homogenous vs heterogenous cosmology

In modern physical cosmology, the notion that the spatial distribution of matter in the universe on a large scale is fairly homogenous and isotropic. It means that the properties of the universe is the same for all observers in space regardless of where data is collected. This idea is called cosmological principle and forms the fundamental aphorism of modern science.

Homogeneity indicates that the same evidence is observed if we collect data from any part of the universe. Isotropy indicates that the same evidence is observed if we collect data from any direction in the universe implying the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe. Although cosmologists use observational data as verification for this theory still we only observe what we observe from earth and cannot verify non-earthly observations. So to generalize at the universal scale purely and primarily on earthly calculations is a bit presumptuous and even dogmatic.

Non-earthly observations are given in vedic literature about the structure and design of the universe. It does not match modern observations or calculations or theories. Beyond the earth, according to vedi ccosmology, are variety of environments (not just gaseous or solid states) with different types of flora, fauna and living beings. There are planes of existence, planets and star systems that have life all over it. There is also non-globular structures in our universe (more like flat planes). In our current understanding of cosmology, space equals spherical geometry (or close to spherical), however, we get information from vedic cosmology, that there are non-spherical environments. All this indicates that the universe is certainly not homogenous and isotropic. Modern cosmology provides a lifeless picture of the universe and vedic cosmology gives a universe full of variety of species and life forms.

I will end with a quote from a famous philosopher of science Karl Popper on his attitude towards modern cosmology;

I once was an enthusiastic admirer of (Friedmann’s) Big Bang. I am now a disgusted opponent. As to the “steady state” theory, it is insufficiently developed, and Ryle’s criticism insufficiently discussed. And the “cosmological principles” were, I fear, dogmas that should not have been proposed. - Karl Popper

Please visit www.vediccosmology.com

Hare Krishna

Vedic Cosmos - An Intelligent Design

Vedic Cosmos- An Intelligent Design is a documentary that needs to be made. It is an art in-itself, can come to life through your help. Please see the trailer, visit the website and give for the making of this documentary! Please spread the word!

Thank you very much!—Danavir Goswami

Dedicated to: His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (Founder Acharya International Society For Krishna Consciousness)

Website - www.vediccosmology.com

Hare Krishna

this body is but a bio-chemical machine

We always hear how the body is like a car and the soul its driver. In fact,there is a verse in the Gita that reflects this idea

The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy. – BG 18.61

I was reading a book on medical resuscitation and how they bring the dead back to life. The book, in one part, talks about the human body. Below is the excerpt;

The human body is an incredibly complex machine composed of different components, each with a specific role that enables this machine to function. Like all machines, the body needs fuel to produce energy, which it uses to sustain its biological activities, also known as metabolism. This fuel comes in the form of the foods we eat, but the food alone does not sustain us. Once consumed, these raw products must be burned and converted into energy. This combustion process requires a constant supply of oxygen, the same an engine needs a mixture of oxygen and fuel to combust. The fuel in the engine is supplied through a gas tank while the oxygen is injected through vents and in both cases, when they meet, combustion takes place. This creates the energy that enables the other components, such as the wheels, power steering, and lights, to function, but the combustion process also produces waste products. In a car, the waste products are pushed out the through the exhaust system; in the body the gastrointestinal track functions like the gas tank, taking in food that comes from the stomach, while oxygen is supplied through the lungs acting as massive vents. This entire process in both the car and our body is stimulated by the intake of oxygen. Thus, like a car,if our activity revs up as we run, we need far higher levels of oxygen in order to burn more fuel and keeps the cells and organs working .- By Dr. Sam Parnia, M.D. from the book Erasing Death, page 37-38

The author (lead of the AWARE study) categorically explains how the body is but a machine. The next natural question is - who drives the machine (the body), we get the answer in the Bhagavad Gita –the soul.

Hare Krishna

The Human Connectome Project

Who am I? - this is an eternal question asked by many.

According to science, "I" is a combination and connection of neurons and neural activity in the brain. Brain has approximately 80 billion neurons and each human being is unique because these neurons snap and interact differently. The flow of information is different for different individuals hence the individuality and hence the difference in reaction and memory. Our taste, love, desire etc all stem from these connections, essentially transfer of electrical and chemical impulses between neurons. In other words, "I' and the feeling of "I", implied here, is reduced to chemical and electrical properties.

