Gaudiya-Vaisnavism on the Evolution Theory

3. Gauòéya-Vaiñëavism on the Evolution Theory

3.1 Life in the Bhagavad-gitä

According to the Bhagavad-gitä (Prabhupäda 1989), an important Gauòéya-Vaiñëava scripture, there are three distinct substances: the Supreme Lord (Supersoul); the living entities (souls); and matter (material nature). The living entities are spiritual souls, distinct from their body. The body is part of the material nature, which consists of gross elements (earth, water, fire, air, and ether) and subtle elements (senses, sense objects, mind, intelligence, false ego, and consciousness). There are 8.4 million types of bodies1 (species). The material nature works under three universal forces (guëas): goodness (sattva), passion (rajas), and ignorance (tamas).

The guëas work under the direction of the Supreme Lord, Who is the father of all living entities. There are three agents of action: the souls desire to act; the Supersoul sanctions their desires; and the guëas carry out the Supersoul's sanction. By this process, the souls transmigrate from body to body according to their level of consciousness.

3.2 Challenges to the Evolution Theory

Prabhupäda critiqued modern science during a series of conversations that have been recorded in Life Comes From Life. (Prabhupada 1979). He challenged the following statements from the evolution theory (E) from the Gauòéya-Vaiñëava point of view (GV).

1 Originally from the Padma Puräëa, quoted by Prabhupäda in a lecture on the Bhagavad-gitä (Prabhupäda 1991, 489)

E: Life originated from chemicals.

GV: If this is true, then scientists should be able to create life biochemically in their laboratories, or they should be able to bring a dead body back to life by applying chemicals. But they cannot produce even a single blade of grass. They should admit that they do not know the origin of life. Experience shows that life is coming from life, by birth, and not from chemicals. (Prabhupäda 1979, 8-9).

E: In the future scientists may be able to produce babies in test tubes.

GV: If they start with living material, what purpose is the test tube? It is already being done in nature's test tube. (Prabhupäda, 10).

E: Life has evolved from lower species to higher species, from single-celled to multicellular organisms. Animals and human beings came later.

GV: Both lower and higher species exist now side by side. Why did the lower species not evolve upward and disappear? Why do we never see a monkey give birth to a human being? (Prabhupäda, 48)

E: Natural selection occurs by survival of the fittest. Stronger species survive and the weaker die out.

GV: Then why has the monkey not died out? (Prabhupäda, 7)

E: There are theories that explain how life can come from matter.

GV: Then why is life not coming from matter now? There must be a proof. We can proof that life comes from life: a father begets a child; both are living. (Prabhupäda, 9-10).

E: Evolution is a gradual process.

GV: Then how did the evolution process begin? (Prabhupäda, 8)

Prabhupäda (37-38) suggests that there are two methods of acquiring knowledge: the ascending method of science and the descending method of the Vedic tradition. The ascending way is imperfect because it involves induction and sense perception, which are both imperfect. Prabhupäda (107-109) gives the following examples: we cannot trace back history for millions of years by extrapolation, only a few thousand years; we cannot search all the layers of earth worldwide for fossil evidence. The descending way is better because it involves deduction and accepting knowledge from a spiritual source, which originally comes from God.

Cremo and Thompson (1998, 4), two disciples of Prabhupäda (Drutakarma Däsa and Sadäputa Däsa), have commented on the evidence for evolution in their book Forbidden Archeology. They argue that the similarity of anatomy and DNA among different species shows only that they are related. The similarity of biochemical processes in living cells shows that there is a relationship between all species. This relationship may be that of common descent, as the evolution theory suggests, but it may also be something completely different.

To actually proof common descent requires physical evidence. The argument that the dating of DNA corresponds to that of the anatomical history and fossil record does not prove evolution but presupposes it. Therefore the only evidence left is fossil evidence.

In Forbidden Archeology Cremo and Thompson give many hundreds of examples of human fossil evidence. Cremo (2003, 9-41) gives a summary of this in his book Human Devolution. A significant part of the evidence disagrees with the current evolution theory of human beings. According to the current theory the human species split off from the monkey species (which species is uncertain) about 6 million years ago, and modern humans have existed about 100,000 years. The evidence from Forbidden Archeology, consisting of foot prints, tools, bones, skeletons, etc., suggests that modern humans have existed for millions of years.Some of these fossils are extremely old, like a gold chain, a shoe print, or even a complete, modern, human skeleton of about 300 million years old.

