This is an though-provoking and well structured write-up.

I can't wait for your next post.

Rohit

Amazing. This is the 'stuff' that keeps me coming back. I love your analysis of life and the beauty of it. I disagree with you on most political issues, but all is forgiven when you write this kind of stuff!!! I love it!! Your books, and these writings are what will propel me to one of your seminars someday to meet the 'great one' in person.

I once was one of those 'fundamentalist christians' you write about, but had too many questions to remain there. Have no quarrel with them, in fact most of my family fits that profile, and I couldn't have better parents than I have. I've never been able to reconcile the '6000 year old earth', with scientific theory. I do absolutely believe in a higher power in the universe, and can't see how it could all be random....so thanks for writing this, sort of brings me out of my "me vs. Deepak" mode, back into the "me and Deepak" mode!!! (bad English, but you get the point!!!)

Anyway, I'm quick to criticize the other 'stuff', so just wanted you to know that I love it when you write like this!! I'll be watching Larry King tonight, anticipating every word!! If you find a way to start the bushbash, my hair will stand on end, but I'll still love you tomorrow....after I growl for a while tonight!!

Thanks for all you do...well, most of it anyway.:)

ray

Than you Deepak! I can't wait to read!

Stefan

Hi Deepak, less than 3 hours and counting. I can hardly wait :)
God bless you.

(ps looking forward to your follow-up post too)

This is called waking up, looking at assumptions, theories and what often amounts to false myths. I know little of this and am thrilled that Deepak is looking at these contrasting and at war views of evolution. It's wonderful. I have been reading about economics lately, and the same thing is happening. Jeffery Sachs has turned the whole theory of economics upside down, with his pursuit of economic models that actually help poor countries and the real suffering millions to improve their lot. And now, John Kenneth Galbraith, I believe is no longer alive, writing with such huge clarity about the dismal history of economics, declaring the obvious: the economic leaders of the western world were largely greedy, ignorant and operating on "classical economics" which simply doesn't reflect reality. There. This is the point, not to waste energy debating the theological merit of one's theories of life, evolution and Darwin's science, but to get a larger look at all of it, and "see" with clarity, a bigger picture, a bigger truth, a more wonderful reality that the smaller, narrower, stubborn, often false, often stupid in hindsight, theories failed to see. To see is the issue, to see larger is the work at hand, no matter what we're up to. To that end I have to salute Deepak. It is the bigger picture I am blessed with that inspires me, and lends me to believe in the passionate pursuit of truth, in my field, in my life, in my heart and mind. This is where it's at.

Hi Deepak,I have a book published by the Brahma Kumaris in Mount Abu.According to that book,Eternal World Drama, these are views of scientists against the evolution theory.

1,Charles Darwin .Not one change of species into another is on record.We can not prove that a single species has changed into another.(Darwin Charles,My life and letters) He cnfessed towards the end of his life.

2.Thomas Huxley.Evolution was not an established theory but a tentative hypothesis,an extremely valuable and even probable hypothesis,but a hypothesis nonetheless.

3.Professor Theodosius Dobzhansky.It would be wrong to say that the biological theory of evolution has gained universal acceptance among the biologists or even among geneticists.

4.Dr Austin H Clark.Ther is no evidence which would show man developing step by step from lower forms of life.There is nothing to show that man was in any way connected to monkeys.He appears suddenly and in substantially same form as he is today.There are no such things as missing links.There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related more or less closely to all the rest,and appearing therefore as a special and distinct creation.

5.Professor J Doyle.Since we cannot prove the evolution of a single organism,it is intellectual presumption to talk of the evolution of the universe in a thousand million years.

6. Dr D'Arcy Thompson.In the study of evolution and in our attempts to trace the descent of the animal kingdom,four score years study of the origin of species ,has had an unlooked for and disappointing result.It has not taught us how birds descended from reptiles,mammals from other quadrupeds,quadrupeds from fishes,nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock.The invertebrates themselves involve the self same difficulties,so that we do not know the origin of the echinoderms,of the molluscs,of the coelenterates,nor one group of protozoa from another .This failure to solve the cardinal problems of evolutionary biology is a curious thing.

7.A mere hypothesis says,Professor G.A.Kerkut.

8.No reliable evidence says ,John T Bonner.

9.Theory suffers from grave defects says Professor Albert Fleishman.

10.Utterly destitute of proof says Sir William Dawson.

11.No scientist can prove it says Dr Mulliken

There are many more scientists listed who say about the same thing.

I am happy in my ignorant belief that we have always been,just like God has always been.We are afterall sparks of the Divine.Thanks for reading. God bless.

Dear Deepak,

Thank you for posting this here, as my work and home schedule seems to always conflict in someway, to where I keep missing your TV appearances. Anyway, I will try to catch this at 9:00 p.m. (PDT) tonight - rerun according to CNN.

....very, very interesting ... I have been pondering upon this for the last several days due to Bharat's post on the subject and my confusion on the matter, as well as my many crazy concepts in order to try and make sense of the physical creation (i.e., especially the human ... me ;-) according to the Bible and what you say, as well as all the other theories.

Love,
Char

My 2 bits:

1. I don't see why Darwinism and intelligent design must necessarily be mutually exclusive categories. There's a bit of truth to both. This society tends to see things as true and false, good and evil, this vs. that.

2. The idea that there is a purpose to the universe is a very Christian concept. This world and everything that happens here is God's Will they belive. When viewed through the "God's purpose" filter the theory of intelligent design sounds flaky. Without that baggage, however, there is much to be considered as you so lucidly spelled out.

3. The Hindu sages envisioned the world as living cosmic intelligence. This too was another way of expressing the concept of intelligent design.

“I am happy in my ignorant belief that we have always been, just like God has always been. We are afterall sparks of the Divine. Thanks for reading. God bless” ~ gjayaram

I like your comment gjayaram, which I quoted above … :-D Thanks! Do you ever ponder upon if the Bible might be referring to the spirit vs. the physical or another level all toghether? …. just a thought … as I am trying to piece it all together …. and my puzzle is a mess!!! ... but I'm still working on it!

Was, Is, Always Will BE.

Love, Char

I began writing a response to this post but it ended up being quite big, so I posted it on my own blog - http://words.haddons.net/archives/000048.html

I'm not trying to bash you, but I do have some disagreements...

Just read this post, its 7:59CST. LKL starts in a minute...heading towards TV...

Tom - I read through your post as well and I think your responses are very compelling as well and I agree. (I'd love to see a respectful debate between the two of you!)

Ray - I was also raised in a fundamentalist christian household and, as a science major, I also had difficulty marrying the bible and evolution. I left the religion and it all became clear ;-) but I didn't abandon spirituality.

Deepak - I think these are great and compelling points. The scientist in me can't help but see the intelligence at work in evolution. When I was attending the University of Toronto, one of my biology professors related this anecdote to me about a lecture he had attended with a leading neurobiologist. This man (who's name I unfortunately forget) was lecturing on the neural connections in the brain and marvelling at how any time one of its neurons fires it has literally millions of possible pathways that it could take... and moreso marvelling at the fact that despite millions and millions of firings on a daily basis, the neuron gets it right nearly 100% of the time. It just *knows* where to go and it's almost impossible that randomness could account for this. He commented that there seemed to be a kind of intelligence at work. At the conclusion of this story I put up my hand and cheekily said to my prof, "you mean like a soul?"