Besides, not sure what science tells about the reason behind a particular type of synapses or connection? Why is it connecting differently for different people? To me, it just explains the mechanism (the how and what) but not the why? For that again, we have to look elsewhere for the answer.






Hare Krishna

Heliocentricity

The distance to the closest stars has been measured by astronomers using an effect called parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax). This measurement depends on the assumption of the heliocentric model because one measures the position of a star at two times while earth rotates around the sun. (Parallax can be observed with a simple example. One can see the position of one’s outstretched finger will appear to be different relative to the background when you look through your right or left eye.) For example, parallax measurements suggest that Sirius (Mrgavyadha) is about 8.6 light years away. If the stars are so far away, then they have to be irradiating light like our sun. A distance of 8.6 lights years is much larger than the diameter of the universe given in the Bhagavatam (i.e. 4 billion miles, equivalent to approx 8 light minutes).

Using parallax, one can measure the distance to only the nearby stars. For the more distant stars, astronomers have developed a scale using the “magnitude” (brightness) of the stars. But this scale depends on knowing the absolute magnitude of specific stars, whose distance has been measured by parallax. In summary, the astronomers have assumed the correctness of the heliocentric model in calculating the distances to all of the stars.

If the heliocentric model is wrong and the earth is stationary, then the parallax measurements are wrong, and the stars are much closer than the scientists think.

-Bhù-gola tattv- Science of the Round Earth – Introduction, edited by H.H.Danavir Goswami

Hare Krishna

Soul's journey beyond this body

The Hard Problem does not have to remain hard

According to modern psychology, the self is made of a combination of conscious and unconscious self. In the unconscious realm, there are collective and personal forgotten images. Images or memories that we collected from our culture, family and our own individual quarks over a period of time. We may not be aware of these intentionally but is a part of us. This is unconsciously present within us. The ego is a sum total of our conscious and unconscious self and this sum total (ego) is exhibited as our personality. Our likes and dislikes (personality) in daily life therefore are a reflection of our ego.

The model can explain many mundane attributes of a person,however, it does not answer what psychologists call the hard problem. Where does consciousness come in all of this? Scientists are not able to explain how a being experiences this phenomenal world. The quality of awareness (qualia) such as the redness in red or the sensation of taste or our passion for a particular work or person or love etc that which defines us is not quantifiable within the scientific community.

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. 
- Erwin Schrödinger - Nobel Prize Winning Physicist

In fact it is said that Schrödinger was so fed up with the mundanness of science that he gave up hard science in later stages of his life. This is a testimony to how science is good at collecting and interpreting data but falls way short on explaining what makes us human. Most scientists' (my opinion) therefore cannot appreciate the simple things in life, unfortunately. What to speak of an unknown and unseen God!

Anyways, consciousness according to vedic theory is the symptom of the existence of an ethereal substance called soul. The soul is as real as matter (body) but only it does not hold material qualities such as decay or change. It is not affected by material elements of heat, cold, dryness, wetness etc. It is also not subjected to sensual and mental feelings of pain, pleasure, anger, depression etc. So if we remove the sensual, mental and material layers of our self, whatever is remaining is the subliminal soul.

The soul is experiencing this phenomenal world and the quality of awareness stems from the soul. The soul or the actual person is completely independent and in fact entire sense of being (consciousness) of thinking (brain functions), willing and feelings (from our heart) comes from the soul. The body and mind and the ego are windows for the soul to experience and relate with this world. Modern science says that the body+mind+ego=self or person. Vedic science says that soul=self or person and it uses the body+mind+ego as a vessel to experience this world.

Science cannot make any progress in this field of consciousness till they agree to the existence of a completely independent substance called the soul. If they do agree at some point in the future, then the entire field of science has to be re-written.

Hare Krishna

Bhagavatam describes the universe in more detail

Bernard Haisch is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. Based on his life long study of the universe, below are his inferences;

• Special properties of our universe point to an underlying intelligence.
• God is defined as consciousness and that parts of that consciousness are embedded in us.
• Our reality and the laws of physics is like a vast simulation within God consciousness.
• The universe is like a virtual reality developed and advanced over millions of years.
• Fine tuning of the laws of nature strongly meant to the idea that our universe was meant to be lived in and that near-death experiences allude to a spiritual reality. All of this he says points to God's existence.

