Originally posted on sciy.org by Ron Anastasia on Sat 16 Jul 2005 10:35 AM PDT
050 ap. Re: Request for help from those familiar with biological science & IY
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:35:29 +0100 (BST)
From: alok pandey <taijasalok@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: Request for help from those who are familiar with both biological science and Integral Yoga
To: scienceandspirit@sriaurobindocenter-la.com
Message - 050/149
Dear Jan,
The reaction of the biologists was to be expected yet you must carry
on this work. After all they feel the sense-experience as alone real and
have nothing else to fall back upon and that is one reason why the
problem can be solved only by an advancement of human consciousness
that can see the Divine and His Work everywhere, a state still a far
cry from most of humanity and only a promise for the few!
Also while it is true that Science is its real nature is an
agnostic, it has been and for valid purposes atheistic in its practical
conclusions. It demolished that image of a neat and just God sitting in
heaven with a carrot and stick and a magic wand in some third hand to
ake the world. Such a childish notion of God had to go and Science did
it well. But this atheistic leaning and its victory gave it a pride
that it has tried to illegitimately extend in other domains of
God-experience as well. Also agnosticism itself can be of two kinds:
One that of the scientist who if he is sincere knows that the Truth is
unknowbale or that he does not know the ï¬nality of things, but then
believes that there is no ï¬nal truth and that even if it is there it
cannot be known. The other is the agnosticism of the yogi who also
starts from the same premises but believes that there is a ï¬nal truth
after al and it can be known though by means other than those of our
sensory experiences. This departure is a crucial one since one opens
the door while the other shuts it to further experience of the One and
at the same time Inï¬nite Reality.
As to the comment of the professor he is factually both acurate ad
inaccurate at the same time. There is do far as I know no clear prrof
of one theory of evolution vis a vis another if we take proof in the
strictest sense and not an inference extrapolated from observation. In
any case the real issue is whether there is a sense of Intelligence
working behind evolution and there is enough reason to presume its
presence from the rpofessor's own statement, for example how does the
species come to know of the environmental change and responds to it so
intelligently as to ensure its future survival? There is also
indication of a teleological process involved that sort of presupposes
the challenge so to say, the evolution of the Dolphins and the sonar
tracking device is a case in point. It would normally take several
steps to evolve these complex organs and if we take the several links
it becomes clear that the very ï¬rst step had as if presumed the last.
The Intellient working that is aparent behind many events and behaviour
of the plant and animal kingdom begin to become more and more conscious
as Intelligence that seems involved and hidden in these lower forms
begins to emerge in higher forms such as man, thereby opening
possibilities of an intelligent manipulation of life and ultimately of
an intelligent or willed evolution. One could add many more things but
I think you may havealready dealt with them.
However speaking of inteligent evolution you may like to read Herbert Spencer's theory of evolution.
alok
Attachment: