SCIENTIFIC REFUTATION OF DARWINISM by Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta We are repeatedly presenting that Darwinism is a direct threat for the truth and true science. In such a polluted frame work there is no place and respect for truth. We can easily sense that from the statement of Francis Crick[1]: Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truth, but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive and leave descendants. French philosopher René Descartes is known for encouraging mistreatment of animals because he argued that only humans are conscious.[2] Descartes’ materialistic view of consciousness is furthered by Charles Darwin. Darwin speculated that soul and consciousness are mere byproduct of some chemical combination[3]: “It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present which could ever have been present. But If (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes at the present such matter would be instantly devoured, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” Following Darwin, biologists were denying the existence of consciousness for more than hundred and fifty years. On the name of scientific education the concept that “Man is simply an enclosed membrane of chemicals” is taught to the people at very tender age. Our respect to our elders and parents, friendship, love, affection and all subjective feelings seems superficial with such a view. Teaching of such dangerous mental speculation is cause of social disorder that we are witnessing at the present time in our civilization. If “Man is simply an enclosed membrane of chemicals” then can scientists put some chemicals to make a dead man alive? What evidence do we have to teach such mental speculations to students on the name of science? Evidence in twenty-first century biology confirms that all life forms display different degrees of consciousness. In 2012 several prominent scientists signed the Cambridge declaration at the First Annual Francis Crick Memorial Conference, stating,[4] … the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates. However, the statement unfortunately perpetuates further misunderstandings, that, “neurological substrates … generate consciousness”. The speculative “identity theory” explains that states and processes of the mind are alike to states and processes of the brain. Scientists and philosophers following the concept of identity theory believe that the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.[5] That is why, till now the major focus of consciousness studies are focused on brain research. However, all these materialistic theories are completely disproven by twenty-first century biology. Twenty-first century biology shows that even the smallest cells (brainless) are also conscious entities.[6] You want to deny Darwinism with another speculative explanation of consciousness with particle physics. If you feel that some special particle is the source of consciousness then you can insert that particle into a dead cell to make it alive. Can you do that? No particle has a consciousness of its own; rather you should know that the concept of particle itself is an outcome of consciousness. Darwin speculated that matter gradually produces consciousness. However, in reality, what we observe is that every sentient system comes from a pre-existing sentient system and hence biogenesis (Life comes from Life) is the only provable theory in biology. Therefore, there must be a first life from whom all life forms must have originated. Reality is just the opposite to that of Darwinian speculation. Darwinian evolution of bodies is a perverted reflection of the real subjective evolution of consciousness explained in Vedanta. In the subjective evolution of consciousness, Vedanta explains that the super-subject – God (first life) is first, then the individual soul or jiva-subject is next. After that, from the subjective consciousness of the jivas, matter is produced. The entities like forces, gene and so on in science are theoretical entities and we cannot perceive them sensually. Physicists count quantitative magnitudes that can be measured in a ‘relatively simple, direct way’ as observable and hence they conceive quantities like temperature, pressure and intensity of electric current as observable. Meaning of scientific terms depends on how those terms are included into a scientific theory. We sense those scientific terms using certain methods of determining the extension of scientific terms. Those methods also depend on axioms of one or more scientific theories. For example the measurement by a gas thermometer is based on the ideal gas law. Methods of determining the extension of scientific terms are dependent on the laws of scientific theories. In science our understanding the sense of a term is based on how to determine its referent, or extension. Therefore, our understanding of things is dependent on how we grasp the meaning, or sense, of scientific terms. The terms like Consciousness, Soul and God cannot be understood by the simplistic methods that are employed by physics and chemistry in modern science. This is because modern science is focused only on the objects of the consciousness and not on consciousness directly. Whole modern science is a product of consciousness but that science itself does not include the study of the subject – the scientist. The attempts to study consciousness in science by indirect means have repeatedly come full circle. Hence, to study about Consciousness, Soul and God we have to adopt another method that is described in ancient Vedantic literature. Vedanta advocates that one can study about himself by introspection and self-analysis under a Vaisnava (pure devotees of Lord or self realized saint) coming in the line of a bonafide disciplic succession. Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaja says in his book ‘Subjective Evolution of Consciousness’[7]: We have to trace within us what that thing is. It is within us, and one has to enter into his own self and try to have some personal experience of what the mind is. Then by internal analysis one can try to come directly in touch with the faculty of judgment, reason, intelligence, by asking, “What is intelligence? Where is it within me?” We should try to find that out and come in touch with that directly. We should inquire, “What is the mind? It is already within me. But what is it? And what is reason within me? What is the source of the mind and intelligence? And crossing the stage of the decisive faculty, what is the soul?” We must try, as a yogi does, to come in direct touch with the elements within us. Mind and intelligence are within each of us. Why should we not be able to trace out exactly what they are, to see internally what they are? We are discussing these all most important subjects in our upcoming Second International Conference “Science and Scientist – 2014” (will be held at Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur, AP, India during 28-29 November 2014). We welcome everyone to participate in this event so that we all can learn from the valuable dialogues among personalities of diverse background. References: [1] Crick, F. (1994). The astonishing hypothesis. New York: Touchstone, P. 262. [2] Carruthers, P. (1999). Sympathy and subjectivity. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 77, pp. 465-482. [3] Darwin, C. (1898). The life and letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, p. 202. New York: Appleton, D. [4] The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in Non-Human animals was publicly proclaimed in Cambridge, UK, on July 7, 2012, at the conclusion of The First Annual Francis Crick Memorial Conference, focusing on “Consciousness in Humans and Non-Human Animals”, at Churchill College, University of Cambridge, by Philip Low, David Edelman and Christof Koch. It was written by Philip Low and edited by Jaak Panksepp, Diana Reiss, David Edelman, Bruno Van Swinderen, Philip Low, and Christof Koch. The Declaration was signed by the conference participants that very evening, in the presence of Stephen Hawking, in the Balfour Room at the Hotel du Vin in Cambridge, UK. Refer: fcmconference.org [5] Feigl, H. (1958). The mental and the physical. In Concepts, Theories and the mind-body problem, Ed. Feigl, H., Scriven, M. and Maxwell, G., Eds. Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, Volume 2, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; reprinted with a Postscript in Feigl 1967. [6] Shapiro, J. A. (2007). Bacteria are small but not stupid: Cognition, natural genetic engineering and socio-bacteriology. Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci., Vol. 38, pp. 807-819. [7] Sridhar, B.R. (1989). Subjective evolution of consciousness – The play of the sweet Absolute. Published by Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math. Refer: scsmath/books/Subjective_Evolution.pdf
Posted on: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 16:37:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015