Interestingly, all of the above points can be found and agreed upon with much more detail in the Srimad Bhagavatam. We do not have to spend our adult life studying mundane books like Bernard and come to the rudimentary conclusions of the Bhagavatam. Instead, under the guidance of a pure soul, if we simply take to the study of Bhagavatam, we can come to the same conclusions as Bernard and better yet get a more deeper insight into the workings of our universe. Unfortunately, Bhagavatam is dubbed as a religious text and hence not given the due respect the book deserves. 

Hare Krishna

Cosmological Principle

Modern cosmology is a field of speculative thoughts interspersed with points of evidence. These evidences act like tent poles holding up the fabric of cosmological theories. Theories such as steady state, big bang, M-theory, grand unified theory etc all give different explanations to the origins and the functioning of the universe. Personally, I found it more of science fiction than science.

Regardless, there are some fundamental axioms that physicists accept. Although, I am not a scientist, it seems hard to accept this lofty assumptions without critically questioning them. Below is a principle that always piqued my doubts related to modern cosmology.

Cosmological Principle:

The cosmological principle derives from the Copernican Principle but has no foundation in any particular physical model or theory, i.e. it can not be `proved' in a mathematical sense. However, it has been supported by numerous observations of our Universe and has great weight from purely empirical grounds. The greatest consequence of the cosmological principle is that it implies that all parts of space are causally connected at some time in the past (although they may no longer be connected today). Thus, a homogeneous Universe leads to the conclusion that the whole Universe appeared at a single moment of time, a Creation.

A corollary to the cosmological principle is that the laws of physics are universal. The same physical laws and models that applies here on the Earth also works in distant stars, galaxies, and all parts of the Universe - this of course simplifies our investigations immensely. Note also that it is assumed that physical constants (such as the gravitational constant, mass of the electron, speed of light) are also the unchanging from place to place within the Universe, and over time.

source - University of Oregon

In actuality, we have experience just on earth that gravity is not entirely constant across the globe. The same is said about time. At different altitudes, time and gravity although mathematically minuscule behaves differently. If we expand distance to light years, this small difference can add  up. Regardless, we cannot know what we cannot know. So unless we travel long distances in outer space to see for ourselves, to assume speed of light, gravity etc to be universal constants across light years is based on huge leap of faith and faith is something science looks down upon. I think there is a sense of hypocrisy built in this assumption.

Hare Krishna

Computational Irreducibility

Computational irreducibility is one of the main ideas proposed by Stephen Wolfram in his book A New Kind of Science. Wolfram terms the inability to shortcut a program (e.g., a system), or otherwise describe its behavior in a simple way, "computational irreducibility". The empirical fact is that the world of simple programs contains a great diversity of behavior, but, because of undecidability, it is impossible to predict what they will do before essentially running them. The idea demonstrates that there are occurrences where theory's predictions are effectively not possible. Wolfram states several phenomena are normally computationally irreducible.

- source: Wikipedia

The behavior of a living being or a man-made system will correspond to the computation of equivalence sophistication. For example, the brain of a child versus an adult will exhibit behavior based on the computation equivalent to the brain’s sophistication. Children’s brains are not developed so they behave differently than an adult’s brain. Wolfram explains as a result of the sophistication of the system, we can only reduce its computation to a certain point after which it is irreducible thus hampering our ability to predict its future behavior in full. Wolfram thinks this is why we are not able to explain the unique unpredictable nature (undecidability) of this natural world. Basically this is a fancy way of saying scientists don’t know everything.

Because science does not fully comprehend the idea of consciousness and is unwilling to admit it within mainstream learning, scientists are coming up with new kinds of science to explain the concept of free-will within our natural world. Computation irreducibility is one such deterministic theory to explain a non-deterministic natural world.

The video captures this idea in short.


 

Hare Krishna

Presuppositions of science

In order for science to operate, scientists have to assume certain unsaid things such as...

