What is our approach to the theory of evolution?
Answer Podcast:
Transcript
This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So what is our approach to the theory of evolution? Evolution is itself at one level an icy world. Now what do we exactly mean by evolution? So by evolution, we refer to the process of change in nature. The change is something which is a documented fact.
You know, now the extent of the change that happens, that how much that actually happens, that may vary from the evidence for that is open to debate, how much change can happen. So if we look at Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says, mayadhyakshina prakriti suvyate sa characharam hetunanena kaunteya jagadhi prakriti So here, normally, the stress of this verse is mayadhyakshina prakriti that natural nature is working under my order. At the same time, if you look at the full verse, what it states is suvyate sa characharam hetunanena kaunteya It is by its method, by its purpose, or by its order, it is functioning.
So that means there is a two level causality that is talked about over here. There is the overall supervision of Krishna. But within that supervision of Krishna, material nature has its own order.
And creation and destruction happen according to its own order. So like in the Isoparita also, it is om purna madha purna vritham. So Krishna is complete.
Material nature is also complete. Material nature is complete means if material nature is functioning, does not require constant visible intervention of Krishna. Material nature has a system by which its functioning occurs.
So for example, Krishna doesn’t have to stand under the earth to lift up the earth. The system by which there is a law of gravity and there is a system by which the planets take their orbits and celestial objects take their positions. So in principle, there is this two level causality that God is the ultimate cause, but material nature also has systems by which things happen in the material world.
And so sometimes we may present, so science studies the material level of explanations. Science usually as it is studied right now mostly, it operates according to the principle which is called as methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism means the method that science uses is to look for natural causes for natural phenomena.
So whether there are supernatural causes or not, that is not considered to be the jurisdiction of science. Now some scientists may themselves be atheistic and they may try to prove that there is nothing beyond nature. And some scientists may be theists and they may try to prove that there is any God beyond nature.
But science as it functionally operates, it is methodological naturalistic. That means science looks for natural causes to natural phenomena to what we observe in nature. So sometimes we make a mistake by proposing God as an explanatory alternative to science.
That God, because science can’t explain this, therefore we need God. So God is not an explanatory alternative to science. God is the explanatory foundation for science.
I will explain what I mean by this. When we say that God, if we say that because science can’t explain this, therefore we need God. And basically what we are saying, we are putting God and science as competitors.
And we are saying that God and science are explanatory alternatives. But if I, as I said, So here God is not an explanatory alternative. God is the explanatory foundation.
God is the explanatory foundation means, why does science have the capacity to explain? Why are there laws in nature at all? Therefore, if we take a purely atheistic world view, then everything according to this came from a bank. Even our brains have come from a bank. The universe around us has come from a bank.
Now, why does the universe follow certain laws? And why are those laws capable of being expressed in mathematics? When mathematics is just a conception in our brains. And our brains are also nothing but just, as they say, stardust come alive. So the point which I am making is that science’s capacity to explain comes from God.
So, God is not the explanation for the unexplainable. God is the explanation for explainability. Is this point clear? God is not the explanation for the unexplainable.
Oh, this science can’t explain, this science can’t explain, this science can’t explain. Therefore, there must be God. If we postulate like that, the problem comes up.
If future science comes up with some explanation, then God is left with no role. So, that is a wrong way of understanding God. God is not the explanation for the unexplainable.
God is the explanation for explainability. That, why is science able to explain anything at all? Why is there causality? Why is there cause and effect? And not just cause and effect, but cause and effect of mathematical precision within science. So, rather than getting into specific theories, when Srila Prabhupada was presented the theory of evolution, he was presented it primarily in terms of its atheistic applications.
So, Srila Prabhupada strongly critiqued the atheism within science. And rather than getting into specific theories and getting into debates which can be very polarizing, we can understand the fundamentals. The fundamentals is that for material nature, there can be material mechanisms which will explain the material phenomena.
But those material mechanisms which explain material phenomena, they do not contradict God as the ultimate cause. So, if you understand this three levels of, there is the observed phenomena, there is material causality, and there is the ultimate spiritual causality. So, for material phenomena, science may come up with different theories at different times.
But the scientific theories do not, they may correctly or incorrectly, because science is also evolving body of knowledge. What is considered a correct theory may in the future turn out to be a wrong theory. So, the principle of material causality does not counter the foundation of spiritual causality.
Just like, this is a crude example, that there is a person driving a car. Now, is the car moving because the ignition has been lit and the engine is in motion, the piston is moving? Is the car moving because of that or is the car moving because there is a driver in the car who wants to go on a ride? The two explanations are not contradictory, they are complementary. So, science goes to the level of material mechanisms.
Now, whether a particular material mechanism which is proposed by science is right or wrong, that is for scientists as a body of professionals to evaluate. And some scientists may say this is right, some scientists may say this is wrong. But the material causality does not in any way reject the spiritual causality, and it does not reject the existence of God as the explanatory foundation for science.
As the very explanation of the explainability of nature around us. Does it answer your question?