They have issues - and they are actually right
- with the world view of the modern synthesis. The modern evolutionary
synthesis was mostly done in the '20'and '30 (as 2020 is fast
approaching, I also add that this 1920) and was mostly organized in the
'40. Biology advanced in the past decades which calls for updates to the
theory. It is not called the EXTENDED evolutionary synthesis. It is for
example, accommodates the view that mutations are not entirely random,
in fact they can be very non-random.

Learning is a process. We should not abandon science because it did not
answered all our questions in an instant. It does take time to get these
answers.

I kept on asking what is your problem with evolution, and you keep on
not answering that question. How does evolution interfere with your
faith? How does it interfere with your study of consciousnesses?

best wishes,
Ádám

> Dear Sarvesh Gyawali ji
>
> Namaskar.
>
>
> In your response

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/online_sadhu_sanga/tIDePD_cf4E/10JkTy4pCgAJ>
> to our letter
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/online_sadhu_sanga/tIDePD_cf4E/P9lPnPyKCQAJ>
> you have told “/The fact that humans are not able to take care of

> their own selves or grow on their own or gain knowledge on their own

> "right after their birth" merely states the fact of faulty evolution./”

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis>was convinced that new

> mutations do not produce new species and rather they create offspring
> that are impaired. Similarly, French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Paul_Grass%C3%A9>was also

> convinced that mutations do not create any kind of evolution.
> František Baluška

> <http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people/view/frantisek-baluska>from

> Institute of Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Bonn,
> Germany concludes in his paper Evolution in Revolution

> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3204118/>that “/Random

> genetic mutations can happen but do not have a decisive role in

> driving biological evolution/”. The proponents of evolution theory

> cannot explain how random changes in individual parts give rise to the
> origin of harmoniously working organs. Hence, evolution theory that is
> presently taught in universities does not have a valid scientific
> explanation for the essential problem of origin of a new character
> (evolutionary novelty).
> Selection can only act on a character that already exists and hence it
> is a natural conclusion that the higher degree of organization of
> higher taxa cannot be explained in terms of (adaptive) utility alone.
> Hence, German geneticist Günter Theißen

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Thei%C3%9Fen>stated in his

> paper ‘Saltational evolution: hopeful monsters are here to stay

> <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12064-009-0058-z>’:
> “/while we already have a quite good understanding of how organisms

> adapt to the environment, much less is known about the mechanisms
> behind the origin of evolutionary novelties, a process that is
> arguably different from adaptation. Despite Darwin’s undeniable
> merits, explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living
> beings on our planet originated remains one of the greatest challenges

> of biology./” The mechanism that evolutionist advocate cannot even

> explain how the cellular complexity of a simplest cell manifested.
> Hence, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry at Colorado State University
> Franklin M. Harold

> <http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people/view/franklin-m.harold>states
> in his book “/The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order
> of Life/
> <http://www.amazon.in/Way-Cell-Molecules-Organisms-Order/dp/0195163389>”:
> “/There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution

> of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful

> speculations./” In a book chapter “The Chronology of Geological

> Column: An Incomplete Tool to Search Georesources

> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285474454_The_Chronology_of_Geological_Column_An_Incomplete_Tool_to_Search_Georesources>”

> we have also discussed the major problems that are associated with the
> Fossil Record based explanation of evolution. David J. Depew

> <https://clas.uiowa.edu/commstudies/people/david-depew>and Bruce H.
> Weber <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bruce_Weber2> have

> concluded in their paper ‘The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the
> Modern Synthesis

> <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13752-011-0007-1>’ that
> “/Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much
> reached the end of its rope/”.

> <http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/object/thomasnagel>’s book “/Mind and

> Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is

> Almost Certainly False/
> <http://www.amazon.in/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755>”

> summarizes this issue and a summary about this book posted in Amazon
> states:

> “In/Mind and Cosmos/Thomas Nagel argues that the widely accepted world

> view of materialist naturalism is untenable. The mind-body problem
> cannot be confined to the relation between animal minds and animal
> bodies. If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other
> mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely
> materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology,
> evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of
> biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard
> materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally
> incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of
> life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution
> cannot be a merely materialist history. An adequate conception of
> nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of
> materially irreducible conscious minds, as such. No such explanation
> is available, and the physical sciences, including molecular biology,
> cannot be expected to provide one. The book explores these problems
> through a general treatment of the obstacles to reductionism, with
> more specific application to the phenomena of consciousness,
> cognition, and value. The conclusion is that physics cannot be the
> theory of everything”
> To comprehend the higher reality we have to go beyond the limited type

> of epistemology (/pratyak//ṣ//a/– knowledge acquired from faith in
> one’s own direct sense perceptions and /parok//ṣ//a /– knowledge from

> faith in other’s sense perception [inventions and discoveries of
> scientist]) that is adopted by the modern science. In the Conclusion
> section of our article “Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?

> <http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03>” we have briefly

> discussed about the defects that are associated with the evidence
> collected by only direct sense perception and inference. According to

> Vedic literature /śabda-pramā//ṇ//a /(the revealed knowledge) is also

> a valid epistemological system. When evidence collected from direct

> sense perception and inference is guided by /śabda-pramā//ṇ//a,/they

> can also become perfect. Therefore, we have to learn to engage our
> senses in the process of higher inquiry under the guidance of

> authorities who are well versed with /śabda-pramā//ṇ//a/.
> Thanking you.
> Sincerely,

> Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D. Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute

> +91-(9748906907)
>
> Donate <http://scienceandscientist.org/donate>
> www.scsiscs.org <http://www.scsiscs.org/>

> #8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City,
> Bangalore, Karnataka, India

> <http://facebook.com/scsiscs>

> <mailto:Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com>.

> To post to this group, send email to
> Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>.

> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/505062628.7412050.1492854921204%40mail.yahoo.com

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/505062628.7412050.1492854921204%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Dr. Ádám Kun
research associate professor | senior research associate
Department of Plant Systematics,| Parmenides Centre for the
Ecology and Theoretical Biology| Conceptual Foundation of Science
Eötvös University | Parmenides Foundation
Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C | Kirchplatz 1
1117 Budapest, Hungary | 82049 Pullach, Germany
Phone: +36-1-372-2500/1714
Skype: kunadam


--
Dr. Ádám Kun
research associate professor | Senior research fellow
Department of Plant Systematics,| Parmenides Centre for the
Ecology and Theoretical Biology| Conceptual Foundation of Science
Eötvös University | Parmenides Foundation
Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C | Kirchplatz 1
1117 Budapest, Hungary | 82049 Pullach, Germany
Phone: +36-1-372-2500/1714
Skype: kunadam

[Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta]

Dear Dr. Ádám Kun

 

Namaskar.

 

It is a common practice in modern science where based on evidence many presumed concepts are replaced by new concepts. If we are following the same process that modern science follows then there is a valid scientific reason behind the evidence based refutation of evolution theory.

 

If microevolution constitutes most of the evolution theory then there should not be a problem for any scientist to accept the same. As you have accepted that it is not easy to do experiments on macroevolution (although we can find experimental studies on bacteria which disprove macroevolution) and hence we should not propagate a purely faith based opinion (macroevolution is nothing but the repeated rounds of microevolution added up) on the name of science. Fossil record also does not prove this concept that macroevolution is nothing but the repeated rounds of microevolution added up.

 

What is the scientific justification for the rigid stand to presume evolution as the cause of origin of life and biodiversity? We cannot accept certain presumption as scientific just because there are many scientists who believe that presumption. Scientific conclusions are not accepted on the basis of majority voting. Accepting truth on the basis of consensus is not science.

 

Scientists under the banner of thethirdwayofevolution have realized the unscientific nature of evolution theory that is commonly taught in different universities and colleges across the world. This realization is purely based on scientific evidence. Presuming that evolution is the only process by which biodiversity has manifested on our Earth, the scientists under the banner of thethirdwayofevolution are trying to explore what are the other possible ways that evolution might have happened. These scientists have also not provided any credible evidence that demonstrates the mechanism for macroevolution. One can believe different things but just a mere belief is not science. In science we have to support our presumptions with the valid scientific evidence.

 

We agree with you that learning is a process [of overcoming the ignorance] and scientifically questioning “evolution theory” is also a part of that process. We have not told that we should abandon science and scientifically questioning evolution theory is not equal to the process of abandonment of science because science does not mean “evolution theory”.

 

You have written “I kept on asking what is your problem with evolution, and you keep on not answering that question. How does evolution interfere with your

faith? How does it interfere with your study of consciousnesses?”

 

Teaching of evolution theory is actually a great disservice to the human civilization. Evolution theory tries to cultivate a materialistic attitude in society, where individuals try to find themselves in a position of superiority, which would allow them to exploit and oppress nature. If someone feels the urge to exploit or oppress other human beings then evolution theory justifies that urge. Accordingly to evolution theory the mood of exploitation and oppression is the natural instinct of every individual which is established by millions of years of evolution. If that is true then why there is a judiciary system in our society to discipline these bad urges. Evolution theory propagates many such delusions that are utterly against our true spiritual nature (consciousness) and thus is an extremely harmful unscientific concept. We have explained many times on this forum that a genuine scientist follows the evidence wherever it may lead. One of the works of our institute is to inculcate this type of genuine scientific attitude in our society for the betterment of humanity.  

 

Thanking you.

 

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute

+91-(9748906907)

Donate  www.scsiscs.org

#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

> an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com>.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports

Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate

Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191

Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer

Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org

Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga

Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/efef0f6e-1ef2-ddb4-479a-e081dcac9c64%40ludens.elte.hu.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Kun Adam <kun...@ludens.elte.hu> on April 23, 2017 wrote:

>I kept on asking what is your problem with evolution, and you keep on

>not answering that question. How does evolution interfere with your

>faith? How does it interfere with your study of consciousnesses?

[S.P.] For me, the idea of (biological or Darwinian) evolution has nothing to do with consciousness. The case is that consciousness can either be present or be absent. For any living organism to stay alive it must necessarily possess the expediently well evolved exemplar of consciousness.

Our forebears were not duller than we are now. The idea of evolution of consciousness is antiscientific.

Also, it is incorrect to say that, for example, a crow is duller than a horse, or that an elephant is duller than a human. I mean that it would be methodologically incorrect to compare the cognitive abilities of different species. However, there are as geniuses so blockheads as among humans so among representatives of all other species. It would be incorrect to state that the dogs as a species are smarter than the cats as a species, but it would be correct to say that this concrete cat is duller than that concrete cat.