I think that your work here Deepak - in rescuing the idea of Intelligence at work in evolution from the creationists - is EXTREMELY important. Please continue this. I look forward to seeing your appearance on Larry King tonight!

Giarayam - Thank you for the quotes but unfortunately many of them were spoken/written a few hundred years ago. Take Huxley for instance. He has been dead for over 100 years and the advances in evolution, let alone science in general, are innumerable since that time. Science DOES regard evolution as a Theory and not merely an hypothesis in this day and age.

Namaste, Sheba

Haven't had a chance to read the other posts as I am cutting-out to watch this "Spiritual-Advisor-Guy" on Larry King!!

This should be good, but..., the question, "I don't know who will bother to read these points???" What, are you kidding Deepak?

The only ones I've found who are coming close to answering the very questions you pose here--are all Ascended Masters, and a few of them are taking the time to directly ask, and address, or disseminate through personages such as yourself--their answers to same!!

The way your mind works with these incisive questions, then follows with these fabulously-well-reasoned guidance ramps-of-thought, ARE the proof of the "intelligent design" at work--and that THIS INTELLIGENCE is very, very, active in "the moment" of the "here and now!"

One can "see" the Observer literally operating in your aura and interacting with the "observed world" which swirls around you--should I say, "Dr. Merlin Chopra." Gotta "tune out" so we can "tune in" now.

So instead of "bothering" to read or write further, it is time to "bother" my senses with listening to you--along with a good portion of the world's population with Western Media access! Dave

(Heavy sigh) This is the trouble with the debate between the theory (enough said about the term “theory”) of evolution and intelligent design (which technically is not even a theory, it is a belief system similar to the belief that scarab beetles roll the sun across the sky, i.e. if you don’t understand it completely it must have a supernatural cause). The points you outline illustrate the fuzzy understanding of evolution that is too prevalent in the general public or ask questions that have been largely addressed by real science. For myself, I believe the evidence is overwhelmingly for evolution. If you want to believe God had a hand in it, that’s optional and harmless to the theory. I would like to briefly address your points:
1. DNA is actually a very simple molecule (current theory suggests life may have begun with its’ cousin RNA, but lets not digress). It consists of only four “beads” strung together in a long “necklace”. Experiments have shown that these four “beads” (nucleotides) can form from natural processes like any number of small molecules. Scientists have speculated different means of these nucleotides being strung together such as aligning themselves along mineral clays. Now, it only had to happen once, but if among billions and billions of short strings of DNA (or RNA) one string had a tendency to act as a template for a copy of itself, that would have been the kickoff to evolving life: very slow at first, but picking up speed as simple traits develop that increase the tendency to reproduce itself (say, a lipid coating to protect it from chemicals that might break up the chain).
2. This one’s easy. First off, fossilization is a pretty rare process. One fossil animal represents thousands or millions that must have been alive at the time it died. Animals with mutations that prevent them from reproducing don’t reproduce and therefore don’t occur in large numbers and therefore don’t appear in the fossil record. Evolution is elegantly self-regulating that way. And useless mutations do occur all the time. They just don’t have any apparent effect. A genetics professor once told me that the human genome is so large that every person likely has one mutation that has never before occurred in the human species. Now, lets clear something up: most of the variation in multicellular organism does not come from point mutations, but from sexual reproduction and crossing over i.e. the shuffling of genes that occurs in cells when they split up to form sperm and egg. These two processes mix genes up a lot. And why would they even exist if not to produce variation, which is grist for the evolutionary mill. After all, there are only two paths: evolution or extinction.
3. Evolution IS constant. The sharks and turtles and insects and anything else still around would not be genetically identical to their forebears of a few million years ago. You offhandedly discount how they “diversify among their kind”. Chimpanzees, per se, did not exist just two million years ago. Nothing has “stopped” as you put it. Human evolution may seem fast to you, but we are only talking about a tiny, tiny sliver of geologic time.
4. What stuck? What simultaneous? Feathers likely evolved from scales and are really quite similar. I don’t see anything insurmountable in this question. Different traits evolve in response to different circumstances and have different outcomes.
5. Your use of the word “intelligence” here is kind of fuzzy. Do you mean why has life continued to increase in complexity? After the first few billion years of life, there was more to put pressure on organisms than just the physical environment. There were other organisms, the biological environment. Remember the two paths: evolution or extinction. Blue-green algae kept evolving to be the best blue-green algae it could be. Other organisms took different routes to survival. Once multicellular forms occurred, there was a whole new ballgame as far as potential ways to evolve. Things just got more interesting after that.
6. First, lets point out that the examples you give, while similar, are not identical. The human brain is evolved to see patterns in the world around us (handy for figuring out food sources, predator behavior, etc.). Yes, these things are similar, but not identical. The nautilus grows a new chamber on top of the old ones forming a spiral. Spirals in sunflower seeds pack the most seeds in the smallest space. Galaxies spiral because of gravity (another “theory”). DNA is a helix (not a spiral) because of the angle of its chemical bonds. An interesting pattern of forms, but not a hidden message from the Designer.
7. I’m sorry, but this question is pretty incoherent. What do you mean oxygen doesn’t change? Of course it does. It gets split from its molecular form (O2) into two oxygen atoms which get bound to hydrogen to form water as an end product of cellular respiration. All the reactions that occur in the cell can be broken down into steps. Each step obeys the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics as well as if it were happening in a test tube. It has not “acquired intelligence”, whatever that means.
8. When you say “all at once”, what you really mean is over millions of years. We humans often have trouble with geologic time frames. And remember there is more to variation than just “simple mutation”. There are whole mechanisms in cells to shuffle genes. And look into the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Basically, you have a form that works pretty good and it putts along a few tens of million of years until a variation comes along that takes some (not all) down a new path. Things can move pretty fast along this new path until it reaches a form (more likely forms) that work pretty good and that can putt along for a few more tens of millions of years. This also explains a lot of the so-called gaps in the fossil record. As I said above, fossilization is pretty rare. During the fast times not as many fossils will form as during the tens of millions of years of putting along. So the first birds didn’t necessarily have hollow bones, but you can bet that the ones with more hollow bones quickly out competed the ones with less hollow bones. And all the other bird traits would come on pretty quickly as this critter evolved into its new lifestyle.
9. Tautology shmautology. Variations that make an organism more likely to reproduce are more likely to be passed on through reproduction. Variations that make an organism less likely to reproduce will less likely be passed on through reproduction. You play the percentages over a few hundred thousand years and you’ve got evolution! THAT’s what survival of the fittest means. It is beautifully self-regulating. Dodos and kiwis developed the traits that made them more likely to reproduce in their environments (remote islands with few predators). They would putt along until a new variation arose or until the environment changed (like the arrival of hungry humans, poor dodos). Oh, by the way, iron and hydrogen are atoms, not molecules (OK, hydrogen gas is a molecule, but not by itself). Big difference, and shows your weakness in chemistry and after all, biology is pretty much applied chemistry.
10. Here I suggest you read a wonderful book called “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins. It doesn’t matter if the worker bee dies when it stings while protecting the hive. Worker bees themselves do not reproduce. All their reproduction is done through the queen and the drones (the males, which do have sex, if they’re lucky; it’s the workers who can’t have sex, OK?). By protecting them, the worker’s genes get passed on to the next generation.
11. Here again, you are not very clear on your facts. Before flowering plants, there was wind pollination (still practiced very effectively by conifers today). Flowering plants probably evolved around the very fact of insect aided pollination. Remember I said evolution had to take place in the midst of the biological environment as well as the physical environment. Organisms evolve in response to other organisms evolving. Symbioses make perfect sense when you stop looking at the organism as separate from its neighbors.
12. First of all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (I’m sure you expected that). The bird-of-paradise has brilliant plumage to attract a mate. The chameleon has camouflage to avoid predators and sneak up on prey. These are totally different functions, therefore it is your logic that is flawed when you say they can not both be survival mechanisms. Of course they can. That is the real beauty of evolution: that there are so many different ways to do the same thing, namely, get you genes to the next generation. And who are you to judge what organisms are “non-beautiful”. I’m sure their mothers would disagree.
Not only did I read all your points, I had to respond. The whole problem with the debate is people who don’t have a reasonable grasp of the issue. I’m sorry, but it is clear from the fuzzy logic you employ that you don’t. You, like many others, seem particularly troubled by “randomness”. If it will help, think of this. If a storm blows down your neighbor’s house, but leaves yours intact, is it random chance or the Hand of God? I submit to you that random chance is indistinguishable from the Hand of God. That’s not to say that God does not act in the world, but that it is indistinguishable from random chance. (reference Futurama: God says, ”When you do things right, nobody will be sure you’ve done anything at all”). I look forward to your responses to your own points. Maybe you’ll do better the second time ‘round.