1. Uniformity of the rules of the universe. These rules that govern the universe do not change across space and time.
2. Human beings have the ability to collect data of the natural world in full through sensory and cognitive abilities. 
3. The laws of logic are consistent everywhere.
4. The adequacy of words and sentences (language) to describe the completeness of nature and behavior of nature.
5. Inductive conclusions based on uniform natural laws are sufficient to describe the natural world around us.
6. The natural world cannot exist outside the realms of the ability of man to make theories - theory-independent external world.
7. The natural world can be explained fully empirically through numbers.

These are some assumptions science and scientists have to make to even conduct their experiments. In other words, reality or truth or fact of modern man is within the bounds of these assumptions. We will not be able to understand or explain an incident through scientific methods if it happens outside the bounds of these assumptions. In fact, anything that happens outside these bounds either do not exist in reality according to science or considered anomalies which is not given too much value. 

Hare Krishna

Mind over matter

We go one step above, consciousness is above mind which is above matter.

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.

- Max Planck - Quantum Physicist

Hare Krishna

Global warming

Unless we address the ecology of our hearts, it is not possible to change world ecology. Greed of corporations and hedonistic lifestyle of humans lead to exploitation of fauna and flora to the point of natural imbalance which we see manifest as global warming. Along with environmental moratoriums, a spiritual awakening is necessary among the masses to control and prevent global imbalance of nature.

Hare Krishna

The outcome of a mechanistic view of an organism

As scientists attempt to understand a living system, they move down from dimension to dimension, from one level of complexity to the next lower level. I followed this course in my own studies. I went from anatomy to the study of tissues, then to electron microscopy and chemistry, and finally to quantum mechanics. This downward journey through the scale of dimensions has its irony, for in my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons, which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line life has run out through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am now retracing my steps, trying to fight my way back.

- Szent-Gyorgyi A.- Noble Laureate in Medicine

Presuppositions

The “four pillars” of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory are:

1. The observable expansion of the Universe.
2. Origin of the cosmic background radiation.
3. The abundance of light elements.
4. Formation of galaxies and large-scale structure.

The above evidences are valid only if we assume (presuppose) that the universe and its laws are uniform at all times and in all places (the universe by the way is so big even scientists do not have a complete idea). Because modern scientific methods can never test the presuppositions of science, in my opinion, science is founded on principles of faith.

"Nowhere in science do we start from scratch. There is only one place where we can start, that is from where we are...Science is no miraculous creation out of nothing, no spontaneous generation of knowledge from ignorance. When presuppositions are denied a logical status, we remain mired in skepticism" - Abraham Kaplan (philosopher).

"For science does not have any choice about whether or not to accept presupposition of the species-individual structure. It must accept it because, any classification, induction, and gathering of experience in certain laws would be entirely impossible. For there would be an infinite series of experiences without any possibility of connecting one experience with another" - Andrew van Melsen (philosopher)

The quotes from modern philosophers question the objectivity of science as science cannot be purely objective. The bottom line is we are limited beings with limited access to the natural world. If we can recognize this limitation within our knowledge system, we can be more open to other avenues of knowledge gathering.

Hare Krishna

boundaries of observed science

"It is possible to ask whether there is still concealed behind the statistical universe of perception a ‘true’ universe in which the law of causality would be valid. But such speculation seems to us to be without value and meaningless, for physics must confine itself to the description of the relationship between perceptions" -About the intuitive content of quantum mechanics and kinematics, Journal of Physics, Heisenberg 1927, pg 197

The above quote in my opinion is the bedrock of modern science. Einstein, however, disagreed with this. Einstein believed that science describes the objective universe independent of our observation. But Neils Bohr and Heisenberg were of the opinion that the universe exists as we 'observe' it and not in its 'true' sense. In other words, Bohr opined that science simply describes how matter is observed to behave and not the constitutional nature of matter itself implying that science is limited to our perception of the universe and does not describe the 'true' universe. The quote above captures this idea.

When scientists, therefore, pose questions and quantify evidence within the confines of observed behavior of the universe, then the laws of nature as defined by science is merely in fact laws of 'observed' nature and not 'true' nature. Quite often the boundaries between these two exclusive ideas have been purposefully amalgamated.