To the point, a natural selection is always a conscious selection. I mean that every organism is able to decides consciously whom to mate. However, there are also those who marry at haste and then repent at leisure. :-)

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Kun Ádám <kun...@ludens.elte.hu>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] One can be a Scientific Skeptic of Evolution Theory

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Bhakti Niskama Shanta <b...@scsiscs.org> on April 23, 2017 wrote:

>If we are following the same process that modern science follows

> then there is a valid scientific reason behind the evidence based 

>refutation of evolution theory.

[S.P.] Fighting "Darwinian theory of evolution" is the same as to fight windmills. So, for the second time on this forum I suggest to call a spade a spade. The irony is that what we call a "Darwinian theory of evolution", it IS NOT a theory -- it is just a hypothesis -- a result of generalization and systematization of observational data. 

So, let us practice in calling a spade a spade:

1) Darwinian hypothesis of biological evolution is a valid scientific hypothesis. Why? Because it is based on a certain amount of carefully collected and recorded observational data. 

2) Darwinian hypothesis of biological evolution is not a theory. Why? Because it has no explanatory and predictive power. 

3) Darwinian hypothesis of biological evolution may continue to be studied at schools and universities, however not as a theory, but as a hypothesis and together with other valid scientific hypotheses UNTILL a true theory of evolution is adopted by scientific community.

With respect,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta <b...@scsiscs.org>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 1:23 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] One can be a Scientific Skeptic of Evolution Theory

[Ádám Kun]

Dear Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta,

> It is a common practice in modern science where based on evidence many
> presumed concepts are replaced by new concepts. If we are following
> the same process that modern science follows then there is a valid
> scientific reason behind the evidence based refutation of evolution
> theory.

Sure.

> If microevolution constitutes most of the evolution theory then there
> should not be a problem for any scientist to accept the same. As you
> have accepted that it is not easy to do experiments on macroevolution
> (although we can find experimental studies on bacteria which disprove
> macroevolution) and hence we should not propagate a purely faith based
> opinion (macroevolution is nothing but the repeated rounds of
> microevolution added up) on the name of science. Fossil record also
> does not prove this concept that macroevolution is nothing but the
> repeated rounds of microevolution added up.

Which study on bacteria did disprove macroevolution?
Can you prove that macroevolution cannot happen? Please bear in mind
that absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. I.e. the fact that
we cannot do macroevolutionary experiment because of time constraints
does not disprove the theory. Indirect evidence in the fossil record
proves that macroevolution works. Why do you think that it does not?

> What is the scientific justification for the rigid stand to presume
> evolution as the cause of origin of life and biodiversity? We cannot
> accept certain presumption as scientific just because there are many
> scientists who believe that presumption. Scientific conclusions are
> not accepted on the basis of majority voting. Accepting truth on the
> basis of consensus is not science.

Evolution at least can explain the origin and diversification life. What
would be your alternative? Saying the life and the diversity of it
always existed does not solve the question. As for diversity we know it
dwindles and rises through history. We find different diversity in
different historical layers in the fossil record. Getting from a time
with less species to a time with more necessitates a mechanism to get
new species. Evolution is such a mechanism.

> Scientists under the banner of thethirdwayofevolution

> <http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/> have realized the

> unscientific nature of evolution theory that is commonly taught in
> different universities and colleges across the world. This realization
> is purely based on scientific evidence. Presuming that evolution is
> the only process by which biodiversity has manifested on our Earth,
> the scientists under the banner of thethirdwayofevolution

> <http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/> are trying to explore what

> are the other possible ways that evolution might have happened. These
> scientists have also not provided any credible evidence that
> demonstrates the mechanism for macroevolution. One can believe
> different things but just a mere belief is not science. In science we
> have to support our presumptions with the valid scientific evidence.

Those people questioned some part of the theory. There is progress in
evolutionary theory, it is not a stale branch of science. They do not
question the foundation of evolutionary theory. So please do not quote
them as opposing evolution. They do not.

> We agree with you that learning is a process [of overcoming the
> ignorance] and scientifically questioning “evolution theory” is also a
> part of that process. We have not told that we should abandon science
> and scientifically questioning evolution theory is not equal to the
> process of abandonment of science because science does not mean
> “evolution theory”.

Questioning something is scientific. Stating that it is untrue because
you wish it to be so is not.
> You have written “/I kept on asking what is your problem with

> evolution, and you keep on not answering that question. How does

> evolution interfere with your /
> /faith? How does it interfere with your study of consciousnesses?/”

> Teaching of evolution theory is actually a great disservice to the
> human civilization. Evolution theory tries to cultivate a
> materialistic attitude in society, where individuals try to find
> themselves in a position of superiority, which would allow them to
> exploit and oppress nature. If someone feels the urge to exploit or
> oppress other human beings then evolution theory justifies that urge.
> Accordingly to evolution theory the mood of exploitation and
> oppression is the natural instinct of every individual which is
> established by millions of years of evolution. If that is true then
> why there is a judiciary system in our society to discipline these bad
> urges. Evolution theory propagates many such delusions that are
> utterly against our true spiritual nature (consciousness) and thus is
> an extremely harmful unscientific concept. We have explained many
> times on this forum that a genuine scientist follows the evidence
> wherever it may lead. One of the works of our institute is to
> inculcate this type of genuine scientific attitude in our society for
> the betterment of humanity.

This is a misconception. Evolution does not in any sense teaches
materialistic world view more than any other branch of the natural
sciences. And that materialistic world view is by no means a common
knowledge. If people would take evolutionary theory to their hearth,
which by the way includes all biology ecology included, they would know
that destroying species and our environment is bad for us. The urge for
selfishness as centerpiece in evolution was propagated by politicians
and not by scientist. I strongly recommend to read Frans de Waal's "The
bonobo and the atheist". He labels this thinking of bad urges and a good
jurisdictional system the veneer theory. Evolutionary theory of the
present (and not that of the '80) tries to understand why we are moral
and does not argue against our highly cooperative nature.
If as you wish evolution would be scraped from the curricula of
education, what would happen? I hasten yo say we are speaking about a
handful of lectures (so a few hours at most) in high school and then
some courses in biology BSc/MSc. And most people have no idea what
evolution is, maybe except that dinos are now extinct, which is more
paleontology than evolution. So what would happen? People will leave
their car so to produce less CO2? They will not eat beef and would
revert to pork just to use less water? They will magically become more
friendly, even thought politicians are constantly urging them to heat
someone?
I wish people would know much more about evolution! Because then they
would understand that humans are not the pinnacle of creation but one
species among the many. Then they would understand - as Serge Patlavskiy
said - that there no duller and brighter animals. They can cope with
their environment, and they are much better at coping with their
environment than we would be in coping with theirs despite our larger
brains. We are the best at being humans. That is our niche.
If people would know more evolutionary theory then they would also know
that there are more cooperative / mutualistic interaction among species
that competitive. Competition is bad, takes energy, and thus organism
evolve to lessen competition. This is niche segregation.

So it is not evolutionary theory that does disservice to humanity but
the misunderstanding of it, and employing scientific terms to validates
one's evil. I think you should be fighting against bad attitudes in our
society and not against a scientific field that very few people
understand or care about. And if you do care about evolutionary theory,
then I bet you will find more synergy with what you try to achieve than
opposition.

best wishes,
Ádám

[Asingh2384]

Biological consciousness is nothing but mind qualia that are limited manifestations of the eternal universal consciousness pervading/powering the cosmos in the form of universal laws representing universal awareness.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1632973623.960766.1492914893424%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Gopala Rao]

Not just Biological Consciousness but every interaction, every happening and
everywhere and every when

Gopala Rao
--------------------------------------------

On Mon, 4/24/17, 'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] One can be a Scientific Skeptic of Evolution Theory

To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, April 24, 2017, 1:14 PM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/15ba0f4c00b-2aa7-18f249%40webprd-m05.mail.aol.com.

[Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta]

Dear Dr. Ádám Kun

 

For macroevolution studies on bacteria you can refer to the work ‘From Here to Eternity—The Theory and Practice of a Really Long Experiment’ of Prof. Richard Lenski from Michigan State University. For last 27 years he is experimenting on evolving bacterial populations. Even though he has already witnessed more that 60,000 generations of these bacteria, yet bacteria remained bacteria and do not form into something else.

 

The stereotype unscientific arguments (like, “Can you prove that macroevolution cannot happen? Please bear in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence for absence.”) will not make a scientific case in the support of macroevolution. Do you think that modern science is founded on this type of naive arguments? Anyone can make a statement that after 1000 years Sun will rise in the west and then can argue (similar to your argument) with opponents that can you prove that “Sun cannot rise in the west”. Any layman can construct several such arguments and do you expect that science should accept all of them? To defend evolution we should not deviate from the core scientific process that modern science follows and we should always remember that science is not a practice of dogma.

 

You have told “Evolution at least can explain the origin and diversification life.” Why do you think that people should believe this? What is the scientific basis?

 

You have asked “What would be your alternative?” The first message on this thread explains the alternative (developmental process and not evolution that causes the appearance of biodiversity) and we had further clarified the same in our reply to Vinod Sehgal.

 

You have told “We find different diversity in different historical layers in the fossil record.” All living entities are related to each other like a net, with the different species representing the nodes of that network. Vedic chronology talks about different Yuga cycles and thus time and again our world has witnessed a drastic change, which has led to a significant change in the network of life on our Earth at different periods of life. If changes occur in the network as a whole, then the various nodes (species) change accordingly, to maintain the harmony of the network of life. Fossil record only gives a hint of those changes. You have also told “Getting from a time with less species to a time with more necessitates a mechanism to get new species. Evolution is such a mechanism.” At present stage this is a pure speculation because we do not have any scientific method that can accurately predict the chronology from the fossil record. We have discussed that in a book chapter “The Chronology of Geological Column: An Incomplete Tool to Search Georesources”.  

 

The scientists under thethirdwayofevolution have already supplied significant scientific evidence against the concept of evolution that is commonly taught in different universities and colleges across the world. That itself is enough to demand a change in the syllabus to meet the revolutionary realization of 21st century biology. However, at preset even that much humility is not shown by the majority of scientific community and hence Joseph A. Kuhn, MD states in his paper ‘Dissecting Darwinism’:

 

In essence, current biology students, aspiring medical students, and future scientists are not being taught the whole story. Rather, evidence suggests that they continue to receive incorrect and incomplete material that exaggerates the effect of random mutation and natural selection to account for DNA, the cell, or the transition from species to species.

 

You have told “Questioning something is scientific. Stating that it is untrue because you wish it to be so is not.” We are questioning those presumptions (speculations: human beings came from apes) that are against the observable empirical evidence (empirically verifiable: human comes from human and apes comes from apes). What is the scientific basis for your assertion?  