Hey Tom Haddon. I read your blog. As a "scientist" (18 years in various areas of environmental science) you did a fine job for a "non-scientist". Keep questioning. Asking questions is more important than getting answers.

All of this.

All of this has no image.
That is there is, no mirror.
It is you that is.

The lady on your program is talking about Science excluding the role of God because of adherence to methodology.

Enlightened souls know that the method is inherent in the search for higher spiritual core values. The path is the way.

The path of critical analysis is the same pursuit of one's inner goal in striving to be better and actualized within this world. The path is the goal. The scientific method adheres to this path.

The distinction only exisits in words, the symoblic value of each is the same within the spirit of the words used to define each.

deepak, i think the best part of the discussion was when you told pastor john macarthur that he was more-or-less an idiot. seriously, you did a terrific job of maintaining your composure when he tried to use your intelligence against you. you quickly explained what you meant and then punched the ball back into his court saying you don't expect him to get it. it was an easy point to comprehend and he wanted to dismiss it. i also enjoyed you finishing his sentence that he only looks to the bible. i really wish there had been more time. it's such a disservice to rely on mere sound-bytes, so thank you for providing much more here.

ooh, the senator just put it to that pastor and you were blunt and stepped to the plate again. at least this sound-byte battle was entertaining. thank you.

Mr. Chopra,
You were awesome on the show. I agree with everything you say and revel in the idea that there is so much we don't know, but we are able to learn about it if we ask the right questions and stay open minded and keep enjoying the journey. Mr. Shay was also admirable as a Christian in supporting not teaching Intelligent Design. I had to laugh (shame on me) at the Christian Fundie being so combative and closed-minded. Every time he spoke, I kept hearing in my mind, Case in point! as to why this needs to stay out of public school classrooms. May the force be with you Mr. Chopra. You have been my hero for years! I still don't know how to make my gray hairs go away yet, but I keep trying!

When evolutionist speak about missing link, think about what they are saying. The evidence is not there, I don't know how to link one species to another, I don't know how to explain my belief but I'll call it missing link and make it sound as if it's a genuine scientific term when I speak it over and over again. Here's an established study of science. Stoichemsitry found by Louis Pastuer. Yes the same guy known for the pastuerization process used with the milk we drink. He concluded that life can only come from life not inorganic matter.

Science tries to explain how things in the World work and function. It does this through methodology and testing. It has general application, religion is nothing more than a story that has passed down to explain what Science cannot.

If we are to believe the story of Creationism, then we are as innocent as those religious biggots who believed the world was not round. Grow up... allow our kids to actually develop their minds rather than inhibiting them with something as false as the belief in Santa Clause

Mr. Chopra,
You were awesome on the show. I agree with everything you say and revel in the idea that there is so much we don't know, but we are able to learn about it if we ask the right questions and stay open minded and keep enjoying the journey. Mr. Shays was also admirable as a Christian in supporting not teaching Intelligent Design. I had to laugh (shame on me) at the Christian Fundie being so combative and closed-minded. Every time he spoke, I kept hearing in my mind, Case in point! as to why this needs to stay out of public school classrooms. May the force be with you Mr. Chopra. You have been my hero for years! I still don't know how to make my gray hairs go away yet, but I keep trying!

Science tries to explain how things in the World work and function. It does this through methodology and testing. It has general application, religion is nothing more than a story that has passed down to explain what Science cannot.

If we are to believe the story of Creationism, then we are as innocent as those religious biggots who believed the world was not round. Grow up... allow our kids to actually develop their minds rather than inhibiting them with something as false as the belief in Santa Clause

When evolutionist speak about missing link, think about what they are saying. The evidence is not there, I don't know how to link one species to another, I don't know how to explain my belief but I'll call it missing link and make it sound as if it's a genuine scientific term when I speak it over and over again. Here's an established study of science. Stoichemsitry found by Louis Pastuer. Yes the same guy known for the pastuerization process used with the milk we drink. He concluded that life can only come from life not inorganic matter.

Science tries to explain how things in the World work and function. It does this through methodology and testing. It has general application, religion is nothing more than a story that has passed down to explain what Science cannot.

If we are to believe the story of Creationism, then we are as innocent as those religious biggots who believed the world was not round. Grow up... allow our kids to actually develop their minds rather than inhibiting them with something as false as the belief in Santa Clause

Where is the connection between life being complicated and the idea of an intelligent designer. There is no proof, no evidence no testable hypothesis. It would be no less accurate to state that since life is so complex it must have been created in a giant factory in outer space-or any other idea grasped from thin air. Why does the christian view of creation become the logical answer? What would these people say if we proposed that the teaching of the giant outer space factory theory should have equal status to evolution in science classes. What of other religions creation theories? Get real- this is a very obvious attempt to use junk science to promote one particular religious view. Completely inappropriate for government to condone on any level. What ever happened to critical thinking. We are slipping back into the dark ages.