What is the nature of the universe in its existential true objective state is not explicable within the boundaries of observed science. We have to look for answers elsewhere!

 Hare Krishna

Taxonomy of living beings

Reverse climate change and solve global poverty

Dr. Arvind Panagariya is a professor of economics at Columbia and an alumnus from Princeton. He is also an editor for India Policy Forum and Brookings Institution. He is currently the Vice Chairman of NITI Aayog of India. Talking about climate change in developing countries like India and China, his solution is that developed countries such as the US should invest heavily in research in developing countries so there is enough technology using non-fossil fuels to alleviate climatic change. This may sound like a solution but so far, we have not found any convincing alternate fuel source that can be implemented at a global level. Besides, climate change, poverty and world economy are interlinked to the point that one can adversely impact the other. New technology still requires exploitation of natural resources which again may put us back to square one.

There is another solution – shutting down or at the least reduce half of the global slaughter houses that promote factory farming. This can have a significant impact on climate change and global poverty. Slaughtering animals on a mass scale (factory farming), repeated research has shown, creates massive amounts of greenhouse gases that it is the leading cause of climate change. Al Gore is on record saying "the growing meat intensity of diets around the world is bad for the planet…and the factory farming way so much of our livestock is raised now is very bad for the planet, no question about it". While Al Gore won Nobel peace prize for elevating the climate issue, he admits he likes his meat and has no plans of giving it up. Obviously, there is an inherent hypocrisy involved in his book and movie.

Raising animals for slaughter is a highly inefficient way to use our land and its resources. The prestigious Worldwatch Institute states, "Meat consumption is an inefficient use of grain—the grain is used more efficiently when consumed directly by humans. Continued growth in meat output is dependent on feeding grain to animals, creating competition for grain between affluent meat-eaters and the world’s poor.” According to the United Nations, raising animals for food (including land used for grazing and land used to grow feed crops) uses a staggering 30 percent of the earth’s land mass. More than 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to create cropland to grow grain to feed farmed animals, and according to scientists’ at the Smithsonian Institution, the equivalent of seven football fields of land is bulldozed worldwide every minute to create more room for farmed animals. It takes more than 11 times as much fossil fuel to make one calorie from animal protein as it does to make one calorie from plant protein.

Raising animals for food gobbles up precious energy. Nearly half of all the water used in the United States goes to raising animals for food. In 2008, John Anthony Allan, a professor at King’s College London and the winner of the prestigious Stockholm Water Prize, urged people worldwide to go vegetarian because of the tremendous waste of water involved with eating animals. It takes more than 2,400 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat, while growing 1 pound of wheat only requires 25 gallons. You save more water by not eating a pound of meat than you do by not showering for six months! According to Greenpeace, all the wild animals and trees in more than 2.9 million acres of the Amazon rain forest in Brazil were destroyed in the 2004-2005 crop season in order to grow crops that are used to feed chickens and other animals in factory farms. Finally, According to Oregon State University agriculture professor Peter Cheeke, “factory farming constitutes a frontal assault on the environment, with massive groundwater and air pollution problems”

The evidence is overwhelming - animal slaughter is not only causing global climate issues, it also is promoting and sustaining food poverty. By living a vegetarian lifestyle, one can save large amounts of land and water resources. Using the saved land and water, more people across the world can be fed thus fully eliminating food poverty. When people do not experience food shortage (or food insecurity) there will not be a need to work in substandard working conditions at low-wages. This will also bridge the gap between the rich and poor thus creating a more equitable social, economic and political society.

If the leaders of society can simply take one strategy of stopping or reducing factory farming of animals, one can solve global poverty and reverse climate change. Since the desire to eat meat will always remain, a policy should be mandated to cull animals’ in small scale in local farms. As such a practice will be expensive; the frequency of meat consumption will reduce.

Hare Krishna

The tale of the lucky liver fluke

The question of evolution always come into play as i think it is more fiction than facts. Scientists, in my opinion, make enormous leaps of faith to make conclusions based on evidences. Below is an opening real-world scenario that begins to expose the inadequacy of this theory in regards to accounting for the facts of life.