 

You have told “Evolution does not in any sense teaches materialistic world view more than any other branch of the natural sciences. And that materialistic world view is by no means a common knowledge. If people would take evolutionary theory to their hearth, which by the way includes all biology ecology included, they would know that destroying species and our environment is bad for us. The urge for selfishness as centerpiece in evolution was propagated by politicians and not by scientist.” If you think that selfishness is not the centerpiece in evolution then why it propagates the concept of survival of fittest. Without any foundation how the concept of (objective) evolution or materialistic world view can teach the concept: ‘destroying species and our environment is bad for us.’ Every organism is dependent on other organisms for food and survival. Without exploiting other living entities and environment how the evolution that is taught in colleges and universities across the world can justify the survival? Evolution also does not explain: by what mechanism ‘a piece of matter’/’the fist life (first cell)’/’the successive living entities’ developed the knowing ability that helped them realize that ‘destroying species and our environment is bad for us.’

 

You have also told “Evolutionary theory of the present (and not that of the '80) tries to understand why we are moral and does not argue against our highly cooperative nature.” You should know that evolutionary psychology (EP) cannot unify the social and natural sciences because except pure mental speculations it does not have any real scientific foundation (it cannot satisfy the rigorous demands of experimental evolutionary biology), which can establish the origin and evolution of psychology in the evolutionary biological sciences. Much of what is speculated in EP about the biology and behavior of our so called ancestors is merely based on the study of a collection of fossilized bones. Thus the highly ambitious and extremely ill founded EP is entirely based on a wishful reflection from an extremely limited data. From a pure scientific prospective one can question the usefulness of such claims of EP and the burden of proof lies with the proponents (and successive followers like you) of EP to show its persuasiveness. The rest of your arguments (trying to show the links between evolutionary biology and psychology/morality) are based on a mere presumption that this obligation is already met and is thus seems illusory. Moreover, the theoretical reduction (evolutionary biology -> EP) that you seem to adhere to also needs a scientific justification and from the perspective of ontological reduction you also need to realize that the modules of EP are not particularly compatible to the methods of evolutionary genetic biology because EP is focused on (inherited) mental modules as its smallest unit of analysis which states nothing about the evolutionary biology's (inherited) smallest units (say, individual genes/neurons) or, at a larger scale, networks of gene/neurons, that are presumed to be involved in the physiological processes of cognition. 

 

Thanking you.

 

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
+91-(9748906907)	Donate  www.scsiscs.org
#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

 

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 9:56:09 PM UTC+5:30, kunadam wrote:

Dear Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta, 

> It is a common practice in modern science where based on evidence many 
> presumed concepts are replaced by new concepts. If we are following 
> the same process that modern science follows then there is a valid 
> scientific reason behind the evidence based refutation of evolution 
> theory. 

Sure. 

> If microevolution constitutes most of the evolution theory then there 
> should not be a problem for any scientist to accept the same. As you 
> have accepted that it is not easy to do experiments on macroevolution 
> (although we can find experimental studies on bacteria which disprove 
> macroevolution) and hence we should not propagate a purely faith based 
> opinion (macroevolution is nothing but the repeated rounds of 
> microevolution added up) on the name of science. Fossil record also 
> does not prove this concept that macroevolution is nothing but the 
> repeated rounds of microevolution added up. 

Which study on bacteria did disprove macroevolution? 
Can you prove that macroevolution cannot happen? Please bear in mind 
that absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. I.e. the fact that 
we cannot do macroevolutionary experiment because of time constraints 
does not disprove the theory. Indirect evidence in the fossil record 
proves that macroevolution works. Why do you think that it does not? 

> What is the scientific justification for the rigid stand to presume 
> evolution as the cause of origin of life and biodiversity? We cannot 
> accept certain presumption as scientific just because there are many 
> scientists who believe that presumption. Scientific conclusions are 
> not accepted on the basis of majority voting. Accepting truth on the 
> basis of consensus is not science. 

Evolution at least can explain the origin and diversification life. What 
would be your alternative? Saying the life and the diversity of it 
always existed does not solve the question. As for diversity we know it 
dwindles and rises through history. We find different diversity in 
different historical layers in the fossil record. Getting from a time 
with less species to a time with more necessitates a mechanism to get 
new species. Evolution is such a mechanism. 

> Scientists under the banner of thethirdwayofevolution 

> <http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/> have realized the 

> unscientific nature of evolution theory that is commonly taught in 
> different universities and colleges across the world. This realization 
> is purely based on scientific evidence. Presuming that evolution is 
> the only process by which biodiversity has manifested on our Earth, 
> the scientists under the banner of thethirdwayofevolution 

> <http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/> are trying to explore what 

> are the other possible ways that evolution might have happened. These 
> scientists have also not provided any credible evidence that 
> demonstrates the mechanism for macroevolution. One can believe 
> different things but just a mere belief is not science. In science we 
> have to support our presumptions with the valid scientific evidence. 

Those people questioned some part of the theory. There is progress in 
evolutionary theory, it is not a stale branch of science. They do not 
question the foundation of evolutionary theory. So please do not quote 
them as opposing evolution. They do not. 

> We agree with you that learning is a process [of overcoming the 
> ignorance] and scientifically questioning “evolution theory” is also a 
> part of that process. We have not told that we should abandon science 
> and scientifically questioning evolution theory is not equal to the 
> process of abandonment of science because science does not mean 
> “evolution theory”. 

Questioning something is scientific. Stating that it is untrue because 
you wish it to be so is not. 

> You have written “/I kept on asking what is your problem with 

> evolution, and you keep on not answering that question. How does 

> evolution interfere with your / 
> /faith? How does it interfere with your study of consciousnesses?/” 

> Teaching of evolution theory is actually a great disservice to the 
> human civilization. Evolution theory tries to cultivate a 
> materialistic attitude in society, where individuals try to find 
> themselves in a position of superiority, which would allow them to 
> exploit and oppress nature. If someone feels the urge to exploit or 
> oppress other human beings then evolution theory justifies that urge. 
> Accordingly to evolution theory the mood of exploitation and 
> oppression is the natural instinct of every individual which is 
> established by millions of years of evolution. If that is true then 
> why there is a judiciary system in our society to discipline these bad 
> urges. Evolution theory propagates many such delusions that are 
> utterly against our true spiritual nature (consciousness) and thus is 
> an extremely harmful unscientific concept. We have explained many 
> times on this forum that a genuine scientist follows the evidence 
> wherever it may lead. One of the works of our institute is to 
> inculcate this type of genuine scientific attitude in our society for 
> the betterment of humanity. 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/189824671.8001167.1492934209482%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Kun Ádám]

Dear Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta,

Thank you very much for your reply.
(1) Richard Lenski's study of E.coli evolution is not a study of
macroevulution. Long-term evolution does not equate to macroevolution.
Those bacteria are grown on a minimal media with sugar being their main,
an in some sense only food source. E.coli can live under such
environment. The evolutionary experiment show that they can actually
become very good at it. Mostly this is stabilizing selection. On the
other hand, they have also found that there is evolutionary novelty: in
some lines the bacteria evolved to be able to take up and utilize
citrate. So it does prove that novelty can arise in evolutionary
experiments.

> The stereotype unscientific arguments (like, “/Can you prove that

> macroevolution cannot happen? Please bear in mind that absence of

> evidence is not evidence for absence./”) will not make a scientific

> case in the support of macroevolution. Do you think that modern
> science is founded on this type of naive arguments? Anyone can make a
> statement that after 1000 years Sun will rise in the west and then can

> argue (similar to your argument) with opponents that /can you prove
> that/ “/Sun cannot rise in the west/”. Any layman can construct

> several such arguments and do you expect that science should accept
> all of them? To defend evolution we should not deviate from the core
> scientific process that modern science follows and we should always
> remember that science is not a practice of dogma.

(2) Please have this argument with those well-versed in the philosophy
of science. I admit my limitations. To be honest we do not know if the
Sun will rise in the east and set in the west. As far as we know it does
it, and all our models of how the Earth revolve around the Sun predict
that it will be so tomorrow. Can you be sure? In similar veins all our
knowledge about evolution and the history fo Earth tells us that species
came from other species.
> You have told “/Evolution at least can explain the origin and
> diversification life./” Why do you think that people should believe

> this? What is the scientific basis?

> You have asked “/What would be your alternative?/” The first message
> on this thread
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/online_sadhu_sanga/0UAN-0Gpr4o/evmxjk1ZCwAJ>

> explains the alternative (developmental process and not evolution that
> causes the appearance of biodiversity) and we had further clarified
> the same in our reply to Vinod Sehgal

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/online_sadhu_sanga/0UAN-0Gpr4o/f4peWwJ-CwAJ>.
>
>
Developmental process can explain some morphological changes. But if
that would be the sole difference and it would always be responding to
the environment then (1) A chimp raised in a human family would become a
human (2) all living organism would share the same genome. None of it is
true. Development alone cannot explain the diversification of life.

> You have told “/We find different diversity in different historical
> layers in the fossil record./” All living entities are related to each

> other like a net, with the different species representing the nodes of

> that network. Vedic chronology talks about different /Yuga/ cycles and

> thus time and again our world has witnessed a drastic change, which
> has led to a significant change in the network of life on our Earth at
> different periods of life. If changes occur in the network as a whole,
> then the various nodes (species) change accordingly, to maintain the
> harmony of the network of life. Fossil record only gives a hint of

> those changes. You have also told “/Getting from a time with less

> species to a time with more necessitates a mechanism to get new

> species. Evolution is such a mechanism./” At present stage this is a

> pure speculation because we do not have any scientific method that can
> accurately predict the chronology from the fossil record. We have
> discussed that in a book chapter “The Chronology of Geological Column:
> An Incomplete Tool to Search Georesources

> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285474454_The_Chronology_of_Geological_Column_An_Incomplete_Tool_to_Search_Georesources>”.
>
You say: "If changes occur in the network as a whole, then the various

nodes (species) change accordingly, to maintain the harmony of the

network of life." And that is one way to describe evolution. I'm glad
that you are on board :)
> The scientists under thethirdwayofevolution
> <http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/> have already supplied

> significant scientific evidence against the concept of evolution that
> is commonly taught in different universities and colleges across the
> world. That itself is enough to demand a change in the syllabus to
> meet the revolutionary realization of 21st century biology. However,
> at preset even that much humility is not shown by the majority of
> scientific community and hence Joseph A. Kuhn, MD

> <http://www.wlsdocs.com/about-us/dr-joseph-kuhn.php> states in his
> paper ‘Dissecting Darwinism
> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246854/>’:

> In essence, current biology students, aspiring medical students, and
> future scientists are not being taught the whole story. Rather,
> evidence suggests that they continue to receive incorrect and
> incomplete material that exaggerates the effect of random mutation and
> natural selection to account for DNA, the cell, or the transition from
> species to species.

