Creationism & Evolutionism
looking at "the Divine Watchmaker" - Science and God
Intellignet Design etc etc

To read some of the text here Download the Balaram FONT HERE

updated 17th February 2006
 To build a house you need stones, cement and water. Once built,
the stones and cement are seen but the water is no longer seen.
Does this mean that water is not needed for building the house?
Can the house be built without water?
Obviously not. The existence of the house the way we see it, is
itself indicative of the entity water, which in effect, binds while
itself being unbound. Just the same, for the entire universe to
exist, God is not only essential, but primal. Any and all aspects
of creation are His will. But He is not in any way limited to or
bound by what we are able to observe or make sense of in this world.
 I am listing a few web sites where you will find a few excellent
books that discuss the modern theory of evolution & science.  After
critically studying these theories, the authors also present the Vedic
Vaishnava perspective based on Sri Veda Vyaasa's Srimad Bhagavatam
and other sources.
I have read a few of the publications mentioned in these web
sites and found them to be very authentic.  If anyone is interested,
I can recommend specific books.
Darwin made a  out of himself
by rushing his theory 
We must accept the vedic opinion when it contradicts our scientific opinion.
Vedic opinion is the word of Krishna; dharmam tu sakshat bhagavat pranitam.
As a result this knowledge is completely perfect. On the other hand, modern
scientific opinion is based on the opinion of scientists who have the
following four defects :
1. Imperfect Senses : You cannot even see your hand in a dark room,
or the closest thing to the eye the eyelid, then what to speak of other things
2. Make mistakes : Dalton's concept of atom (indivisible) was later found to
be a mistake, which brings us to the third .
3. Tendency to cheat : Dont we know how much cheating is going on in the scientific
community, but with so much funding to be sought, so much ambition at stake,
so many changing theories year after year, we can get a pretty good idea.
4. Illusion : Materialists do not know who they are. If you do not even know about yourself, why you are born or die, or how you think and act the way you do, how can you comment or theorise on the formation of the Universe - its past, even what's going on at present and so what to speak of the future.

There are two aspects of Science :
1. One is practical application of scientific  models. With the help of our knowledge of electronics, we created computers, Internet etc. We will use this in the service of Krishna and general comfort of society as we are doing now. This is a practical approach to modern science.
2. Fundamental science : We will not use the our tiny brains to fathom how the Universe was created because, simply it is not possible to understand. If you want to know who your father is you ask your mother. She is the authority, she knows who that creator was. In the same way rather than looking here and there speculating "are you my father?" "or are you my father?" "Was the Universe created like this or like that, and when, etc." We will use the words of God from His scriptures that clearly tell us - they are likened to the mother.
Vedic period stressed more on spiritual understanding an they used subtle technologies to satisfy dharmartha and kama needs with a fraction of effort that we need today. As a result of our dull brains which again is the result of the advancing of kali yuga, we have lost our ability to use mantras, etc., such as those mentioned in the Yajur Veda, Arthava Veda and Tantras to achieve desired results. But still the names of the Lord (Krishna, Rama etc.) are powerful enough to give us spiritual awakening. So we will cling on to the names. The Supreme Personality of Godhead does not lose His potency.
Fundamentally we dont have to care about scientific knowledge. They only deal with material things and like all material things scientific knowledge is temporary. Newton described gravity in one way, Einstein in another and that is being challenged today.  However, we have lost much of the mundane Vedic sciences like medicine, engineering, etc. So we will use  the modern techniques just like a snake takes away a rat hole for its home. Whether we use mantras to light fire or friction between inflammable objects to light fire, it is only Krishna who is the doer. Not a thing happens without His sanction.
In relation to those who decry Vedic Science, we can react to the athiestic opinion(s) of some of the foolish scientists by showing that they are having the above four defects and hence their knowledge. they do not understand from where their chemicals, atoms and protons come.
We should oppose theory of evolution etc., not because it cannot happen. Any thing is possible for Krishna. But we should oppose only because some scientists use it to show that Krishna does not exist.
Evolution is there, one person (atman - jiva - soul) evolves through various bodies, that is evolution in reality. But show us where dull inert matter gave birth or transformed into life.
The Vedic God centred tradition is mainly based on Sruti Pramanam - truths handed down from God. We also accept evidential truths based on reports of spiritual scientists; such as the Alwars, the great Acaryas - Ramanuja, Bhaskara, Madhwa, Vishnu Swami, Nimbarkar, Sri Chaitanya, the Six Goswamis of Vrindavan, Baladeva VB, Bhaktivinod Thakur, Siddhanta Saraswati, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, and his Bhaktivedanta Science Institute.  Our own experience (pratyaksha) of science or of bhakti can be discounted by the atheists as unexplained mental phenomenon by scientists. And why not ? After all they cannot touch it (tough we see as our realisations grow phenominal changes take place) they cannot examine bhakti under the microscope (there's no need to examine the tiny fragments of structure, when the external changes showing are enough to convince most people that such devotion and its reciprical Lord exist).
But if we base our arguments on the statements of the Vedas there is no problem
because we are taking knowledge directly from Krishna and his devotees who
are on the absolute platform (Bhagavad Gita 15:15.).