I find all this so fascinating. It's almost like the universe is giving birth. When you speak of the change in scales, skin, feathers, it's similar to the wonders of how cells know to divide into the organs, tissue, brain cells, etc in an embryo. Our bodies have cells that can be disruptive as well as the earth and universe. As intelligent as every cell is so it seems is the cosmos. There was a lot in this article that I had never thought of before,that make the journey that much more fascinating!!!

christians scare me more than any other "organized" religion. Why can people not separate faith and spirituality from politics and religion.....

Science tries to explain how things in the World work and function. It does this through methodology and testing. It has general application, religion is nothing more than a story that has passed down to explain what Science cannot.

If we are to believe the story of Creationism, then we are as innocent as those religious biggots who believed the world was not round. Grow up... allow our kids to actually develop their minds rather than inhibiting them with something as false as the belief in Santa Clause

You are a brave man having comment on your blog Mr. Chopra, lol. I'm totally insync with your beliefs and thought you did well on Larry King tonight! I will follow your blog on this matter. Kudos for opening up the comments.

Where is the connection between life being complicated and the idea of an intelligent designer. There is no proof, no evidence no testable hypothesis. It would be no less accurate to state that since life is so complex it must have been created in a giant factory in outer space-or any other idea grasped from thin air. Why does the christian view of creation become the logical answer? What would these people say if we proposed that the teaching of the giant outer space factory theory should have equal status to evolution in science classes. What of other religions creation theories? Get real- this is a very obvious attempt to use junk science to promote one particular religious view. Completely inappropriate for government to condone on any level. What ever happened to critical thinking. We are slipping back into the dark ages.

christians scare me more than any other "organized" religion. Why can people not separate faith and spirituality from politics and religion.....

Excellent show. Just watched it. It was a test of willpower, but enjoyable debate nonetheless. I want to address each of your questions carefully, so I will post responses to them soon, thank you for being you and being on larry king!

I can't believe this conversation is taking place!! If the U.S. wants to compete in a world market, our schools must be academically superior. How can our students gain academic superiority if they have to discuss God and creationism instead in place of actual science? This is just a way to get religion -- Christianity, precisely -- into the classroom. Just another way to let non-Christians know we are merely tolerated, but not wanted.

If you took all the parts needed to build a computer and closed them inside the case, how long would you have to wait or how many times would you have to shake it before it would become a working, bootable computer?

God's creation is much more complex than a computer.

People need to understand the "eternal" nature of God... and that God is outside time. There is no "next moment" with God he sees all time as a flat surface... time in it's entirity from begining to end.

Forgive me....

Is anyone concerned with the connection between the frighteningly unchecked rise of fundamentalist christianity in American, and what has begun to look like the seeds of an Islamic Republic in Iraq?? Does anyone else see that Mr. Bush has sold his soul to the fundamentalists of religion in America, and so he is hard pressed, now, to "push back" on certain Shite elements that demand a role for Islam in a new Iraqi constitution?? This on a day when a prominent American fundamentalist christian (Pat Roberts) called for the assasination of a soveriegn world leader, and Mr. Bush has yet to publicly denounce that call? What are we doing here? Are we all sheep being led by the nose? Why don't we rise as a majority and demand that Mr. Bush denounce Pat Robertson, as well as the shenanigans that took place at the close of the Iraqi congress session, last night??!!

The Reverand made a serious and unforgivable error. In Genesis, the word for day is Yom (Hebrew). The days referred to before the sun was not created was not defined as 24 hrs as the Reverand declared. Learned Hebrew scholars had declared that the days referred to could have been thousands and thousands of years.

If the fundamentalist preacher doesn't know this, what else doesn't he know about basic Biblical scholarship.

Mr. Chopra,
You were awesome on the show. I agree with everything you say and revel in the idea that there is so much we don't know, but we are able to learn about it if we ask the right questions and stay open minded and keep enjoying the journey. Mr. Shays was also admirable as a Christian in supporting not teaching Intelligent Design. I had to laugh (shame on me) at the Christian Fundie being so combative and closed-minded. Every time he spoke, I kept hearing in my mind, Case in point! as to why this needs to stay out of public school classrooms. May the force be with you Mr. Chopra. You have been my hero for years! I still don't know how to make my gray hairs go away yet, but I keep trying!

Point #2: The reason we find primarily "positive" mutations is because they (obviously) out-survive detrimental mutations by an enormous factor. Kelly's 5th law: Positive mutations will outway detrimental mutations (ultimately, as in the fossil record) in a relationship that is directly inversely proportional to the % of "good" versus "bad" mutations. In other words, if there is only one beneficial mutation for every one million detrimental mutations, the population will eventually be replaced by that "good" mutation by the same ratio.

christians scare me more than any other "organized" religion. Why can people not separate faith and spirituality from politics and religion.....

If you took all the parts needed to build a computer and closed them inside the case, how long would you have to wait or how many times would you have to shake it before it would become a working, bootable computer?

God's creation is much more complex than a computer.

People need to understand the "eternal" nature of God... and that God is outside time. There is no "next moment" with God he sees all time as a flat surface... time in it's entirity from begining to end.

Forgive me....

If you intend to discuss "intelligent Design" or even evolution as a "begiinning". Then you must actually focus on the beginning. If you leave out all forms of matter and set aside life itself, where did the space it all takes place in come from? The universe itself that is?
Face it. It takes more faith to believe we started out as premordial slime than it does to believe in God. Evolution is just the beginning of a failed argument on how this world began.

I can't believe this conversation is taking place!! If the U.S. wants to compete in a world market, our schools must be academically superior. How can our students gain academic superiority if they have to discuss God and creationism instead in place of actual science? This is just a way to get religion -- Christianity, precisely -- into the classroom. Just another way to let non-Christians know we are merely tolerated, but not wanted.

is it possible that there is information out there that we couldn't possibly understand. is there info more complex than a human mind can understand because if so that could explain how an intelligent designer came into being.
its really to bad that many people seem to not be concerned with the truth but the appearance of the truth.
with evolution, i heard it best from dr dino (kent hovind) that there is no way you could prove of fossil of and animal or human had kids. there is no way to prove that over time monkeys evolved into man.
anyone with a mind can see that a building is proof that there was a builder or painting is proof that there is a painter, ray comfort says it best,"you couldn't want better proof.
its amazing people will continue to doubt God's existence, however is explained in the bible that a fool will doubt the existence of God.

There is a good reason why the founding fathers did not include religion as part of the US Constitution while building the foundation of this strong and democratic country.

This is a dangerous road to tread on. You only have to look at several failed States around the world that have inter-mingled religion, the state, the judiciary and the constitution; and learn that the best place for religion is outside of politics and a well-functioning democracy.

Why can't we enjoy nature, marvel at its creativity, learn from its various complexities and accept that no matter what, some questions will always go unanswered?

Deepak,

With respect, I stopped reading after your second point because it became painfully obvious that you do not understand evolutionary theory. Point one is completely incorrect/misleading, but would take a while to explain, so I'll limit myself to number two.

"2. If mutations are random, why does the fossil record demonstrate so many positive mutations--those that lead to new species--and so few negative ones? Random chance should produce useless mutations thousands of times more often than positive ones."