Did they ever question the basics of evolution and not some particular
part of biology? Please read their work! They are evolutionary biologist
of the XXI.c. And indeed some advances of the last decades have not
dribbled down to all branches of education. The broad strokes one learns
in elementary and secondary school are solid enough, biology students
should learn the most up to date form of evolution.
> You have told “/Questioning something is scientific. Stating that it
> is untrue because you wish it to be so is not./” We are questioning

> those presumptions (speculations: human beings came from apes) that
> are against the observable empirical evidence (empirically verifiable:
> human comes from human and apes comes from apes). What is the
> scientific basis for your assertion?

I think there is a fundamental difference between our thinking. I
observe that there are beginning and ends. The sun come up, and thus our
day begins. And then it settles and thus the day concludes. The desk I'm
sitting in front of has a finite dimension, I can touch its perimeter.
My life had a beginning, and evidence about other humans tell me that it
will have an end (hopefully not in the near future). If everything I
observe has a beginning and and end, then humanity as a species should
have a beginning and and end too. The ape ancestor is our beginning, and
an evolved human being is what will come after us. We cannot come from
nothing.
> You have told “/Evolution does not in any sense teaches materialistic

> world view more than any other branch of the natural sciences. And
> that materialistic world view is by no means a common knowledge. If
> people would take evolutionary theory to their hearth, which by the
> way includes all biology ecology included, they would know that
> destroying species and our environment is bad for us. The urge for

> //selfishness as centerpiece in evolution was propagated by
> politicians and not by scientist./” If you think that selfishness is

> not the centerpiece in evolution then why it propagates the concept of
> survival of fittest. Without any foundation how the concept of
> (objective) evolution or materialistic world view can teach the
> concept: ‘destroying species and our environment is bad for us.’ Every
> organism is dependent on other organisms for food and survival.
> Without exploiting other living entities and environment how the
> evolution that is taught in colleges and universities across the world
> can justify the survival? Evolution also does not explain: by what
> mechanism ‘a piece of matter’/’the fist life (first cell)’/’the

> successive living entities’ developed the /knowing ability/ that
> helped them /realize /that ‘destroying species and our environment is
> bad for us.’
Survival of the fittest. This is a catchy phrase. It does not equate the
"only one one can remain" (as in the Highlander movie). So we also need
food, and our being fit includes the survival of other species too.
Exploitation has an evil connotation. We are heterotrophs, thus we eat
other beings (or parts of other beings). I do not think that it makes us
evil.
We cannot explain how we became intelligent. We generally cannot, so it
is not the problem of evolution or any other branch of knowing, it is
our lack of knowledge. Do you know how we become "knowing"?
> You have also told “/Evolutionary theory of the present (and not that

> of the '80) tries to understand why we are moral and does not argue

> against our highly cooperative nature./” You should know that

> evolutionary psychology (EP) cannot unify the social and natural
> sciences because except pure mental speculations it does not have any
> real scientific foundation (it cannot satisfy the rigorous demands of
> experimental evolutionary biology)

Evolutionary psychology has a scientific basis. As it involves humans,
it is not very easy to do experiments. If any kind of study of the human
mind is unscientific, then what is this mailing list about? If inquiry
about the mind is a valid scientific pursuit then evolutionary
psychology is fine.

best wishes,
Ádám

[Asingh2384]

Hi Gopala Ji

Agree.

Regards

Avtar

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1283033594.6294682.1493315484282%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Debashis Banerji]

I follow these learnings with interest...as a student, learnig aboutl some life processes, dna on and so on, i feel that probably, a convenient way to understand natural processes as, evolution, is to learn from nature itself. Thus, typical darwinian thought proposes, evolution through selection of the fittest. However, if we see the way organelles work in a unicellular organism and how cells of organs work in an organism, we may arrive at a different understanding.
In organisms, various signals regulate the cell cycles of different organs, to ensure, survival and later reproduction of the organism. There is a beautiful social control...all cells survive to serve the whole and as per nature's design, get replaced by prer servers. So, in nature, the governing phenomenon seems to be survival of the 'earnest' and not the 'fittest'. In unicellular organisms we have organelles coexisting, in multicellular organisms we have organs coexisting, as also, in a climatic climax forest, different species coexisting. So, variations which promote optimal earnest coexistence probably helped in evolutionary changes. Actually survival of the fittest can be fatal. In humans, cells which disobey cell cycle signals, continue to divide and result into benign tumours and then after mteastasis lead to malignant tumours...cancer and death. !!!

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/505062628.7412050.1492854921204%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ádám Kun]

Dear Debashis Banerji,

Survival of the fittest does not mean, that it has to be cruel or
destructive toward others.
In the examples of organelles and cells inside our body, it is the
unicellular organism and the multicellular body which maximizes its
fitness by controlling its organelles and constituent parts. Those part
were individuals in the evolutionary past, but now they are part of a
new whole, a new evolutionary unit (an eukaryotic cell or a
multicellular body).
Certain organisms maximize their fitness by cooperating, or by being
mutualist toward other organism. So in the end we see a lot of positive
interaction in Nature. The phrase "struggle for existence" (by Darwin)
might be better than the survival of the fittest (by Herbert Spencer),
as in struggles we can very well come together and aid each other.

>
> I follow these learnings with interest...as a student, learnig aboutl
> some life processes, dna on and so on, i feel that probably, a
> convenient way to understand natural processes as, evolution, is to
> learn from nature itself. Thus, typical darwinian thought proposes,
> evolution through selection of the fittest. However, if we see the way
> organelles work in a unicellular organism and how cells of organs work
> in an organism, we may arrive at a different understanding.
> In organisms, various signals regulate the cell cycles of different
> organs, to ensure, survival and later reproduction of the organism.
> There is a beautiful social control...all cells survive to serve the
> whole and as per nature's design, get replaced by prer servers. So, in
> nature, the governing phenomenon seems to be survival of the 'earnest'
> and not the 'fittest'. In unicellular organisms we have organelles
> coexisting, in multicellular organisms we have organs coexisting, as
> also, in a climatic climax forest, different species coexisting. So,
> variations which promote optimal earnest coexistence probably helped
> in evolutionary changes. Actually survival of the fittest can be
> fatal. In humans, cells which disobey cell cycle signals, continue to
> divide and result into benign tumours and then after mteastasis lead
> to malignant tumours...cancer and death. !!!
>
>

best wishes,
Ádám

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

I would like to point to a paper

Peter Harrison, What was historical about natural history?
Contingency and explanation in the science of living things,
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part
C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological
and Biomedical Sciences, Volume 58, August 2016, Pages 8-16

The term biology has been created in the beginning of the 19th century only. Before that there was natural history. Harrison analyses the transformation of natural history to biology that has happened in the 19th century and the relationships between biology and history. In my view, it helps us better to understand the current state of affairs. The abstract is below.

"There is a long-standing distinction in Western thought between scientific and historical modes of explanation. According to Aristotle's influential account of scientific knowledge there cannot be an explanatory science of what is contingent and accidental, such things being the purview of a descriptive history. This distinction between scientia and historia continued to inform assumptions about scientific explanation into the nineteenth century and is particularly significant when considering the emergence of biology and its displacement of the more traditional discipline of natural history. One of the consequences of this nineteenth-century transition was that while modern evolutionary theory retained significant, if often implicit, historical components, these were often overlooked as evolutionary biology sought to accommodate itself to a model of scientific explanation that involved appeals to laws of nature. These scientific aspirations of evolutionary biology sometimes sit uncomfortably with its historical dimension. This tension lies beneath recent philosophical critiques of evolutionary theory and its modes of explanation. Such critiques, however, overlook the fact that there are legitimate modes of historical explanation that do not require recourse to laws of nature. But responding to these criticisms calls for a more explicit recognition of the affinities between evolutionary biology and history."

[Sarvesh Gyawali]

Dear Bhakti Niskima Santa Ji, 

Namaste and thank you for ur response. 

All said and done, I failed to understand the point. 

How then do u explain human child's inability to perform certain functions which are very well performed by babies of other mammals right from the point of birth? 

Why are babies or other mammals more equipped with for survival and much less helpless than we human babies are? 

Sarvesh 

[Debashis Banerji]

Thanks dr kun...that is what i feel it is...the 'coexister' in the 'struggle for existence'...under pressures of 'selection'....wish one had a time machine to ride by and be able to visualize the genomic transitions, their expressions, the resultants, in the context of human induced environmental and climate change...our contribution to 'the struggle for existence'...of interest have been eg., some classic examples of rapid evolutionary changes and emergence of heavy metal tolerant plant species etc., under extreme selection pressure...

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports

Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate

Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191

Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer

Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga

Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/59c61988-28ae-e71e-e112-317aaaf703c4%40ludens.elte.hu.

[Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta]

Dear Sarvesh Gyawali Ji

 

Namaskar.

 

You have asked “How then do u explain human child's inability to perform certain functions which are very well performed by babies of other mammals right from the point of birth? Why are babies or other mammals more equipped with for survival and much less helpless than we human babies are?” 

Unlike animals, human life is meant to inquire about our true constitutional position and that whole process needs some degree of surrender. Thus human life right from the beginning (birth) teaches us that humility which is necessary for proper surrender. On the other hand, nonhuman body is not equipped with this special rational ability and thus they are focused only on immediate biological needs: eating, sleeping, mating and defending. Being ignorant about the true nature of self, animals may only engage toward the goal of (false) survival, but the true survival (eternal life) is only possible when one realizes and establishes himself/herself in the true spiritual nature as insignificant serving unit of the original organic whole (ādi-puruṣa or primeval personal Absolute).

 

Thanking you.

 

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
+91-(9748906907)	Donate  www.scsiscs.org
#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CABUL1opCGqhmyaBKdVJjCOqn2kq5vUtTfA%3DmG8L7b1kF-sf-zA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta]

Dear Dr. Ádám Kun

 

Namaskar. Thank you for your reply.

 

You have told “Richard Lenski's study of E.coli evolution is not a study of macroevulution. Long-term evolution does not equate to macroevolution... So it does prove that novelty can arise in evolutionary experiments.”

 

We repeat that there is no empirical evidence that can support the idea that macroevolution is nothing but the repeated rounds of microevolution added up. The notion that in future microevolution will produce macroevolution is a mere dogmatic faith and there is no valid reason for believing that studies founded on such mere belief system have some scientific standing.  