Like many parasites, liver flukes require more than one distinct host-species to carry them through the various stages of their life-cycles. In their specific case: cows, snails and ants fulfil such roles. As adults, they live in the livers of cows, where they mate, with their eggs being excreted via the host’s fecal matter. Terrestrial snails that dine on such literal left-overs become infected by the fluke’s larvae, which then settle in the snails’ digestive tracts. To protect themselves, the snails form cysts around the little parasites, before excreting them in their own waste. Finally ants, looking to snail slime as a source of moisture, simultaneously ingest these cysts, each of which is filled with hundreds of juvenile flukes.

At first glance, that may all seem to be pretty random. Except that there’s nothing random about the fact that the very distinct stages the flukes pass through in their life- cycle are precisely aligned with their existence within these several and very distinct hosts. The flukes manifest multifarious and specific adaptations to the distinct circumstances posed by each host; while the hosts themselves also provide specific circumstances and responses so as to perfectly serve the flukes’ needs, including their transportation to their next destination. There is some seriously outrageous synchronicity going on here, such a complex and interconnected chain of events as to seemingly defy any rational explanation for how or why it came to be. Nor have we yet come to the most mind-blowing part of their story.

Meanwhile we’ve been educated to believe that explanations of such phenomena are indeed what science is able to provide. In fact Leon Lederman, previous director of the Fermi Particle Accelerator, predicted that the ultimate goal of all their research would manifest in the form of a single equation that would explain absolutely everything, and that would be elegant enough to be written on a T-shirt. Yet never mind a single equation that could sum up everything; how can we account for but an infinitesimal speck of all that absolute ‘everything-ness,’ in the form of the amazing life-journey of the tiny liver fluke?

We just left off this journey with the juvenile flukes about to emerge from their ‘space-capsule’-like cysts within the body of their new unsuspecting host, the ant. These juveniles are then free to wander throughout the ant’s body, but one in particular moves to a critical cluster of nerve-cells lying just underneath the ant’s esophagus, and this is indeed where the most extraordinary element of the story of the Lancet liver fluke takes place.

Somehow or other this fluke is now able to manipulate the nerves there so as to cause its ant-host to act in a most peculiar but obliging fashion. As evening draws near, such an infested ant begins to act in an entirely un-antlike manner, abandoning its natural behaviors in favor of a new set of behaviors that are tailor-made to suit the interests of the flukes. It breaks away from the rest of its nest-mates, who are all back at the nest, snug as only a bug can be; while this uncharacteristically individualistic member of the herd goes off to spend the night firmly ensconced at the tip of a blade of grass.

Now as if that isn’t bizarre enough, in defiance of basic (ant-) logic, it in fact locks itself into place with its mandibles for the apparent purpose of making sure that it will be included in the diet of any cow that happens to graze upon the particular patch of grass it’s perched in. Should no cow happen to thus include that particular grass-blade in its meal, the ant then climbs back down at dawn to rejoin the rest of the colony, acting just like any other ant, and thus escaping the heat of the day which would otherwise kill both it along with its parasitic controllers. What we can say then, is that this particular ant has now been re-programmed by one of the flukes so as to follow a suicide-mission specifically designed for the benefit of the flukes.

So the question is, programmed by what? The ant surely didn’t come up with such a program itself, acting under some self-sacrificing largesse aimed at helping the liver flukes in their own desperate struggle for survival. Yet is it any more reasonable to think that the flukes figured all this out for themselves, according to the panicked genius of the first generation of flukes that suddenly found themselves stuck in the digestive system of an ant, wondering what on earth they should do next to get out of there?

OK - so what is a reasonable answer? According to the theory of evolution, ‘it just happened.’ Science has adopted this answer – and science is, after all, the very paragon of rational and objective thinking. So if it’s science, and therefore presumably true and proven fact, who are we to question it?
Yet once we do begin to think about it, using the current example of the liver fluke as a case in point, all kinds of questions must surely arise. For instance: how did the very first fluke that was swallowed by an ant and then made its way to said ant’s sub-esophageal ganglion before seizing control of the entire ant ... well, how did it do that? How did it come to figure out how to pilot such an alien craft, and how did it even recognize what and where the controls were? After which, how did it determine its next life-supporting destination, namely the strange alien landscape of a cow’s liver; and without the use of anything like a Mars Rover, for instance? Plus, how did it come by the actual chain of events by which it could arrive at said next destination via its new ‘space- ship’... including programming said ship for such activities as are entirely foreign to the fluke itself, such as climbing up grass-blades for the night, locking mandibles (whatever they might be, from a liver fluke’s perspective) in place, and patiently and one-pointedly awaiting the approaching ‘jaws of death’?