You are correct about one thing: mutations are overwhelmingly negative or useless. The answer to your question is natural selection, which is also why evolution does not work by "random chance." Mutation is random, evolution is not. Through the process of natural selection, which we can observe today in nature and in human society, negative mutations simply do not survive/reproduce. That is the simple reason why we do not see fossil evidence of negative mutations.

I mean no offense, because I greatly respect some of your work, but you demonstrate complete ignorance of the most basic tenets of evolutionary theory. I suggest you read up before putting forth more weak and easily refuted arguments on this topic.

Open letter to Christianity. STOP RAMMING YOUR BELIEFS DOWN EVERYONES THROAT! Everyone is welcome to their own beliefs, but it is wrong to try and force those on the rest of society.

Why do we never hear about teaching Muslim, Hindu or American Indian theory of intelligent design in our schools? It appears to always be Christan based. So the real issue promoting a specific religion, not
education.

Now Deepak: That was not fair! Barbara got lost in the "Forrest" of her DNA and "The Pastor,"--now Deepak--didn't Maa and Daddy teach you that it is not fair "to have a battle of wits with unarmed people!"

For some reason--I seem to be sensing the echo of those two parents laughing uncontrollably about "the Pastor's points about getting that 'six-day' theme correct," lest they be unable to assist your soul out of the "pot-of-quantum-soup" you just stirred up with that impish and devilish grinning going on--the media and your audience did not miss those humorous smiles I might add!!

That was way too "cool for school," but Barbara is right about the fact that high school science teachers are already overburdened and have no business teaching any of your positions, particulary about "the Observer," in high school science!

Those "observed scientific facts" should be taught at the kindergarten and elementary levels so that by the time these students have gotten to high school--they have been allowed to develop the abilities to open up the "genetic software" locked away in the DNA going unused in the other 90% of the brain and nervous system.

To be followed by Pat Robertson's "political postitions" was icing on an already immensely humorous cake--in all seriousness!!! Thanks for the great Tuesday night Deepak! Dave

The Reverand made a serious and unforgivable error. In Genesis, the word for day is Yom (Hebrew). The days referred to before the sun was not created was not defined as 24 hrs as the Reverand declared. Learned Hebrew scholars had declared that the days referred to could have been thousands and thousands of years.

If the fundamentalist preacher doesn't know this, what else doesn't he know about basic Biblical scholarship.

Intelligent design is really just a revision of the old cosmological fallacy and natural theology. The idea is that one can detect evidences of design in so-called "nature."

I am a college professor and have taught a course called, "Human Evolution and Prehistory." If I were God, and I were going to design life on the earth, I would not choose to do so on the basis of natural selection (Herbert Spencer's survival of the fittest).

I accept natural selection on the basis of the evidence, but I see no basis for concluding that natural selection demonstrates design.

Here is my view: Evolution is God's Will. Period. That is not theistic evolution, which generally posits that God micromanages (or actively directs) evolution. It is a nominalist, Ockhamist view of evolution which separates it from theological concerns.

Once again, evolution is God's Will. Period.

Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.
http://markfoster.net

The Reverand made a serious and unforgivable error. In Genesis, the word for day is Yom (Hebrew). The days referred to before the sun was not created was not defined as 24 hrs as the Reverand declared. Learned Hebrew scholars had declared that the days referred to could have been thousands and thousands of years.

If the fundamentalist preacher doesn't know this, what else doesn't he know about basic Biblical scholarship.

Deepak, yours was a voice of reason tonight in the debate and I believe had the science teacher momentarily speechless when discussing the observed vs. the observer (though I think she could add intelligently to that discussion, but thought it too advanced for a high school audience). Evolutionary Psychology ofcourse asks the same questions that you posit: What about the evolution of the consciousness of consciousness? How did we evolve our sense of sensing ourselves? It was a worthwhile program altogether. I wish you would have agreed with her more on the methodology of science; to give the woman balance. But thanks for what you did contribute. Wm Dembski and his ilk are very dangerous to the American educational system!

WWW.RAMTHA.COM Expand your consciousness people, stop living in ignorance of your life, and how everything works in your life.

It is plan and simple you create your very life with the thoughts you send out into the Universe. You create your reality, Consciousness and energy are the driving force of all reality.

Common Thought chooses our destiny!!!!!

You should also know that what I have learned is we can only demonstrate what we are capable of demonstrating. And if you would say, well, what is blocking me from doing that, the only block that we have is our LACK to SURRENDER, our ability to surrender, our ability to allow, and our ability to support ourself even in the face of our own neurological or neuronet doubt.

You are GOD, A divine action upon a plane of demonstation to bring forth the unknown.

For free Introduction to Ramtha's Anicent School of Wisdom click here to receive a completely free DVD video sent to your house!

http://ramtha.com/cgi-bin/email/beginner-packet.asp

Enjoy your journey people!

Oh and if my brother Deepak Chopra is reading this I'd be glad to get in further contact with you sometime, if you have the time, which you should since we are eternal beings if you understand that!

Expand your consciousness, or ignorance will be your demise.

Observer: It refers to the Observer responsible for collapsing the particle/wave of quantum mechanics. It represents the true self, the Spirit, primary consciousness, the God within the human person!

Actually Dale - if the Big Bang is the start of our universe as we know it, surely the explanation to how it began (from nothing) is not necessary. This is because before the Big Bang it is likely that the laws of physics and time were completely differet. I understand that we lack concrete evidence... but then again religious explanations to how things work or exist have been constantly adapted. Unlike Science - which works on theories and data, religion is absolute, creationists will not flex their views - similar I might add to Christians who believed that the World was in the center of the Universe. How are can we teach our kids to be that insular and uncompromising.

Intelligent design is really just a revision of the old cosmological fallacy and natural theology. The idea is that one can detect evidences of design in so-called "nature."

I am a college professor and have taught a course called, "Human Evolution and Prehistory." If I were God, and I were going to design life on the earth, I would not choose to do so on the basis of natural selection (Herbert Spencer's survival of the fittest).

I accept natural selection on the basis of the evidence, but I see no basis for concluding that natural selection demonstrates design.

Here is my view: Evolution is God's Will. Period. That is not theistic evolution, which generally posits that God micromanages (or actively directs) evolution. It is a nominalist, Ockhamist view of evolution which separates it from theological concerns.

Once again, evolution is God's Will. Period.

Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.
http://markfoster.net

Bravo Deepak. I've up with a few of the same questions that Darwinism cannot answer.

I'm glad that this intelligent discussion can occur, and only wish it would occur more often in public schools. I believe that critical thinking is sorely lacking in American public schools. It seems that high schools are afraid to ask their students to do much independent critical thinking, and leave students unprepared for college.

Just my 2 cents

WWW.RAMTHA.COM Expand your consciousness people, stop living in ignorance of your life, and how everything works in your life.

It is plan and simple you create your very life with the thoughts you send out into the Universe. You create your reality, Consciousness and energy are the driving force of all reality.

Common Thought chooses our destiny!!!!!