 

Your have stated “Please have this argument with those well-versed in the philosophy of science. I admit my limitations. To be honest we do not know if the Sun will rise in the east and set in the west.” If you feel that rising of Sun example belongs to the domain of some sophisticated philosophy of science then let us consider another pure and simple empirical example. We smell by our nose and taste by our tongue. Like evolutionists someone can dogmatically argue that in future it will be reversed: we will smell by our tongue and taste by our nose. When someone challenges that irrational argument then he/she may dogmatically challenge that opposition with the argument similar to yours (Can you prove that macroevolution cannot happen?) “can you prove that in future we cannot smell by our tongue and taste by our nose?” Such naive arguments prove that the supporters of evolution are deviating from the core principles of science and in the process embracing a mere dogmatic attitude to support evolution. Please clarify whether you accept this plain fact or not, because apart from such unscientific arguments you have also repeatedly asserted without any empirical/scientific evidence: “all our knowledge about evolution and the history fo Earth tells us that species came from other species.” (you should remember here that the concept of species is controversial in science and what we are arguing here is about the macroevolution and not about a mere reproductive isolation).   

 

You have further argued “Developmental process can explain some morphological changes. But if that would be the sole difference and it would always be responding to the environment then (1) A chimp raised in a human family would become a human (2) all living organism would share the same genome. None of it is true. Development alone cannot explain the diversification of life.”

 

Embryological development from zygote to the adult organism empirically proves that it is a miraculous process that can produce not only varieties of cells but also varieties of organs that can perform different function in the body as a whole. After the developmental process is finished, except some special cells, the same cells of an organ produce the same cells to meet different requirements of the body. Similarly the first life (God) can miraculously produce varieties of things that are inconceivable for ordinary processes. Your argument that “A chimp raised in a human family would become a human” is irrelevant because a mere environmental pressure will not force the heart organ to transform into an eye organ. The next argument of yours “all living organism would share the same genome” simply emphasizes the uniformitarian mindset that is commonly practiced in physical sciences but there is no scientific reason to believe that life/nature is enslaved to follow that dictum. You may read about chimera (genetics)  to sense the complex nature of life on our Earth. Thus all empirical evidence confirms that the miraculous developmental process alone can explain the diversification of life. Science must accept miracles because it is empirically observed fact (embryological development) and our scientific methods cannot imitate the same (all the science and all the scientists in the world together cannot make a single blade of grass).   

 

You have told ““If changes occur in the network as a whole, then the various nodes (species) change accordingly, to maintain the harmony of the network of life." And that is one way to describe evolution. I'm glad that you are on board :)” If you think that evolution and developmental process are one and same then we have no problem to agree with such a concept of evolution.

 

About the views of scientists under www.thethirdwayofevolution.com you have told “Did they ever question the basics of evolution...?” Please elaborate what are those basics of evolution.

 

By citing the transient nature of material world (everything has a beginning and an end) you have strangely concluded that “The ape ancestor is our beginning, and an evolved human being is what will come after us. We cannot come from nothing.” What is the scientific basis for this radical conclusion? Moreover, a frog in a well cannot understand the phenomenon of gigantic ocean and thus our tiny brains cannot conceive the realty that is much beyond our observational limits. The transient material world is only a perverted reflection of eternal spiritual world. The word temporary has no meaning if there is nothing permanent.   

 

You have also told “Survival of the fittest. This is a catchy phrase. It does not equate the "only one one can remain" (as in the Highlander movie). So we also need food, and our being fit includes the survival of other species too. Exploitation has an evil connotation. We are heterotrophs, thus we eat other beings (or parts of other beings). I do not think that it makes us evil.”

 

On what basis you justify the practice of exploitation attitude! Do you think that there is a way to overcome it? Obviously the concept of evolution does not have any foundation to help us overcome the spirit of exploitation. But the concept of an organic whole does teach us that there is a way by which we can overcome the exploitative spirit. But we leave that to you to understand it by yourself.   

 

You have asked us “We cannot explain how we became intelligent. We generally cannot, so it is not the problem of evolution or any other branch of knowing, it is our lack of knowledge. Do you know how we become "knowing"?”

 

At least we know from empirical observation that every intelligent being comes from a preexisting intelligent being and an intelligent being does not appear from the mechanical or chemical aggregation of dull matter. Thus, an intelligent sentient life is primitive and reproductive of itself – omne vivum ex vivo – life comes from life. Moreover, in the miraculous developmental process a heart organ is endowed with the intelligence to perform the function of heart, an eye organ is endowed with the intelligence to perform the function of eye and so on. So the varieties of intelligent cells and organs appear from the developmental process and not by evolution. Similarly, different living organisms are part of an organic whole and are endowed with the appropriate intelligence to serve the purpose of that whole. Therefore, it is not the lack of knowledge but the practice of stubborn support for evolution that forces us to embrace the ignorance by simply denying the evidence.  

 

You have also not provided any scientific basis for your final conclusion “Evolutionary psychology has a scientific basis. As it involves humans, it is not very easy to do experiments. If any kind of study of the human mind is unscientific, then what is this mailing list about? If inquiry about the mind is a valid scientific pursuit then evolutionary psychology is fine.” Study of human mind is not unscientific but, to dogmatically insist that it came from nonhuman mind is unscientific. One cannot simply inquire and know things, otherwise why we have schooling system. To have proper knowledge one also needs some significant practical help from someone who has the higher knowledge.

 

Thanking you.

 

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
+91-(9748906907)	Donate  www.scsiscs.org
#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

On Saturday, 29 April 2017 12:23 AM, Kun Ádám <kun...@ludens.elte.hu> wrote:

Dear Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta,

> discussed that in a book chapter “The Chronology of Geological Column:

> An Incomplete Tool to Search Georesources

> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285474454_The_Chronology_of_Geological_Column_An_Incomplete_Tool_to_Search_Georesources>”.

>

You say: "If changes occur in the network as a whole, then the various

nodes (species) change accordingly, to maintain the harmony of the

network of life." And that is one way to describe evolution. I'm glad

that you are on board :)

> The scientists under thethirdwayofevolution

> <http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/> have already supplied

> significant scientific evidence against the concept of evolution that

> is commonly taught in different universities and colleges across the

>    > have accepted that it is not easy to do experiments on

>    macroevolution

>    > (although we can find experimental studies on bacteria which

>    disprove

>    > macroevolution) and hence we should not propagate a purely faith

>    based

>    > opinion (macroevolution is nothing but the repeated rounds of

>    > microevolution added up) on the name of science. Fossil record also

>    > does not prove this concept that macroevolution is nothing but the

>    > repeated rounds of microevolution added up.

>    > unscientific nature of evolution theory that is commonly taught in

>    > You have written “/I kept on asking what is your problem with

>    > evolution, and you keep on not answering that question. How does

>    > evolution interfere with your /

> On Sunday, 23 April 2017 3:53 PM, Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta

> <b...@scsiscs.org> wrote:

>

>

--

----------------------------

Fifth International Conference

Science and Scientist - 2017

August 18—19, 2017

Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal

http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives

http://bviscs.org/reports

Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate

Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191

Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer

Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science

Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org

Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga

Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/9ed96ea5-2a36-2a35-1015-b506b18ecbdb%40ludens.elte.hu.

[VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL]

Dear Dr Bhakti Nishkama Shantaji and Sarvesh Gyawaliji,

Thanks.

The human child is the weakest amongst children of all species in terms of physical development, learning new skills and adjusting to the vagaries of the environment. God or nature has deliberately designed it so. Human has to set up a family and society with strong and long term filial relations. In other species, the idea of family is not very strong and whatever family relations exist last for very short period.  Due to strong dependency of the human child on mother and other family members, the idea of a family takes roots which lead to a well-knit society. This, in turn, leads to the evolution of civilization having all the material, scientific and spiritual knowledge and development.

Regards

Vinod sehgal

Vinod Sehgal

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CABUL1opCGqhmyaBKdVJjCOqn2kq5vUtTfA%3DmG8L7b1kF-sf-zA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/924031578.747104.1493542153534%40mail.yahoo.com.

[priyedarshi jetli]

Shanta,

Quite loaded with standard presumptions. What or who is an "intelligent being". Are bees not intelligent? They are more intelligent than humans in some aspects. To first place humans above other animals and then call them intelligent and then say that they come from an even more intelligent being is not a very convincing argument I am afraid.

As for needing help from those who have higher knowledge, I do not like the authoritative tint you give it. The pedagogical message of Buddha, Scocrates, Confucious, Christ and many others is that knowledge is to be sought by the knower, who can be guided by a wise person but the wise person cannot impart knowledge to the knower. In the case of Socrates he can only help others gain knowledge because he himself does not have knowledge. It is a completely anti-authoritarian account of knowledge. If you say some have higher knowledge than others you will get caught in an authoritarian vicious circle. Who will decide that X has higher knowledge than I do. There will be some Y who has higher knowledge than X and I who can decide that. Then there will have to be a Z who has higher knowledge than Y to decide on the authority of Y to make the decision he does. And so on..... 

Priyedarshi

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/9ed96ea5-2a36-2a35-1015-b506b18ecbdb%40ludens.elte.hu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/456083847.711158.1493538240093%40mail.yahoo.com.

[priyedarshi jetli]

Vinod,

Your history of human species is quite myopic. The family is only about 10,000 years or 15,000 years old. This is not even 2% of human history. Surely you do not want to deny 98% of the first part of human history without a family.

Priyedarshi

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/924031578.747104.1493542153534%40mail.yahoo.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAGQG8_w40jkZ%3Dk5vQ%3DkyMWniFmcqSu1Lo%2BdaPA31FCzF9kEU-g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ádám Kun]

Dear Vinod Sehgal,

Human child is not the weakest among the children of all species. Ask a
zoologist.
We are definitely less mature than other ape children, but for example
definitely more mature than a kangaroo baby.
As for family, ape children do depend on their mom for quite a long
time. But they are not monogamous, and thus our usual definition of
family being mom-dad-kid does not apply to them. Gorillas come the
closest with dad-moms-kids.
There are monogamous monkeys (like gibbons), they have families, but not
groups of higher level.

best wishes,
Ádám

[Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta]

Dear Priyedarshi Jetli ji

 

Namaskar.