The Balaram FONT is needed here:

sarvasya cähaà hådi sanniviñöo

mattaù småtir jïänam apohanaà ca
vedaiç ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedänta-kåd veda-vid eva cäham
"I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedänta, and I am the knower of the Vedas."
evaà paramparä-präptam
imaà räjarñayo viduù
sa käleneha mahatä
yogo nañöaù parantapa
"This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost."

Therefore the Lord appeared, and He made arrangements that His devotees appeared to re-establish that Supreme Science through the Parampara.

Devotees are any one who defends God, and because of their connection with Him are superior in knowledge to atheistic mortal so-called scientists who propound  theories which they can in no way be sure of andwhich so often mislead people in to adharma (nescience - that which is against the Supreme Scientist God).
We dont have to misinterpret the Vedas when they say things which may appear to contradict our
observation - for example seven seas around the Earth, various layers like a coconut that contain each Universe, ropes of wind that keep the planets in orbit, green cheese moon, or gigantic Timangillar fish that eat whales, etc. That is because our interpretation manufactured with our tiny brains is also bound by the four defects stated above. So we will honestly admit that we do not know what it means. Our ignorance does not make Krishna ignorant. Some times mothers explain so many things to the child about moon, trees etc., while feeding him. The child does not obviously understand these things. But he does not think that the mother does not know what she is talking about.
Like that we will accept Krishna's statements revealed directly and throughsages without interpretation. One reason that He is great because He is so knowledgeable that many things He says are incomprehensible to our tiny brains. What we don't know or understand we have multivolumes of shastra to research to find out the answer, and millions of advanced devotees to help us. there we can be confident in giving the answer, even if it is, that I don't know, but let me find out for you. Even in such an endeavour we stand to make advancement in Krishna consciousness, so where is the loss or dimunition???

An Example of Atheism Being Defeated by Theism
On the subject of Religion  vis-a-vis Science, I would like to invite your
attention to Pre-Saranagath issue Vol. 1.004 dated 26th September 1996 in
which the subject has been dealt with in great detail under "3. From Chapter
2 of Hinduism Resdiscovered - 2.2 "Religion and Science"
Please visit:
Reproduced below is an exceprt from the above.
Anbil Ramaswamy
The respective roles of science and Religion may be summarized as follows :
Science (S)
Religion (R)
(S) Merely INFORMS you
(S) UNRAVELS the `WHAT' of things
(R) REVEALS the `THAT' of things
(S) By very NATURE has to be SUBJECT to the RATIONAL
(S) EXPLOITS for you the REDUCTIONIST aspect of the universe
(R) PUTS TOGETHER the HOLISTIC aspect of the universe
(S) Has made MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS to your MINOR needs
(R) Has only MINOR EXPECTATIONS for your MAJOR needs
(S) Is a COLLECTIVE OBLIGATION answerable to the PEERS in society
(R) Is INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY irrespective of the EXPERTS in society
(S) MICRO is in our SCIENTIFIC hands
(S) LOOKS for DIFFERENCES among things
(R) SEEKS for the SAMENESS of divinity in all things as evidence to the glory
of God.
(S) is the knowledge of SECONDARY Causes of CREATED SKILLS
(R) is the knowledge of the PRINCIPLES  of UNCREATED Causes.