Then there is the favorite old conundrum of course, suitably reworded for this particular example: which came first (as far as the fluke is concerned, that is): the cow, the snail or the ant? Or isn’t the simple fact that all three are required simultaneously? What series of prior evolutionary steps could be imagined that could have led up to this spectacularly complex and precise set of arrangements? How is it consistent or rational to imagine that the explanation for such unparalleled complexity is mere arbitrary randomness? Would anyone take seriously, for example, a billionaire’s explaining as to how he became so fabulously wealthy if his only answer was, “Well, I started with nothing actually; and then I didn’t really do anything at all – and, umm, here we are then”?

The development and survival of these parasites requires an incredible degree of precise coordination of many highly complex and specific factors. Nor does such occur only within the body of the fluke itself, but it takes place over several distinct environments, which are in perfect dynamic alignment with the various needs and developmental stages of the fluke.

A myriad specific adaptations are required for the little flukes to thrive within the various host species, which thriving includes being superbly able to take advantage of unique responsive processes within the hosts themselves, such as the snails’ cyst-manufacturing system. Plus a myriad specific adaptations more to facilitate their successful transportation from one species to the next, whereby the species involved are themselves both favorable environments for the flukes to survive in, as well as suitable providers of carriage to the next such favorable environment. In other words, the level of specificity and complexity of the system as a whole is virtually incalculable.

Is it truly and rationally thinkable that all of this could have spontaneously and randomly developed, unplanned and unguided? In other words, out of the incalculable number of possible random mutations or developments that could ever happen, somehow or other, a single precise chain of random events happened to take place as to facilitate the mind-bogglingly complex series of interlocking eco-systems we refer to as the life-story of the liver fluke. Because that is precisely what evolutionary theory tells us, as a matter of supposedly obvious and rational deduction, entirely consistent with experience and evidence. In which case, each and every species might best be referred to as a fluke!

Hare Krishna

The scientific creed

Science prides itself of objectivity and empiricism. When I was in school I always questioned how science made some base assumptions. However, at that time I could not quite articulate my doubts in words. I knew something did not sit very well with me whenever some ideas were taught in the name of science.

For example, when I was introduced to the concept of evolution in middle school, it stated that species evolved to complex organisms over time due to natural selection and only the fittest survive the onslaughts of nature. I thought that if we all evolved in that way, then how come our ancestors still exist in their primitive forms? Because if they survived the struggles of nature, then there is no need to evolve and i wont be sitting here typing on a computer? So did only few our ancestors struggle to evolve through natural selection while others remained without evolution? Perhaps there is an answer, i do not know?

Another glaring thought that bothered me in physics class in high school was the understanding of outer space? I wondered how light, sound etc behaved the same way across the entire cosmos? Scientists assumed that the red and violet frequencies in the light spectrum behaved the same way in outer space millions of light years away as it did on the earth paradigm. Something I could not easily accept from science!

Anyways, i am not a scientist but reading these ten dogmas written by a thoroughbred scientist helped me articulate my own doubts and also shed light onto other assumptions science makes.

Below are the ten core beliefs (or dogmas) that most scientists take for granted. Together, these beliefs make up the philosophy or ideology of scientific materialism.

1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, ‘lumbering robots’, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.
2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.
3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared).
4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same for ever.
5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.
6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain.
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

- By Rupert Sheldrake - Phd Cambridge and Harvard

The argument I have heard for these dogmas is that science "will" in the long run prove these assumptions. In the words of Karl Popper (a scientist philosohper) such future promises are akin to "promissory materialism" meaning making promises for a future discovery or invention that has yet to take place. Srila Prabhupada called it "post-dated" check. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the scientists, even if they do solve these assumptions in the future, it still does not account for the present theories? 

Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. 

- John Keynes an  Economist

You be the judge!

Hare Krishna