by CS Joshi
[ Note: I was waiting for Darwin's 200th Anniversary on Feb 12, 2009 to release the article. Happy Birthday Darwin! I say this and risk of sounding like a religious nut. I have to credit Dhevy S, WX Liu, JY Xue and Arvind R for helping me proof read. Kudos to them. I also need to thanks all my hindu buddies for their inspiration =) ]
The 200th Anniversary of Charles Darwin's Birth and the 150th of the first edition of ‘On the Origin of Species’, have revived[1] the age old Creationism (or Intelligent Design according to preference) versus Evolution debate. The contestants are often religious folk who can be anyone from uneducated pastors to science professors, versus other scientists, school teachers and concerned parents. The religions involved, of course, often refer to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic conglomerate. Hinduism, comparatively, has almost turned a blind eye to the debate with the notable exception of ISKCON supporting the creationist viewpoint[2]. There are various reasons why this has been the case.
The complication arises from the fact that there is no single, uniform Hindu viewpoint. Hinduism, by definition, is a complex body of ideas ranging from animism to monotheism to monoism[3]. Some Hindu philosophies might even be considered atheistic (nir-ishwarawaad), though not in the contemporary scientific sense. By that definition, it becomes difficult to derive any sort of common “Hindu-view of evolution” which our non-hindu friends may probe us for. However, there are common threads which allow us to take sides, but I'll keep you in suspense till the second article in the series.
Superficially, some ideas in Hinduism may be interpreted to support evolutionary biology. In the dashaavataar[4] chronology, we observe Lord Vishnu taking the form of a fish, then a tortoise, then a boar and so on. This somewhat corresponds to, at least according to the lay person's understanding, the advancement of life and the fact we did evolve from fish. Some thinkers[5] quote the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad - about how the One Self became two, and then went on to create all life forms - as some support for evolution in the manner of which the process is supposed to have started with cell, the common ancestor of all life, which divided and began evolving thereafter. Sounds like there is a Hindu consensus supporting Darwinian ideas? Wrong.
At the same time, it is necessary to consider Hindu criticisms of Darwinian Evolution. In many scriptures, such as the Shrimad Bhagawatam, it is stated that humans appeared quite early on in creation and have been on earth for a very long time. The commonly calculated figure for the timespan of one Yuga cycle (comprising four epochs of various time spans) is 4.32 million years[6]. And humans are believed to have existed right from the start, although I personally have not read anything that specifically says something like that. The Matsya (fish) Avatar, believed to have saved Manu (the ancestral Man) and his clan from a great flood, is said to have manifested in the Satya Yuga. This clearly contradicts biological evidence that anatomically modern humans have existed for roughly 200,000 years. I can almost hear you screaming your objections in my ear right now.
“Wait”, you might think, “this isn't the domain of religion (or Hinduism)”. Sure, and some scientists agree. Stephen Jay Gould (bless his soul), a stalwart in paleontology and evolutionary biology, terms religion and science as Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOMA)[7] (Don't we all love to throw around technical terms?). He means that they have mutually exclusive “job scopes”, to put it differently. Most people in the modern day and age agree, but they forget that at one point, religion did make scientific claims. In the Shrimad Bhagawatam, there is a reasonably detailed description of a developing foetus[8] which could correspond to reality, depending on the translator. Often the “scientific nature” of Hinduism is asserted with reference to the parallels between modern physics and Vedantic philosophy. So I see a kind of selective validation taking place here. The nature of science is that it changes from time to time as opposed to religion which is “the ultimate truth” so I cannot see why we need science to validate religion. My practice of religion is a form of self-improvement and if it works for me, I see no reason for it to have anything to do with science.
If you are one of the rarer types of Hindus, your objection would have been, “Hasn't Michael Cremo disproved the widely accepted anthropological chronology?” ( Hare Krishna to you! ) or perhaps you might assert “Hinduism has existed for thousands of years, yet science has only been around for a few hundred, of course Hinduism is right”. I think that this points to a deficient understanding of scientific methodology and as tempted as I am to try and address this objection, I feel that watching a well made, informative video on Youtube might be a better idea. Watch Skewed Views of Science. Watch it even if you are a professional scientist because I believe it will help you to communicate ideas better.
I believe that should give you an idea of what a “hindu-perspective” on the issue could be. As I said, it is the individual's prerogative to arrive at an informed decision. Before we can really tackle the issue head on there are still a few factors left to discuss. What exactly is (biological) Evolution and how does it impact religious views? Will religion have to modify itself? How do religious people, especially those who do not prescribe to the NOMA idea, perceive those theories? We'll look at those in the next article.
Glossary:
ISKCON : International Society for Krishna Consciousness
Dashavataar : The ten incarnations of the Hindu god Vishnu
Vishnu : The being who incarnates in ten forms (ref wiki on circular reasoning).
Upanishad : A class of Hindu scripture involving dialogue between guru and disciple
Shrimad Bhagawatam : See wikipedia
Yuga : Can be loosely translated as age, era or epoch.
Avatar : Incarnation /manifestation of a higher being
Satya Yuga : The first epoch in a cycle of four. Not necessarily the “first” age since time is circular
Vedantic : End portion of the Vedas, discusses metaphysics
Michael Cremo : A Hindu Creationist with ISKCON.
References:
This is not a research paper, the references do not follow the standard format for citation.
[1] In Texas, a Line in the Curriculum Revives Evolution Debate, published in NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/education/22texas.html?_r=1
[2] Life Comes From Life, by Srila Prabhupada
http://www.angelfire.com/ego2/prabhupada/life/life_comes.htm
[3] Who is a Hindu, by Koenraad Elst
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/wiah/index.htm
[4] Dashaavataar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da%C5%9B%C4%81vat%C4%81ra
[5]Hinduism and Evolution, by Robert O'Connor
http://hindu-mythology.suite101.com/article.cfm/evolution_and_hinduism
[6] The Cycle of Ages
http://www.salagram.net/cycleOages.html
Sri Yuketshwar Giri, guru of Paramhansa Yogananda, proposes a slightly different figure, which might correspond to the fossil record. It is not known how well accepted his calculation is.
[7]Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, by Stephen Jay Gould
[8]Shrimad Bhagawatam, Canto 3, Chapter 31
[9]Science and Spirituality, by Mani Bhaumik
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Science_and_Spirituality/id/221200
Are you investigating if you are investigating from a viewpoint? Are you then free to investigate? Also in an investigation, how does it matter who had right view? What is important is that truth comes out? If it does not come out, we should simply say "We do not know" rather than gambling on a "view". The view becomes important when you do not really care for truth and when one does not know but wants to pretend knowing.
Hinduism as far as I know does not take its mythology literally and rather it internalizes it. Yogic tradition does this openly as a verse in the Yogic treatise at least 1000 years old states that "Fools believe that Siva destroyed the three Puras (towns): What is being destroyed are the three inner impurities of Ego, Karma and Delusion and the process of destruction happens again and again" Further the famous creation hymn of Rig Veda leaves the origin an open ended mystery rather than evoke a creator. Personal Creator God is not a necessity for both Sankhya and Vedanta which makes it easy for Hindus to psychologically accept the world without an Intelligent Design or Creator. And as far as Cremo - he is a charlatan. If some Hinduthva zealots sing Hosanna for him they are immensely harming Hindu system of philosophy and its scientific spirit.
Hey guys.
I partially agree with you. As a large part of the controversy is about whether we should teach it in schools, my view, when it comes to taking a stand, is geared towards that. You can take a look at part II