     A Critique Of Modern Scientific Methodology
From The Vedic Perspective
     Some popular misconception about science are outlined, then criticized from a philosophical point of view. An alternative and more
     viable process for obtaining reliable knowledge based on the Vedic
     scriptures is then presented.
The Darwin Wars: How Stupid Genes Became Selfish Gods by Andrew Brown
IBSA (ISKCON Bhaktivedanta Sadhana Asrama),
Govardhana, India  22 December 2003
by Suhotra swami

In the entry here for 10 December I asked:

Do you know that Darwin's theory of evolution is derived from the Newtonian worldview? Do you know that from the standpoint of the quantum physical worldview, Darwinian evolution stands upon no scientific foundation whatsoever?

I thought it might be interesting to consider why this is so.

In Evolution at a Crossroads, a book published in 1985, David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber write on page 254, "Darwin's theory was an explicit extension of the Newtonian paradigm to the biosphere..." Leading quantum theoreticians like Werner Heisenberg were openly doubtful of Darwin's ploy of appealing to Newtonian physics to explain the origin of life.

One of the simplest presentations of the incompatibility of Newtonian Darwinism and quantum physics is offered by the eminent Cambridge physicist Fred Hoyle in Chapter Eight of his 1983 book, The Intelligent Universe. The crux of the problem is the boundary between what Hoyle calls the macroworld (the world of everyday experience) and the microworld (the world at the atomic scale). The macroworld, which to some extent is apparent to our senses, is thought by quantum physicists to be sustained by the energy constantly traded back and forth within the vast swarm of invisible subatomic particles that make up the universe.

Hoyle writes that the official line regarding the scientific relationship between macroworld and microworld is that

...quantum mechanics leads to essentially the same results as used to be calculated in the days before quantum mechanics, results of a predictable or deterministic kind in which one large-scale event was said to be the cause of another. On an atomic scale things were different, however, because the usual concept of cause and effect dissolved into indeterminancy.

To make this clearer: it is supposed that many quantum events average out in the macroworld as mechanical, and thus predictable, certainties. In the microworld, on the other hand, a singular event like the path an electron takes within a sealed container is decided by the consciousness of the observer.

If you're wondering how that works, well, even physicists don't agree; and their conclusion is that it can't really be explained. Anyway, what follows is my own attempt to draw a verbal picture of the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics.

The word "quantum" is employed by scientists to indicate a tiny unit of energy that cannot be directly observed. All matter is reduced by quantum theory down to such quantum units. An example of a quantum unit is a photon, which can be conceived of as a point-particle of light. (Let me interject here that many physicists are hesitant about declarations that a photon really is a point particle...however, it is OK to think that way for practicality's sake.) A photon travels though space and time riding a "probability wave." The word probability is used to indicate that a photon's movement can only be discussed in potential terms, not certain terms.

Imagine a tropical ocean wave rolling in to a lovely island beach. Riding the wave is a surfer who symbolizes the photon particle. The strange thing here is that quantum theory says that while he rides the wave, the surfer-photon occupies no certain place. He may be considered to be anywhere along the whole wavefront. Then--in the jargon of quantum physicists--"the wavefunction collapses" when the wave touches the beach. The surfer-photon pops into view at one unforeseeable point somewhere on the beach along what was the whole front of the wave. The surfer is a pinpoint but where he lands cannot be predicted with pinpoint accuracy. Therefore photons and all subatomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.) are called wave-particles, since they are particles (or seem to be particles; as I said, some physicists aren't sure) that travel like waves. The beach is the consciousness of the observer. Before light is observed, the most that can be said about it is that it exists in a state of fuzzy uncertainty.

Unobserved light is not there, it is...well, somewhere. Only when we see it, is it there. Though "facts" such as visible light are supposed to emerge out of the uncertainty of the microworld, it is strange that moment by moment, the facts of the macroworld around us appear stable. Quantum physics says that the point-particles that make up the computer keyboard I am using to type these words are by chance dancing in patterns that somehow cause the form of the keyboard to arise in my consciousness as a solid object of steady reality.

And so it goes that phenomena in the microworld are not predictable with the kind of certainty that says, for example, "Paper will ignite if I touch a burning match to it." That sort of certainty--which is independent of my observation, in that paper touched by a burning match will ignite whether I see it or not--is limited to the macroworld. Such certainty is called deterministic. Microworld events depend upon conscious observation. They are therefore indeterministic.

