It took me some time to realize that there is no contradiction between Darwin's theory of evolution and "God books". Let me explain it here. Darwin's theory can be summarized as 1) life came from molecules in a primordial soup, and 2) life forms evolve from one to another by "survival of the fittest". Notably, Darwin theory and biologists do not explain the mind, consciousness and "esoteric" phenomenon like soul's reincarnation. On the other hand, Ian Stevenson has done a lot of work providing evidence (not proof) for reincarnation. Should the reincarnation theory be proved right, Darwin's theory is no where close to explaining it. Neither is Darwin and the biologists any close to explaining consciousness and kids performing outstanding feats:
- a 1.5 and 4 year olds giving an authentic dance performances
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXTGMCKNkUI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lsfwnz2ltk
- 5 year boy displaying good knowledge of planes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk7biSOzr1k
The fundamental postulate of Darwin's theory and modern science that life came from molecules has not been verified. Neither are the scientists any closer to verifying it in my life-time. Craig Venter is probably the leading biologist today trying to create life in a test tube. But his attempts have been far from being successful. He has managed to take DNA from an existing cell and modified it to get a new DNA with required properties. Then, he plants the new DNA into cytoplasm of an existing cell (after removing its DNA). This cell, then replicates. It is important to note that cytoplasm of the existing cell has been reused. I had read the paper a while ago and unable to find it now to cross check/reference. If I remember correctly, even the DNA was not completely chemically synthesized.
The following quote from Craig Venter in the Wall Street Journal article is very telling:
'Kornberg did not create life in a test tube, nor did we create life from scratch. We transformed existing life into new life. We also did not design and build a new chromosome from nothing. Rather, using only digitized information, we synthesized a modified version of the naturally occurring Mycoplasma mycoides genome. The result is not an "artificial" life form. It is a very real, self-replicating cell that most microbiologists would be unable to readily distinguish from the naturally occurring counterpart without the aid of DNA sequencing.'
Thus, Craig Venter's research does not in anyway invalidate the theistic perspective that creating life in a test tube in impossible. The living entities are supposed to be distinct from the chemical elements. Bhagavadgita 7.5 explains it: "Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature."
The venerable Srimad Bhagavatam explains this as: "When the cosmic creation is manifested, the living entities are directly supplied from the Lord; they are never products of material nature. Thus, no scientific advancement of material science can ever produce a living being. That is the whole mystery of the material creation. The living entities are foreign to matter, and thus they cannot be happy unless they are situated in the same spiritual life as the Lord. The mistaken living being, out of forgetfulness of this original condition of life, unnecessarily wastes time trying to become happy in the material world. The whole Vedic process is to remind one of this essential feature of life. The Lord offers the conditioned soul a material body for his so-called enjoyment, but if one does not come to his senses and enter into spiritual consciousness, the Lord again puts him in the unmanifested condition as it existed in the beginning of the creation."
Note that the above theistic statements still allow a monkey body to transform to a man body.
No comments:
Post a Comment