 

Every living entity is endowed with certain degree of intelligence and it is not a presumption but is a scientifically confirmed fact (you may read the paper “Bacteria are small but not stupid”). Hence, it is oblivious that bees are also intelligent.  As far as comparing the intelligence of nonhuman creatures with human being is concerted, please note that intelligence is a subjective quality of the living entity and there are no standard units (like meter or kilogram) to measure and compare the same. We can only compare it with respect to different point of views. It is an observable fact that as compared to human beings different nonhuman living entities are very expert in fulfilling the immediate biological needs: eating (a pig can eat anything and everything), sleeping (a python can happily sleep for long long time), mating and defending. They do not need any special education and scientific research to perform these tasks and yet our modern education and scientific research works are mostly focused towards fulfilling these immediate biological needs only. Hence, you are correct in that sense that many of nonhuman creatures are more intelligent than human beings. But in another sense we human beings also systematically pursue philosophy, science, religion and so on, which we do not find in nonhuman creatures. So the judgment of the intelligence of different living entities depends on the angle of vision.

 

You have told “As for needing help from those who have higher knowledge, I do not like the authoritative tint you give it.” and in contrast to what you have claimed in this sentence you have quoted some authorities (Buddha, Socrates, Confucius, Christ and many others) to try to justify your view points. Your statement “In the case of Socrates he can only help others gain knowledge because he himself does not have knowledge.” is completely misleading because Socrates could readily embrace the humility that “I know that I know nothing”. So, Socrates does have some higher knowledge because he has already realized the limits of egocentric knowledge gaining and that is the reason that he could teach to those who are ignorant (because they fancy that they know something) about this important humility that is very much essential for any genuine enlightenment. Regarding the question that how we can know who has higher knowledge and who has not, we have to realize that real knowledge does not originate from us (it is much beyond the reach of egocentric self) and hence we can never know by our own abilities alone what real knowledge is and who has that. Only we can sincerely hanker for that and we can only hope that some help will descend from the higher plane.    

 

Thanking you.

 

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
+91-(9748906907)	Donate  www.scsiscs.org
#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

> <https://groups.google.com/d/ msg/online_sadhu_sanga/0UAN- 0Gpr4o/f4peWwJ-CwAJ>.

>

>

Developmental process can explain some morphological changes. But if

that would be the sole difference and it would always be responding to

the environment then (1) A chimp raised in a human family would become a

human (2) all living organism would share the same genome. None of it is

true. Development alone cannot explain the diversification of life.

> You have told “/We find different diversity in different historical

> layers in the fossil record./” All living entities are related to each

> other like a net, with the different species representing the nodes of

> that network. Vedic chronology talks about different /Yuga/ cycles and

> thus time and again our world has witnessed a drastic change, which

> has led to a significant change in the network of life on our Earth at

> different periods of life. If changes occur in the network as a whole,

> then the various nodes (species) change accordingly, to maintain the

> harmony of the network of life. Fossil record only gives a hint of

> those changes. You have also told “/Getting from a time with less

> species to a time with more necessitates a mechanism to get new

> species. Evolution is such a mechanism./” At present stage this is a

> pure speculation because we do not have any scientific method that can

> accurately predict the chronology from the fossil record. We have

> discussed that in a book chapter “The Chronology of Geological Column:

> An Incomplete Tool to Search Georesources

> <https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/285474454_The_ Chronology_of_Geological_ Column_An_Incomplete_Tool_to_ Search_Georesources>”.

>

You say: "If changes occur in the network as a whole, then the various

nodes (species) change accordingly, to maintain the harmony of the

network of life." And that is one way to describe evolution. I'm glad

that you are on board :)

> The scientists under thethirdwayofevolution

> <http://www. thethirdwayofevolution.com/> have already supplied

> significant scientific evidence against the concept of evolution that

> is commonly taught in different universities and colleges across the

> world. That itself is enough to demand a change in the syllabus to

> meet the revolutionary realization of 21st century biology. However,

> at preset even that much humility is not shown by the majority of

> scientific community and hence Joseph A. Kuhn, MD

> <http://www.wlsdocs.com/about- us/dr-joseph-kuhn.php> states in his

>    <http://www. thethirdwayofevolution.com/>> have realized the

>    > unscientific nature of evolution theory that is commonly taught in

>    > different universities and colleges across the world. This

>    realization

>    > is purely based on scientific evidence. Presuming that evolution is

>    > the only process by which biodiversity has manifested on our Earth,

>    > the scientists under the banner of thethirdwayofevolution

>    > <http://www. thethirdwayofevolution.com/

>    <http://www. thethirdwayofevolution.com/>> are trying to explore what

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist. org/harmonizer

Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science

Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org

Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist. org/Darwin

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga

Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe @googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ 9ed96ea5-2a36-2a35-1015- b506b18ecbdb%40ludens.elte.hu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist. org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j. als.20160601.03
 

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist. org/harmonizer
 

Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist. org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+ unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ 456083847.711158. 1493538240093%40mail.yahoo.com .

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfDhQ3dPGFuD31c5HhkGfcvaW7bUEPcoNQxJsGbtDwfGPg%40mail.gmail.com.

[priyedarshi jetli]

Shanta,

Thanks for your careful reading of what I wrote and thoughtful response. I am still at a loss though of what his higher intelligence and what is lower intelligence. You have simply shown how humans are different from other animals in the activities they perform. I also do not understand what is higher knowledge and what is lower knowledge. I do not agree with your interpretation of Socrates. It is not humility but honesty. Socrates was not a specialist in anything so he did not have knowledge in anything. There were specialists who claimed to have knowledge in their specializations but upon being interviewed by Socrates they were exposed to not have the knowledge that they claimed to have. This does not mean that Socrates knew more about their specialization than they did. The lesson is one should never be over confident nor dogmatic. At the time there was a sense, as there is perhaps today as well, that certain people like poets, statesmen, academicians and intellectuals had more knowledge than craftspersons. Socrates is also challenging this view as he interviews famous people not ordinary craftspersons. Plato in his dialogues also uses a lot of examples from crafts to make his points showing his great respect of craftspersons and knowledge by experience and hard work. There are multiple domains of knowledge and I just do not see why and how the knowledge of a carpenter is a lower knowledge than the knowledge of a laboratory scientist. Feels good to say this on May Day.

Priyedarshi

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfDhQ3dPGFuD31c5HhkGfcvaW7bUEPcoNQxJsGbtDwfGPg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/892019016.1294715.1493611978720%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta]

Dear Priyedarshi Jetli ji

 

Namaskar.

 

An animal will not bother so much about what is higher knowledge and what is lower knowledge because an animal only wants that much knowledge which is enough to satisfy its immediate biological needs. However, it is only in human society where we can see the systematic inquiry, which goes beyond the bodily plane and thus there are various religions and philosophical approaches that guide different individuals to understand the subtle topics like intelligence, knowledge, reason, consciousness, soul, God, happiness/fulfillment and so on. A human may live a life of an animal by maintaining all his/her attention towards the mere immediate biological needs only. A child who has undergone a developmental process which is completely devoid of behavioral-developmental training will only behave like an animal. However, there is also a possibility that a human being who has received proper training may also develop some systematic inquiries which go much beyond the immediate biological needs. Therefore, to know, what is higher knowledge and what is lower knowledge, one also needs proper training and education.

 

Your statement “Socrates was not a specialist in anything so he did not have knowledge in anything. There were specialists who claimed to have knowledge in their specializations but upon being interviewed by Socrates they were exposed to not have the knowledge that they claimed to have. This does not mean that Socrates knew more about their specialization than they did. The lesson is one should never be over confident nor dogmatic.” is self contradictory because how can a person who do not know anything can even interview a person. To properly interact with another person one needs to know at least the common language, which Socrates must have learnt from someone else – authority? You have also unintentionally agreed in the above sentence that Socrates had the realization (knowledge) that one should never become over confident nor dogmatic. Humility means accepting the authority. You must have also accepted the guidance of authorities to learn philosophy and the outcome of that humility is that you are now teaching the knowledge of philosophy to your students as an authority (Professor at MU). It will be only a display of hypocrisy to claim something against what one is practicing in his/her own life.

 

We mostly agree with rest of your arguments “At the time there was a sense, as there is perhaps today as well, that certain people like poets, statesmen, academicians and intellectuals had more knowledge than craftspersons. Socrates is also challenging this view as he interviews famous people not ordinary craftspersons. Plato in his dialogues also uses a lot of examples from crafts to make his points showing his great respect of craftspersons and knowledge by experience and hard work. There are multiple domains of knowledge and I just do not see why and how the knowledge of a carpenter is a lower knowledge than the knowledge of a laboratory scientist. Feels good to say this on May Day.” However, you must also realize that as compared to the learning from the experienced individuals, the learning by one’s own experience is lower form of learning. We do not have to experience ourselves to know that eating of poison will lead to our death. A wise man will humbly accept the knowledge from those who already have that knowledge and it will be prudent to acknowledge this fact by considering that even Plato was one of the prominent disciples (student) of Socrates (authority).       

 

Thanking you.

 

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
+91-(9748906907)	Donate  www.scsiscs.org
#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 10:03:39 PM UTC+5:30, pjetli wrote:

Shanta,

Thanks for your careful reading of what I wrote and thoughtful response. I am still at a loss though of what his higher intelligence and what is lower intelligence. You have simply shown how humans are different from other animals in the activities they perform. I also do not understand what is higher knowledge and what is lower knowledge. I do not agree with your interpretation of Socrates. It is not humility but honesty. Socrates was not a specialist in anything so he did not have knowledge in anything. There were specialists who claimed to have knowledge in their specializations but upon being interviewed by Socrates they were exposed to not have the knowledge that they claimed to have. This does not mean that Socrates knew more about their specialization than they did. The lesson is one should never be over confident nor dogmatic. At the time there was a sense, as there is perhaps today as well, that certain people like poets, statesmen, academicians and intellectuals had more knowledge than craftspersons. Socrates is also challenging this view as he interviews famous people not ordinary craftspersons. Plato in his dialogues also uses a lot of examples from crafts to make his points showing his great respect of craftspersons and knowledge by experience and hard work. There are multiple domains of knowledge and I just do not see why and how the knowledge of a carpenter is a lower knowledge than the knowledge of a laboratory scientist. Feels good to say this on May Day.

Priyedarshi

On Monday, 1 May 2017 9:42 AM, Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta <b...@scsiscs.org> wrote:

Dear Priyedarshi Jetli ji

 

Namaskar.

 

Every living entity is endowed with certain degree of intelligence and it is not a presumption but is a scientifically confirmed fact (you may read the paper “Bacteria are small but not stupid”). Hence, it is obvious that bees are also intelligent.  As far as comparing the intelligence of nonhuman creatures with human being is concerted, please note that intelligence is a subjective quality of the living entity and there are no standard units (like meter or kilogram) to measure and compare the same. We can only compare it with respect to different point of views. It is an observable fact that as compared to human beings different nonhuman living entities are very expert in fulfilling the immediate biological needs: eating (a pig can eat anything and everything), sleeping (a python can happily sleep for long long time), mating and defending. They do not need any special education and scientific research to perform these tasks and yet our modern education and scientific research works are mostly focused towards fulfilling these immediate biological needs only. Hence, you are correct in that sense that many of nonhuman creatures are more intelligent than human beings. But in another sense we human beings also systematically pursue philosophy, science, religion and so on, which we do not find in nonhuman creatures. So the judgment of the intelligence of different living entities depends on the angle of vision.