The reason why no one has heard about this evidence is a process of 'knowledge filtration.' This means that fossils are neglected when they are found to not match the current theory. Thompson (1977, 1-3) has done a mathematical analysis demonstrating that 'life cannot arise from matter.' First, he shows that the physical laws of nature have 'low information content' because they consist of a few simple mathematical formulas. Then he shows that living organisms have 'high information content' because they consist of DNA, cells, etc. Thompson then proves that no system of high information content can evolve from a system of low information content by random changes. The amount of time needed for this would be 64^80,000 times2 greater than the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years). Evolution would be possible only if there was a mechanism for directionality. Natural section cannot provide this because it is based on the simple laws of nature, which have low information content. It can be shown mathematically that the information of any system that has evolved from an older system must be contained in the older system. Thompson therefore argues that science has failed to prove that life has originated from matter. He suggests turning the hypothesis: both life and matter have originated from life; the original cause of life is the Supreme Living Being.

2 The number [64 to the power of 80,000] consists of 144,495 digits.

3.3 Alternatives to Evolution

Prabhupäda (1979, 43) gives an alternative to the evolution theory: 'the evolution of consciousness,' which is based on the body/soul distinction. All 8.4 million species exist simultaneously. Souls transmigrate from one body to a better body according to their karma. It is like moving from one apartment to a better apartment. In this way their consciousness is gradually being elevated. Human beings have a higher consciousness. They can either elevate or degrade their consciousness.

Cremo (2003, xvii-xxx) gives another alternative, called 'human devolution.' First, he establishes that human beings consist of mind and consciousness, besides the gross body. He gives a lot of evidence for this based on paranormal phenomena, out of body experiences, past life memories, etc. Then he suggests that there is a cosmic hierarchy of life. More subtle beings are living in regions of higher consciousness. Originally all living beings were living on the level of pure consciousness, in harmony with the supreme conscious being. By our conscious choice we descended to lower levels in bodies of mind and gross matter. This is called human devolution.

Prabhupäda's and Cremo's alternatives complement each other. First there is devolution of consciousness. Pure spiritual beings descended to lower levels of consciousness that involve a mind and gross body. Then living beings elevate themselves again by evolution of consciousness. Both of these processes occur by transmigrating from body to body.

4. Evaluation

According to McGrath (44-50) we should consider whether science and religion operate in the same reality when comparing them. He also provides various models for how to relate science and religion: conflict, separation, or synthesis.

It seems that the evolution theory (ET) and the Gauòéya-Vaiñëava tradition (GVT) operate on different levels of reality. The ET operates on the level of gross matter. The GVT operates on the higher, more subtle and spiritual levels of the mind, soul, and consciousness. It also includes gross matter; there is a willingness from practitioners of the GVT to engage in a dialogue on the level of gross matter (like challenge or providing alternatives). The ET uses an ascending method of acquiring knowledge, and the GVT uses the descending method.

The ET and the GVT have a conflicting relationship: the ET bans God; the GVT, which is fully theistic, challenges the weak points of the ET that arise from the ban of God. The relationship between the ET and the GVT could change to that of a dialogue or even a partial synthesis, because there is some agreement between them. Some scientists from both sides agree that evolution is possible only if it has a direction. The GVT could contribute to this direction by deepening the ET's view of reality. This happened in the Modern Synthesis of the twentieth century when the ET changed its focus from the level of anatomy to the molecular level without loosing sight of the previous level. Now, in the twenty-first century, the ET may be ready to move to a higher level of more subtle matter, like mind and consciousness.

The GVT has very detailed knowledge about the functioning of matter, but this knowledge is generally not easily verifiable by science because of its subtle nature. The GVT could provide more scientific hypotheses that are verifiable by science, like Cremo and Thompson have done. In this way the ascending method of the ET and the descending method of the GVT can complement each other.

5. Conclusion

The evolution theory (ET) and the Gauòéya-Vaiñëava tradition (GVT) both have much more well-thought-out views on the origin of life than I expected. They both have a lot of potential when they engage in a dialogue that leads to mutual enrichment. If the GVT descends to a more scientific level, it can give direction to the ET. If the ET ascends its view of reality using some concepts of the GVT, it can provide rigid scientific methods of verification. A first step towards a synthesis of science and religion could be to expand current science with elements like mind, consciousness, and the forces of the guëas. This is a suggestion for further research.

If you have any comments or questions
contact: bhaktivedanta_108@yahoo.com