You should also know that what I have learned is we can only demonstrate what we are capable of demonstrating. And if you would say, well, what is blocking me from doing that, the only block that we have is our LACK to SURRENDER, our ability to surrender, our ability to allow, and our ability to support ourself even in the face of our own neurological or neuronet doubt.

You are GOD, A divine action upon a plane of demonstation to bring forth the unknown.

For free Introduction to Ramtha's Anicent School of Wisdom click here to receive a completely free DVD video sent to your house!

http://ramtha.com/cgi-bin/email/beginner-packet.asp

Enjoy your journey people!

Oh and if my brother Deepak Chopra is reading this I'd be glad to get in further contact with you sometime, if you have the time, which you should since we are eternal beings if you understand that!

Expand your consciousness, or ignorance will be your demise.

Observer: It refers to the Observer responsible for collapsing the particle/wave of quantum mechanics. It represents the true self, the Spirit, primary consciousness, the God within the human person!

All I know is that

A)Democracy promotes the right to every person of "Freedom of belief/religeon" and therefore the mere idea should be promoted as an option inside the classroom whether believer or not.

B)When I look at something as obscure and unintelligent (compared to us) as a spider, it almost makes me laugh...But somehow that very spider has a built in knowledge of the very same web pattern (using excellent geometry and mathematics) as all other spiders of the same species.

Anyways, lets not let our emotions play a part in this...but think about it all..

Jewish religion is source for this theory where Adam and Eve got created by GOD some 10,000 years ago. This defy all science that we know.

Bible,Quran follows the Torah (Jewish) book. US is charging that Quran is a book of 6th century. I think Bible and Torah are even older and its right time debate should happen about these books and follower of the books.

Science is the only saviour and not religions.

Outstanding the way you debated the Pastor. Why don't you 2 get your own show, kinda like a religious Crossfire?

it is obvious the power of the fundamental Christians. they can push through their agenda, anytime, anywhere, on this whole planet we call Earth.

Some of this reminds me of a probability paradox I've been thinking about...it goes like this:

Say your parents never met...we can say then that you would never have been born, right? And it's also true if your grandparents -- on both sides, had not met each other, you would not have been born. Same all the way back, doubling each time/4 people/8/16/32/64/128 etc--so one can say that the "odds" of "you" (the reader) ever being born were incredibly slim! And so you should consider yourself very lucky...

But this is also true for everyone--so in a sense, we all seem to have incredibly--amazingly--beaten the odds of ever having to be born. But this seems to be way too low a probabibility to be a likely explanation for why we are here...In other words, if the odds were 100 million to one for you to ever be born (that is if any one of your ancestors never met his/her mate) then the odds applied to the billions who live now are incalculably small...

So, if it seems that probability makes it incredibly unlikely that we could all be here, perhaps another way to look at it is not that we all won an incredible lottery--trillions to one--but that it was the opposite--that the odds of all of us being here were 100%...some other greater unseen force is at work...

Thoughts? Comments?

All I know is that

A)Democracy promotes the right to every person of "Freedom of belief/religeon" and therefore the mere idea should be promoted as an option inside the classroom whether believer or not.

B)When I look at something as obscure and unintelligent (compared to us) as a spider, it almost makes me laugh...But somehow that very spider has a built in knowledge of the very same web pattern (using excellent geometry and mathematics) as all other spiders of the same species.

Anyways, lets not let our emotions play a part in this...but think about it all..

After listening to everybody on Larry King, all I can say is that society really does not know anything, and any speculation is just opinion in one form or another.

My opinion is that I don't know enough yet to answer the question: Why am I here?

Having just toured the Pompeii exhibit in Ottawa, maybe the world is just a campus to learn things like "Don't live under the shadow of a volcano" and other such useful tidbits to know. Maybe we are in a school learning the difference between science and religion. Who knows eh? It is tough, but not impossible, to live with those zealots who know it all. :-)

Cheers, Al

All I know is that

A)Democracy promotes the right to every person of "Freedom of belief/religeon" and therefore the mere idea should be promoted as an option inside the classroom whether believer or not.

B)When I look at something as obscure and unintelligent (compared to us) as a spider, it almost makes me laugh...But somehow that very spider has a built in knowledge of the very same web pattern (using excellent geometry and mathematics) as all other spiders of the same species.

Anyways, lets not let our emotions play a part in this...but think about it all..

Intelligent design is really just a revision of the old cosmological fallacy and natural theology. The idea is that one can detect evidences of design in so-called "nature."

I am a college professor and have taught a course called, "Human Evolution and Prehistory." If I were God, and I were going to design life on the earth, I would not choose to do so on the basis of natural selection (Herbert Spencer's survival of the fittest).

I accept natural selection on the basis of the evidence, but I see no basis for concluding that natural selection demonstrates design.

Here is my view: Evolution is God's Will. Period. That is not theistic evolution, which generally posits that God micromanages (or actively directs) evolution. It is a nominalist, Ockhamist view of evolution which separates it from theological concerns.

Once again, evolution is God's Will. Period.

Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.
http://markfoster.net

I think we forget the story of adam and eve. what makes us of the flesh imagine that we are even at the forefront of a mind that can understand ourselfs or the world in which we live. "every kingdom divided aganst itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided aganst itself will not stand"

Deepak, I had heard of you before the interview with King but I didn't really have a knowledge of who you were, so I did some research, interestingly enough you seem intensely interested in Bhagavad Gita, which I have just spent a few weeks analyzing, through the vested interest of Ralph Waldo Emerson... in any event, that coincidence just sparked my interest.

On the topic of intelligent design, it's difficult for me to imagine what kind of a cirriculumn would be manifested to teach the topic, if it is merely a means to bring up the controversy of Religion vs. Science, I don't really see it having a place in the classroom. That being said if Intelligent Design and it's advocates don't get a share, I don't see why Evolution should be taught either, as you have so humbly stated above, there are missing pieces to this big puzzle of ours.

The truth is that humanity is limited, fallible, it's one of the agnostic strengths of Christianity, to state that humans are imperfect. Darwin was a focused individual who may have benefited from opening himself up to some theological consideration. We have limited viewpoints and it's one of humanity's grave errors to believe itself to be much superior than other species, because in limiting their evolution (which I sincerely believe, that humans are @ fault for the stunting of other species progress) we have limited our own to a much more narrow perspective.

If we were indeed created or "designed" by some external entity, then that force must have indeed harbored some considerable intelligence, that can go without mentioning HOWEVER, this also must be examined as far as what use the designer would serve inside of our daily tidings. If a God does exist, it obviously doesn't want it's presence discovered by humanity unanimously, but rather selectively... it is important to consider our origins both scientifically and meta-cognitively, but these considerations for the majority of young people aged 5-18 is a little much, I propose America solve the current problems in education before moving on to new ones.

These questions of "Do we have a soul?" "What does it all mean?" "What kind of a God is 'out there"? Are all prompted to humans living the United States that have a genuine drive to learn about them, usually this comes about from the usage of Enthogens immediately following High School
-z

Intelligent design is really just a revision of the old cosmological fallacy and natural theology. The idea is that one can detect evidences of design in so-called "nature."