[priyedarshi jetli]

Sandhu,

I remember from my school days that humans are animals. English may not be a first language for either of us but we must use words correctly so that we can communicate. When you use 'animal' you mean non-human animals. So you must say that as that is how the use today is. 

Yes humans do a lot of things that other species cannot do. For example, humans are the only species that can invent nuclear bombs and use them. This does not make humans superior to other species in any way. There are other species that can do things that humans cannot do. Biodiversity is the essence of an ecologically sustained globe.

I am sorry but I don't think you understand either the Socratic method or what 'philosophy' is. Philosophy is essentially a questioning and critiquing discipline and this cannot be imparted as information or knowledge from an expert to others but only learned by the learner. Socrates never even taught his method, he simply practiced it and others may have picked it up with him as an exemplary. Socrates' claim and activity of exposing others was paradoxical but not self-contradictory. If you read any of Plato's dialogues, especially the earlier ones, you will see that Socrates does not decide that the person he is interrogating does not know what he claims to know but the person himself comes to that realization. In a court, lawyers have to cross examine a lot of witnesses. The lawyers are not experts in the fields from which the witnesses come from, such as forensic experts or doctors. Yet, they can by questioning, sometimes, come to the conclusion which convinces others as well whether the witness is telling the truth or not.

Priyedarshi

...

[Message clipped]  

[Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta]

Dear Priyedarshi Jetli ji

 

Namaskar.

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

If you have received the education that human are animals in all respect then there seem to be something fundamentally wrong in the type of education that you have received. We can agree that some humans may behave like animals but all humans are not animals in all respect, otherwise why we are using two different words humans and animals. Why there are two different movements on “human rights” and “animal rights”? Moreover, we cannot teach an animal the difference between animal and human being but a sober human being with a proper education can easily understand this clear distinction. The concept of evolution of bodies that is being taught in university and colleges tries to superficially minimize this distinction by a mere focus on bodies of animals and human beings. On the other hand, in the Vedic tradition we get the education from the very beginning that human body is very special because only in this body one can inquire properly about the topics that are beyond mere immediate biological needs. A fortunate soul obtains this human body after wandering several lives in different lower forms of life and among many such fortunate souls who have obtained the human bodies only few can utilize that facility for its real end.

 

You have told “Socrates does not decide that the person he is interrogating does not know what he claims to know but the person himself comes to that realization” and in contrast to that you have already made a decision about me “I am sorry but I don't think you understand either the Socratic method or what 'philosophy' is.” So it is highly doubtful that whether you yourself have understood the Socratic Method properly because your words and actions do not concur at all.

 

You have told “In a court, lawyers have to cross examine a lot of witnesses. The lawyers are not experts in the fields from which the witnesses come from, such as forensic experts or doctors. Yet, they can by questioning, sometimes, come to the conclusion which convinces others as well whether the witness is telling the truth or not.” This is an extremely eccentric example in the context of our discussion. A lawyer (without any scientific knowledge) simply cannot prove anything about the truthfulness/untruthfulness of numerous scientific claims that we can find in the scientific literature because the lawyer himself/herself should understand science first to critique the claims of scientists.

 

Thanking you.

 

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
+91-(9748906907)	Donate  www.scsiscs.org
#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Show original message

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfCNZ5to6UQs%2B-OeVzKZENa_AEnXXd%2BkncxTo3YZaHcbPg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kun Ádám]

Dear Dr. Shanta,

> If you have received the education that human are animals in all
> respect then there seem to be something fundamentally wrong in the
> type of education that you have received.

We are part of the animal kingdom. You among all should actually embrace
that, as it signifies us being part of Nature. It does not mean that all
animals including us are the same. A dog is a dog, a human is a human.
Animals actually do see a difference between themselves and humans as
much as we do. That is actually not a marvel, as sexual organism have to
make a distinction between their species and other species.

> We can agree that some humans may behave like animals but all humans
> are not animals in all respect, otherwise why we are using two
> different words humans and animals. Why there are two different
> movements on “human rights

> <http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-5/8_udhr-abbr.htm>”
> and “animal rights
> <http://www.peta.org.uk/action/what-is-animal-rights/>”? Moreover, we

> cannot teach an animal the difference between animal and human being
> but a sober human being with a proper education can easily understand
> this clear distinction. The concept of evolution of bodies that is
> being taught in university and colleges tries to superficially
> minimize this distinction by a mere focus on bodies of animals and
> human beings. On the other hand, in the Vedic tradition we get the
> education from the very beginning that human body is very special
> because only in this body one can inquire properly about the topics
> that are beyond mere immediate biological needs. A fortunate soul
> obtains this human body after wandering several lives in different
> lower forms of life and among many such fortunate souls who have
> obtained the human bodies only few can utilize that facility for its
> real end.

best wishes,
Ádám

[Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta]

Dear Dr. Kun Ádám

 

Namaskar.

 

We are happy that you have joined again in the discussion. We are still waiting to get your response for our reply on April 30 to your previous quires and comments.

 

It appears that you have not understood the context of present discussion. In any case, you should understand that just because by politics humans are placed as part of animal kingdom it does not eliminate the fundamental distinction between human beings and animals. When we use the words animal and human we know the distinction.

 

When we say animal slaughterhouse we do not mean that it also includes the slaughter of human beings.

 

When we say that different animals are kept in the zoo then we do not mean that humans are also kept in the zoo.

 

As a man from biosciences you should agree that only a practice of hypocrisy will support the act of cruelty towards animals in the experimental works in biosciences. If there is no difference between animals and human beings then why instead of human being biologists use animals in their experiments.

 

Hence, we hope that if you put aside this stand of hypocrisy, you will at least agree that there is no need of special mention of word ‘non-human’ (as demanded by Priyadarshi) in such common usage of words human and animal, because we do know the difference between animals and human beings.

 

You have also told “Animals actually do see a difference between themselves and humans as much as we do. That is actually not a marvel, as sexual organism have to make a distinction between their species and other species.” This we have already agreed because animals’ act of distinction is driven by immediate biological needs (eating, sleeping, mating and defending) and an animal will never make the distinction the way a developed human being makes.

 

Thanking you.

 

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
+91-(9748906907)	Donate  www.scsiscs.org
#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

--

----------------------------

Fifth International Conference

Science and Scientist - 2017

August 18—19, 2017

Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal

http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives

http://bviscs.org/reports

Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate

Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191

Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer

Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science

Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org

Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga

Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/72d1ac92-c793-3040-ed12-9133ccb6c49c%40ludens.elte.hu.

[Ádám Kun]

Dear Dr. Shanta,

> We are happy that you have joined again in the discussion.

I'm also happy to be here.

> We are still waiting to get your response for our reply on April 30

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/online_sadhu_sanga/0UAN-0Gpr4o/JZnkyE3KDQAJ>

> to your previous quires and comments.

I will.

> It appears that you have not understood the context of present
> discussion. In any case, you should understand that just because by
> politics humans are placed as part of animal kingdom it does not
> eliminate the fundamental distinction between human beings and animals

> <https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reclaiming-childhood/201106/only-humans-have-morality-not-animals>.

> When we use the words animal and human we know the distinction.

What kind of politics would put us into the animal kingdom?
So in plain English animals mean, well animals. And that does not
include us. When we discuss biology, then animal means Metazoa, and that
group also include us, humans. We are animals, as opposed to being
plants, fungi, slime moulds, kelps, whatever. It does not make us any
more or less than what we are.
Not accepting that we are part of Nature is hubris. We are special. But
can you say that there are organism that are not special? Something that
is not needed, for example? Biology just teaches us to be humble, and
never ever think that we are so above Mother Nature, that we can live
without it.
I think you just want to find an enemy to fight, who cannot fight back.
Science is an idea, it cannot fight. Humans can. You can blame biology,
evolution, whatever, but that would not solve any of the problems you
are well aware of (human nature, pollution, climate change, etc.).

[priyedarshi jetli]

Dear Dr. Niskama,

We can use language any way we want. Some today prefer to be gender sensitive with language. I have encountered the word 'non-human animals' repeatedly in many academic journals as well as commonly used. But neither you or I have English as our first language so we should stop pretending to be lexicographers and defer this to some proper person to decide what is the proper use of 'animal'. Aristotle defined 'human' as 'rational animal'. Of course not in English but that is the way it is translated. Here, as typical in Aristotelian definitions 'animal' is the genus and 'human' is the difference. So humans are a subset of animals. Can anyone deny that? II do not see what cruelty to non-human animals in scientific experiments or experiments on torture committed on humans, sponsored by the CIA in South America have to do with the use of the word. Both are to be condemned of course from the point of view of human rights and non-human animal rights. In another post I have just referred to God as She. I hope you don't have an objection to that as well.

Priyedarshi

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/72d1ac92-c793-3040-ed12-9133ccb6c49c%40ludens.elte.hu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1653072631.2854230.1493884937377%40mail.yahoo.com.

[priyedarshi jetli]

Dear Adam,

I agree with your assessment completely. My reply was blocked by the editors for being sarcastic. So, I shall say no more.

Thanks,

Priyedarshi

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports

Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate

Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191

Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer

Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga

Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/a8fa6e54-b97a-5116-548a-d768b272ac92%40ludens.elte.hu.

[Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta]

Dear Priyedarshi Jetli ji

 

Namaskar.

 

Here is the response to the essential points from your reply:

 

PJ: I never said 'that humans are animals in all respect'. So what you have written here is not about what I wrote. What I meant to say is that humans are a species belonging to the animal kingdom.

BNS: If you agree that humans are not animals in all respect then you should not insist that one must always use the word “non-human” animal to make that distinction.

 

PJ: I am familiar enough with the literature to repeat to you again that you should say 'non human animals' rather than 'animals' when you want to distinguish humans from other animals. You can confirm this with those who have had a much better education than I have had.

BNS: You can also find ample evidence in authentic scientific and philosophy literature where they do not say ‘non human animals’ to make a distinction between animals and humans. If you disagree with this then kindly let us know and we can provide you ample authentic references for your kind perusal.   

 

PJ: And non human animals cannot convince not to make and use nuclear weapons, not to pollute the environment and destroy biodiversity. This is obviously because non human animals are stupid and humans are intelligent. Surely.