If this difference between the macroworld and microworld was real, it might relieve the tension between the Darwinian and the quantum mechanical positions. Then quantum uncertainty would apply only to subatomic events, with evolution ticking on like clockwork, independent of consciousness, as a regular function of the macroworld. But Hoyle argues that scientists maintain this difference only by deception. Their purpose is to "try to avoid the involvement of consciousness."

He offers a thought-experiment to show how it might be impossible to distinguish a macroworld event from a microworld event:

It would easily be possible for an experimental physicist to arrange that the explosion of a huge bomb was triggered by just one quantum event--a single electron tripping a switch, for example. So enormous events in the macroworld could be dependent on the outcome of an individual quantum event. How then was one to decide the outcome of such a link between the microworld and the macroworld? Unless one were to ignore quantum mechanics, the outcome of even enormous events like a bomb destroying a whole city could not be decided by calculation. The decision about whether the explosion happened or not would have to come from the actual act of observation, through one's consciousness. It could therefore be that events of overwhelming practical importance were actually quite unpredictable, outside the usual chain of cause and effect.

Perhaps you find it difficult to follow Hoyle's explanation. It boils down to this question: How much does the macroworld--the world in which the Darwinists say evolution occurs as a mechanical series of natural events--actually depend on conscious supervision? Keep in mind that the orthodox Darwinian position is that the events of nature give rise to consciousness. Hence consciousness depends upon nature, not vice versa. But quantum mechanics, when understood free of the deception tagged by Hoyle, may point to the opposite conclusion: the events of nature are completely dependent upon consciousness. Indeed, this is the Vedic conclusion.

A close look at the arguments of the evolutionists reveals that they confuse the issue of whether natural events direct consciousness or consciousness directs natural events. This confusion is evident in the arguments for natural selection. According to Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process by which nature organizes and improves life forms. Note the language Darwin himself used to explain it:

Natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing throughout the world, the slightest variations, rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good, silently and insensibly working...

On the one hand, Darwin wrote that natural selection is "scrutinizing." The act of scrutinizing requires consciousness. On the other hand, he used the word "insensibly" to depict the way natural selection works. The dictionary lists "unconscious" as a synonym for the word insensible.

As Hoyle explains in Chapter Ten of The Intelligent Universe, the term "natural selection" was coined in 1831 by Patrick Matthew to distinguish it from "artificial selection" directed by the intelligence of man. If natural selection is indeed an unintelligent function of blind Newtonian physics, there is no sense in describing it as an act of scrutiny. But Darwinists seem unable to shake themselves free of the language of consciousness. That is because their theory is meant to explain the appearance of sentient life forms, which are by definition conscious and intelligent. Logic (the law of thought and speech) works against the notion of something unconscious and unintelligent giving rise to something that is conscious and intelligent.

And so the arguments of the evolutionists are pervaded by a profound contradiction. This is abundantly evident in a 1997 essay entitled "Can Science Reassure?" by Dr. Geoff Watts, a science reporter for a British television channel. Here he tells of a computer program devised by two Swedish scientists, Nilsson and Pelger, that simulates the evolution of the eye. Excerpts:

As would happen naturally in successive generations of a real organism, Nilsson and Pelger allowed their model to deform itself at random, but within fixed limits. Playing the part of Nature red in tooth and claw, they programmed the computer to select only those of the random changes that improved the "fitness" of the system...

Step by step-unscripted, unrehearsed, and with no pre-ordained goal-the patch of light-sensitive cells modelled within the computer will turn itself into a perfectly "designed" eye.

Dr. Watts is playing a game in which he reserves for himself the right to move the goalposts whenever he likes. He maintains the difference between "natural" and "artificial" selection only by a transparent trick of word-jugglery. Casting two human scientists in the role of nature, he tells us they programmed a computer (clearly an act of consciousness and intelligence) to duplicate natural selection. Then he breezily reports how their computer will run without a script, rehearsal or goal to model an eye. Regrettably, Dr. Watts on computer technology needs a Sherlock to set him straight. A computer program is most definitely a script...a script that is debugged in the course of many rehearsals...a script that is devised by intelligent programmers to reach a particular goal they have in mind from the start.

Evolution in Fact and Fantasy

Darwin's Theory Gone Ape........

Evolution of intelligent design

Randomness by Design - Origins

The Divine "WAtchmaker" - Design must have had a Designer - William Paley