I am a college professor and have taught a course called, "Human Evolution and Prehistory." If I were God, and I were going to design life on the earth, I would not choose to do so on the basis of natural selection (Herbert Spencer's survival of the fittest).

I accept natural selection on the basis of the evidence, but I see no basis for concluding that natural selection demonstrates design.

Here is my view: Evolution is God's Will. Period. That is not theistic evolution, which generally posits that God micromanages (or actively directs) evolution. It is a nominalist, Ockhamist view of evolution which separates it from theological concerns.

Once again, evolution is God's Will. Period.

Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.
http://markfoster.net

After listening to everybody on Larry King, all I can say is that society really does not know anything, and any speculation is just opinion in one form or another.

My opinion is that I don't know enough yet to answer the question: Why am I here?

Having just toured the Pompeii exhibit in Ottawa, maybe the world is just a campus to learn things like "Don't live under the shadow of a volcano" and other such useful tidbits to know. Maybe we are in a school learning the difference between science and religion. Who knows eh? It is tough, but not impossible, to live with those zealots who know it all. :-)

Cheers, Al

Propose teaching a non christian creation theory disguised as science (just as intelligent design disguises teaching of christian creation theory) and watch the evangelicals protest. They are not proposing teaching all possible theories, just their own.

You can not give equal weight to 2 theories when one has overwhelming evidence behind it (evolution) and the other has just unsupported assumptions (intelligent design).

The bible can not be given as supporting evidence as it is a very old work which is likely fiction.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Deepak, I had heard of you before the interview with King but I didn't really have a knowledge of who you were, so I did some research, interestingly enough you seem intensely interested in Bhagavad Gita, which I have just spent a few weeks analyzing, through the vested interest of Ralph Waldo Emerson... in any event, that coincidence just sparked my interest.

On the topic of intelligent design, it's difficult for me to imagine what kind of a cirriculumn would be manifested to teach the topic, if it is merely a means to bring up the controversy of Religion vs. Science, I don't really see it having a place in the classroom. That being said if Intelligent Design and it's advocates don't get a share, I don't see why Evolution should be taught either, as you have so humbly stated above, there are missing pieces to this big puzzle of ours.

The truth is that humanity is limited, fallible, it's one of the agnostic strengths of Christianity, to state that humans are imperfect. Darwin was a focused individual who may have benefited from opening himself up to some theological consideration. We have limited viewpoints and it's one of humanity's grave errors to believe itself to be much superior than other species, because in limiting their evolution (which I sincerely believe, that humans are @ fault for the stunting of other species progress) we have limited our own to a much more narrow perspective.

If we were indeed created or "designed" by some external entity, then that force must have indeed harbored some considerable intelligence, that can go without mentioning HOWEVER, this also must be examined as far as what use the designer would serve inside of our daily tidings. If a God does exist, it obviously doesn't want it's presence discovered by humanity unanimously, but rather selectively... it is important to consider our origins both scientifically and meta-cognitively, but these considerations for the majority of young people aged 5-18 is a little much, I propose America solve the current problems in education before moving on to new ones.

These questions of "Do we have a soul?" "What does it all mean?" "What kind of a God is 'out there"? Are all prompted to humans living the United States that have a genuine drive to learn about them, usually this comes about from the usage of Enthogens immediately following High School
-z

Deepak, you did a fantasitic job. Also, you said it beautifully: "the evolution of our consciousness and the evolution of our consciousness of our consciousness"......he (John MacArthur sp? ) didn't get it so he tried to knock it.
I do wish, however, that you had had more air time.
I hope you are taking good care of yourself.....it looks like you've lost weight....God bless you Deepak and thank you for all you do

After listening to everybody on Larry King, all I can say is that society really does not know anything, and any speculation is just opinion in one form or another.

My opinion is that I don't know enough yet to answer the question: Why am I here?

Having just toured the Pompeii exhibit in Ottawa, maybe the world is just a campus to learn things like "Don't live under the shadow of a volcano" and other such useful tidbits to know. Maybe we are in a school learning the difference between science and religion. Who knows eh? It is tough, but not impossible, to live with those zealots who know it all. :-)

Cheers, Al

"...by asking them (our questions) honestly, without foregone conclusions..." The ability/freedom to consider an idea from any perspective we choose for as long as we choose seems to frighten some folks.

Deepak, I had heard of you before the interview with King but I didn't really have a knowledge of who you were, so I did some research, interestingly enough you seem intensely interested in Bhagavad Gita, which I have just spent a few weeks analyzing, through the vested interest of Ralph Waldo Emerson... in any event, that coincidence just sparked my interest.

On the topic of intelligent design, it's difficult for me to imagine what kind of a cirriculumn would be manifested to teach the topic, if it is merely a means to bring up the controversy of Religion vs. Science, I don't really see it having a place in the classroom. That being said if Intelligent Design and it's advocates don't get a share, I don't see why Evolution should be taught either, as you have so humbly stated above, there are missing pieces to this big puzzle of ours.

The truth is that humanity is limited, fallible, it's one of the agnostic strengths of Christianity, to state that humans are imperfect. Darwin was a focused individual who may have benefited from opening himself up to some theological consideration. We have limited viewpoints and it's one of humanity's grave errors to believe itself to be much superior than other species, because in limiting their evolution (which I sincerely believe, that humans are @ fault for the stunting of other species progress) we have limited our own to a much more narrow perspective.

If we were indeed created or "designed" by some external entity, then that force must have indeed harbored some considerable intelligence, that can go without mentioning HOWEVER, this also must be examined as far as what use the designer would serve inside of our daily tidings. If a God does exist, it obviously doesn't want it's presence discovered by humanity unanimously, but rather selectively... it is important to consider our origins both scientifically and meta-cognitively, but these considerations for the majority of young people aged 5-18 is a little much, I propose America solve the current problems in education before moving on to new ones.

These questions of "Do we have a soul?" "What does it all mean?" "What kind of a God is 'out there"? Are all prompted to humans living the United States that have a genuine drive to learn about them, usually this comes about from the usage of Enthogens immediately following High School
-z

After listening to everybody on Larry King, all I can say is that society really does not know anything, and any speculation is just opinion in one form or another.

My opinion is that I don't know enough yet to answer the question: Why am I here?

Having just toured the Pompeii exhibit in Ottawa, maybe the world is just a campus to learn things like "Don't live under the shadow of a volcano" and other such useful tidbits to know. Maybe we are in a school learning the difference between science and religion. Who knows eh? It is tough, but not impossible, to live with those zealots who know it all. :-)

Cheers, Al

late--must ask Course in Miracles question--only very quickly glanced over deepak's'"int. design w/o bible" and commentbloggers' comments above [therefore no right to comment?--but will anyway]--one (of many/infinite) possiblities not discussed on L. King is theory "explanation" expressed in A Course in Miracles. Deepak/Dr. Chopra, I do recall your quoting from the Course (in a positive sense, if I interpreted you properly)one "lesson" (of many) from the Course: "Today I shall judge nothing that occurs" (although no cite to Course). I respect your books/tapes much-would love to hear your thoughts on Course------very best (great job on L King--my but you're getting forceful/aggressive (good--[I guess] as they talk over you constantly [but does your reaction/response first require you to "judge" them?) Honest question--not trying to be smart aleck. very best...clay

CREATIONISTS are merely explaining the unexplained with A FICTIONAL STORY that has NO EVIDENCE. They have done this HISTORICALLY as a method of CONTROL.