BNS: It is not appropriate to call even a tiny living entity like bacteria as ‘stupid’ and we hope that you still remember the paper ‘Bacteria are small but not stupid’ that we have referred in one of our past replies on this thread.

 

PJ: My years and hundreds of hours spent on reading and teaching Plato are irrelevant compared to your omniscient perspective on Socrates.

BNS: I have never claimed that I am an expert in the philosophy of Socrates, however, I have only raised objection to your illogical claim that “In the case of Socrates he can only help others gain knowledge because he himself does not have knowledge.” Moreover, you should also analyze your claim of specialization in the philosophy of Plato in the same line of argument that you have presented in your previous reply “Socrates was not a specialist in anything so he did not have knowledge in anything. There were specialists who claimed to have knowledge in their specializations but upon being interviewed by Socrates they were exposed to not have the knowledge that they claimed to have. This does not mean that Socrates knew more about their specialization than they did. The lesson is one should never be over confident nor dogmatic.” Sometimes philosophers use the term simple ignorance to the recognition of his own ignorance by Socrates and the man with this simple ignorance is certainly wiser than the man with double ignorance – not being aware of one’s own ignorance.

 

PJ: It was an analogy. I was saying nothing about science.

BNS: You are missing the main point here. Without any knowledge of scientific studies it will be only seen as an unwise act of a lawyer if he/she tries to challenge the scientific claims. So it seems incorrect when you claim that Socrates did not have knowledge in anything and yet he interviewed and exposed some specialists. The dialogue between Socrates (with simple ignorance) and people (with double ignorance) cannot be compared with such incorrect analogies. You may think that due to a lack of knowledge in philosophy I am unable to understand your claims but you have to also understand that your arguments are also not very convincing.  

 

Thanking you.

 

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
+91-(9748906907)	Donate  www.scsiscs.org
#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

On Friday, 5 May 2017 2:11 AM, priyedarshi jetli <pje...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Adam,

I agree with your assessment completely. My reply was blocked by the editors for being sarcastic. So, I shall say no more.

Thanks,

Priyedarshi

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Ádám Kun <kun...@ludens.elte.hu> wrote:

Dear Dr. Shanta,

We are happy that you have joined again in the discussion.

I'm also happy to be here.

We are still waiting to get your response for our reply on April 30 <https://groups.google.com/d/m sg/online_sadhu_sanga/0UAN-0Gp r4o/JZnkyE3KDQAJ> to your previous quires and comments.

I will.

It appears that you have not understood the context of present discussion. In any case, you should understand that just because by politics humans are placed as part of animal kingdom it does not eliminate the fundamental distinction between human beings and animals <https://www.psychologytoday.c om/blog/reclaiming-childhood/2 01106/only-humans-have-moralit y-not-animals>. When we use the words animal and human we know the distinction.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfBS_95b6Dv4qhxq1ENV9%2BCEJufqvHWPLEj0vkYGEMB70g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta]

Dear Dr. Kun Ádám

 

Namaskar.

 

You have asked “What kind of politics would put us into the animal kingdom? So in plain English animals mean, well animals. And that does not  include us. When we discuss biology, then animal means Metazoa, and that group also include us, humans. We are animals, as opposed to being plants, fungi, slime moulds, kelps, whatever. It does not make us any more or less than what we are.” The biological defining of animal only narrates the superficial bodily similarities between human beings and animals, but it makes no discrimination at the level of rational abilities because the concept of bodily evolution cannot accommodate the unique rational ability of human beings (we have already explained in one of our previous replies that evolutionary psychology cannot unify the social and natural sciences). We have also discussed about the political stand of biology in our paper “Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?”:

 

In the past, there was a general consensus that due to their rational abilities (man is a rational animal), humans are fundamentally different from other forms of life. However, the superficial methodology of comparison in Darwinism places the human species as a member of the ape family. Most interestingly, this practice of speculating many possible historical narratives and then trying to employ the methodology of comparison to come to a conclusion has created ever widening disagreements between the conclusions of different fields like, paleontology, molecular dating, genealogical data and so on. For example, the method of comparing the morphological characteristics, which was used since the beginning of phylogenetic studies to support different speculations of historical narrative, is now considered insufficient to provide a reliable phylogeny [22]. Yet another speculative methodology of comparison of molecular biology (for example, sequence of base pairs in the genome) is now used to restructure the existing speculative morphological character based phylogeny.

 

You have told “Not accepting that we are part of Nature is hubris. We are special. But can you say that there are organism that are not special? Something that is not needed, for example? Biology just teaches us to be humble, and never ever think that we are so above Mother Nature, that we can live without it.” Here you are trying to label me with your imaginary concepts that I have never told. Your above explanation is completely opposite to the concept of organic whole that we are trying to present.

 

Finally you have concluded “I think you just want to find an enemy to fight, who cannot fight back. Science is an idea, it cannot fight. Humans can. You can blame biology, evolution, whatever, but that would not solve any of the problems you are well aware of (human nature, pollution, climate change, etc.).”   

 

Animals only fight physically for mere biological needs and on the other hand, it is only human beings who participate in rational discussions. Science is not a practice of mere imaginative ideas and one of the dictionary definitions of science states “The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” The idea of evolution and material origin of life in biology is a mere practice of dogma because observation and experiments contradict this mere imaginative idea. Practice of dogmas on the name of science can only create problems (human nature, pollution, climate change, etc.) but the solution to these problems can only be attained when we embrace the truth on the basis of proper scientific spirit and spiritual wisdom.     

 

Thanking you.

 

Sincerely,,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
+91-(9748906907)	Donate  www.scsiscs.org
#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/a8fa6e54-b97a-5116-548a-d768b272ac92%40ludens.elte.hu.

[Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta]

Dear Priyedarshi Jetli ji

 

Namaskar.

 

Thank you for your further elaboration. You have told “I have encountered the word 'non-human animals' repeatedly in many academic journals as well as commonly used.” I have already clarified this point in my other reply that I have sent to the list a few minutes back. Your claim “But neither you or I have English as our first language so we should stop pretending to be lexicographers and defer this to some proper person to decide what is the proper use of 'animal'.” is rather very strange because I have never pretended to be a lexicographer in my replies on this thread. It is highly impractical to refer to lexicographers for each and every usage of common words in our day to day life communications. I have given a few examples like “animal slaughterhouse” and “animals in zoo”, where it is expected that people know what the word animal means in such common usage. Similarly, in my reply when I have used the word animal the meaning of that word was very clear and obvious. Instead of focusing on the main point of discussion you yourself have taken a role of a lexicographer and insisted that I must use the word “non-human animal” in my communication.

 

You have quoted Aristotle and told “Aristotle defined 'human' as 'rational animal'. Of course not in English but that is the way it is translated. Here, as typical in Aristotelian definitions 'animal' is the genus and 'human' is the difference. So humans are a subset of animals. Can anyone deny that?” and your stand here is completely opposite to what you have stated in your first reply on this thread “As for needing help from those who have higher knowledge, I do not like the authoritative tint you give it.” Completely opposite to your previous claim, it seems you indeed accept the help of authorities and here you are quoting the authority of Aristotle to justify the fact that man is a rational animal. If you really accept what Aristotle meant by the concept “rational animal” then you will not argue “This does not make humans superior to other species in any way.” (this you have argued in your previous reply) because a rational being is obviously superior (in the sense of rationality) than the beings that cannot reason. By superficially mixing the concept of ‘rational animal’ of Aristotle and the modern biological view of ‘human animal’ you are ignoring the most important difference that we are discussing here: From Aristotle’s point of view rationality is a part of human nature and from the point of view of modern biology rationality is a product of biological evolution.   

 

You have also told “II do not see what cruelty to non-human animals in scientific experiments or experiments on torture committed on humans, sponsored by the CIA in South America have to do with the use of the word. Both are to be condemned of course from the point of view of human rights and non-human animal rights.” We agree that cruelty towards both human beings and animals is condemnable, but you have not answered the question that we have asked to Dr. Ádám Kun: “Why Do Medical Researchers Use Mice (animal)” instead of human animal? What is the basis of this preference?

 

At last you have told “In another post I have just referred to God as She. I hope you don't have an objection to that as well.” At different levels of realization of Absolute, there are different attempts to understand God from a partial perspective. For example, jñānīs desire liberation and thus are only interested in all-comprehensive aspect of the absolute – Impersonal Brahman. Yogīs desire material opulence and thus they are only interested in all-permeating aspect of the absolute – Paramātmā. On the other hand, a true devotee of absolute does not have any material desires and thus under the shelter of servitor lineage of pleasure potency (hlādinī-śakti: different Lakshmis, Devi Sita, Radha Rani) a sincere devotee serves the all-attractive, absolute person – Bhagavān (Lord Narayan, Lord Ram, Supreme Lord Sri Krishna). Hence, a full concept of absolute includes both all-attractive, Absolute Person and His pleasure potency (hlādinī-śakti).

 

Thanking you.

 

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
+91-(9748906907)	Donate  www.scsiscs.org
#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

> <http://www.peta.org.uk/ action/what-is-animal-rights/> ”? Moreover, we

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist. org/harmonizer

Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science

Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org

Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist. org/Darwin

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga

Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe @googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ 72d1ac92-c793-3040-ed12- 9133ccb6c49c%40ludens.elte.hu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist. org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j. als.20160601.03
 

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist. org/harmonizer
 

Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist. org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+ unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ 1653072631.2854230. 1493884937377%40mail.yahoo.com .

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfB2KkdHB2x4Mqg%2B9mqpzDuzo%3D3-0_p1_OHUoPAbqY4GyA%40mail.gmail.com.

[priyedarshi jetli]

Niskama,

Let us not get into which questions have been answered and which have not. Neither one of us are cross examining the other. You have also not answered many of my questions, such as how does one define 'superior' to begin with. In another post you say basically that humans are rational because they are the only ones with a rational capacity. Where is an argument here that any argumentative Indian will demand? It simply begs the question. It also depends on what one means by ;rational'. Induction is often taken to be a core element of rationality. Non human animals seem to use induction, perhaps even more so than humans and we find less cases if any of messachism, sadism and self-destruction of the species in non human animals. I guess these are necessary side effects of a superior species. I will continue to use terms in a sensitive manner rather than a chauvanist one and I will continue to think of humans on par with other species or even inferior, especially ethically in terms of the destruction of the planet and biodiversity. Self-criticism is the most healthy of virtues and arrogance and chauvanism is vice.

Priyedarahi

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfB2KkdHB2x4Mqg%2B9mqpzDuzo%3D3-0_p1_OHUoPAbqY4GyA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/419605109.4291697.1493993661267%40mail.yahoo.com.