Theory of Evolution And Major Eastern Religions

I think you know what I mean, but you are right, it is important to be precise.

The leap of imagination is not so great as you might think, the evidence practically explains itself, which is why Darwin, with no knowledge of DNA, was able to postulate the idea of natural selection. It's "devotees" (insinuation of religious faith rather than logic) happen to include all scientists, who consider it as close to a fact as science can determine. We believe what scientists say about Mars or cancer research, why in this one area are they not as credible?

The general theory is accepted as the closest thing to a fact that science can determine, although there are still many details to be worked out. It can be observed in real time, especially with fruit flies and animals on islands. The label of "theory" doesn't mean the same thing as it does in civilian life, which is a best guess. Nothing in science should ever be considered "absolutely" understood, that's not how it works.

By the way, I looked up Satan-, er, Sanatan Dharma and found this,

It is my view that the truth of the Dharma is not factual knowledge, but insight, a kind of mental martial arts. No revealed scientific knowledge will ever be incompatable with it, although insisting on thoroughly tested theories as a guide to spiritual life might be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

spidergoat,

Why is this not the leap of imagination I thought it was?
Where is the objective, scientific evidence due to DNA and N.S.?
And what is this evidence that practically explains that one species changes completely into an entirely different species, while at various times of its change is still qualified by nature to be selected for survival, despite obvious disadvantages?

Without any real scientific evidence.
One could be forgiven for thinking their motive was purely to eliminate intelligent intervention. If this is the case it is incompatible with Buddhism (Buddha).

Doesn’t mean it is fact.

Variations can be observed, not physical changes of one species into another.

It appears to be absolutely understood that the theory of evolution is correct.

I noticed you highlighted the word ‘evolution’, is it because you think it means one species changing into another, or just plain old change?

The approximate meaning of ‘dharma’ is ‘natural law’, and sanatana means ‘eternal’, sanatana dharma roughly means ‘eternal natural law.’ It incorporates everything including science. It can only be factual and you are correct that revealed scientifc knowledge is compatible, but you are incorrect (IMO) in thinking that spiritual life can be scientifically tested. That's not what science is about.

Jan Ardena.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It seems there is a big difference to you, Jan, between change and speciation, but there really isn't. "Species" is just a label. A horse and a zebra are considered different species, yet you can see how similar they look, and how small gradual changes could turn a zebra-like animal into a horse-like animal. They can even mate and produce offspring, so they haven't separated even that far yet. One animal gradually turns into another, over time, especially when there is an isolating factor like an island or a lake. An octopus doesn't turn into a horse, but they did diverge from a common ancestor long ago. Even when species undergo radical change, there are still recognizable similarities. Whales and hippos descended from a common ancestor, and the proof is in the DNA. Whales also still breathe air, and some retain vestigal pelvic and hind leg bones deep inside their body.

Obvious disadvantages? There must always be an advantage to the change, otherwise it would be selected against. Some changes are a comprimise, cave fish lost their eyes, but they don't need them, and growing them takes precious resources. Even species that look entirely different are made up of nucleated cells with similar structure. The obvious differences between the appearance of species should be tempered with the fact that their growth is the result of a differing pattern of just the 4 letters in the genetic code.

I'm reading The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins, which has colored my posts recently. He follows the tree of evolution from humans backwards to the original one celled organism, explaining each significant change along the way. He also limits his descriptions of the branching points on the tree to just those animals and plants that live today. It is a fascinating story, and quite compelling with it's evidence. Most of the evidence for evolution is still around.

It think the changes are intuitively understandable from cells to nucleated cells (when a bacteria formed a symbiotic relationship with un-nucleated cells), to sponges which are like a colony of cells, to multicellular animals with specialized cells that make up organs, to fish, to lobe-finned fishes, to quadrupeds, to mammals, to primates, to you and me. I left alot of details out, but it makes total sense. It did take a billion years or so, alot can happen in that time.

Not without any real scientific evidence, that's just incorrect. Their motive is to understand the world around them based on what can be observed. I think Buddhism has to do with the human condition, where does it postulate intelligence as an eternal attribute of the universe?

Evolution and Taoism, I think, are especially compatable. Evolution reveals the essential unity of all life, and the passive (Yin) creativity of nature.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

evolution, hologram, etc., etc. Buddha will take care of it. our practice is just to sit. then, without being aware of it, you have big mind.