CREATIONISM HAS NO EVIDENCE, NOR A POSSIBLE TEST so it cannot be included in SCIENCE.

SCIENCE is a rational subject that is OPEN TO CHANGE. RELIGION IS ABSOLUTE AND UNCOMPROMISING. It HINDERS kids NATURAL PROGRESSION because it BLINDS them of the actual WORLD.

Instead of trying to following MYTHICAL DEPICTIONS of the beginning of LIFE - why don't Christians (especially) focus more of their TIME into EDUCATING and UNDERSTANDING.

I like the intelligent scientific point of you, great analysis. What is most critical issues in this short life?
The definition of success--To laugh much; to win respect of intelligent persons and the affections of children; to earn the approbation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to give one's self; to leave the world a little better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to have played and laughed with enthusiasm, and sung with exultation; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived--this is to have succeeded."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

After listening to everybody on Larry King, all I can say is that society really does not know anything, and any speculation is just opinion in one form or another.

My opinion is that I don't know enough yet to answer the question: Why am I here?

Having just toured the Pompeii exhibit in Ottawa, maybe the world is just a campus to learn things like "Don't live under the shadow of a volcano" and other such useful tidbits to know. Maybe we are in a school learning the difference between science and religion. Who knows eh? It is tough, but not impossible, to live with those zealots who know it all. :-)

Cheers, Al

I thought you did wonderfully on the show! Good job. I do, however, second the recommendation someone else posted about Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene."

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

I like the intelligent scientific point of you, great analysis. What is most critical issue in this short life?
The definition of success--To laugh much; to win respect of intelligent persons and the affections of children; to earn the approbation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to give one's self; to leave the world a little better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to have played and laughed with enthusiasm, and sung with exultation; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived--this is to have succeeded."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

late--must ask Course in Miracles question--only very quickly glanced over deepak's'"int. design w/o bible" and commentbloggers' comments above [therefore no right to comment?--but will anyway]--one (of many/infinite) possiblities not discussed on L. King is theory "explanation" expressed in A Course in Miracles. Deepak/Dr. Chopra, I do recall your quoting from the Course (in a positive sense, if I interpreted you properly)one "lesson" (of many) from the Course: "Today I shall judge nothing that occurs" (although no cite to Course). I respect your books/tapes much-would love to hear your thoughts on Course------very best (great job on L King--my but you're getting forceful/aggressive (good--[I guess] as they talk over you constantly [but does your reaction/response first require you to "judge" them?) Honest question--not trying to be smart aleck. very best...clay

I like the intelligent scientific point of you, great analysis. What is most critical issue in this short life?
The definition of success--To laugh much; to win respect of intelligent persons and the affections of children; to earn the approbation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to give one's self; to leave the world a little better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to have played and laughed with enthusiasm, and sung with exultation; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived--this is to have succeeded."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Saw the program tonight . . . thanks for bringing some intelligence to the discussion.
They are pushing for an either/or agenda and
the issues are so much larger. Quantum physics
needs to be taught at the high school level and
people can make their own judments when they see where science and philosophy interact. Show people the ever evolving research and let them decide on the spiritual implications of the findings. Religious fundamentalism must not hijack the educational process . . . isn't that the problem with many areas of the mid-east? We must keep church and state separate if we are to grow and evolve.
Thanks for giving the address to this site at the
end of the show! Donna

I find the difference in creation view of the Fundamental Christians vs. the Orthodox Christians to be very surprising.

The Fundamental view as shown on tonights show is very strange to the Orthodox Christian. Most probably because the Orthodox have Tradition along with scripture and the Fundamental Christian's base their view totally on scripture alone.

Therefore small errors such as attempting to put a 24hr timeframe to a day before there was a sun rear their heads.

Forgive me...

www.orthodoxtupelo.com

After listening to everybody on Larry King, all I can say is that society really does not know anything, and any speculation is just opinion in one form or another.

My opinion is that I don't know enough yet to answer the question: Why am I here?

Having just toured the Pompeii exhibit in Ottawa, maybe the world is just a campus to learn things like "Don't live under the shadow of a volcano" and other such useful tidbits to know. Maybe we are in a school learning the difference between science and religion. Who knows eh? It is tough, but not impossible, to live with those zealots who know it all. :-)

Cheers, Al

I thought you did wonderfully on the show! Good job. I do, however, second the recommendation someone else posted about Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene."

Hi everyone reading this - I enjoyed the Larry King program tonight and thought that Deepak had the best points as far as scientific facts and where we need to go. I just read a book called The Quantum Gods by Jeff Love and anyone interested in the origin and nature of matter and consciousness might be very interested in this book. It is quite a fascinating read on this subject. Thanks for letting the audience know about this blog, Deepak - I never would have known about it!

I have a few questions I would like ask Christians.

First, is the Earth flat?

Does the Sun revolve around the Earth?

Is the Earth only about 6000 years old?

Are Dinosaurs a hoax even though we have used carbon dating to trace them back millions of years?

Is it horribly wrong for two people of the same sex to love one another and to live a life together?

Also, the Pastor on Larry King tonight needs to realize that you can't say that God created this world in 6 days. The preceding questions asides from last have all been proved by science to be false.

As for same sex marriage, I'm not saying that the Church should do the ceremonies but you can't say that it's wrong. When an individual falls in love regardless of wether they're the same sex or not we can't deny them the right to marriage.

I like the intelligent scientific point of you, great analysis. What is most critical issue in this short life?
The definition of success--To laugh much; to win respect of intelligent persons and the affections of children; to earn the approbation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to give one's self; to leave the world a little better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to have played and laughed with enthusiasm, and sung with exultation; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived--this is to have succeeded."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

I like the intelligent scientific point of you, great analysis. What is most critical issue in this short life?
The definition of success--To laugh much; to win respect of intelligent persons and the affections of children; to earn the approbation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to give one's self; to leave the world a little better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to have played and laughed with enthusiasm, and sung with exultation; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived--this is to have succeeded."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Saw the program tonight . . . thanks for bringing some intelligence to the discussion.
They are pushing for an either/or agenda and
the issues are so much larger. Quantum physics
needs to be taught at the high school level and
people can make their own judments when they see where science and philosophy interact. Show people the ever evolving research and let them decide on the spiritual implications of the findings. Religious fundamentalism must not hijack the educational process . . . isn't that the problem with many areas of the mid-east? We must keep church and state separate if we are to grow and evolve.
Thanks for giving the address to this site at the
end of the show! Donna

Saw the program tonight . . . thanks for bringing some intelligence to the discussion.
They are pushing for an either/or agenda and
the issues are so much larger. Quantum physics
needs to be taught at the high school level and
people can make their own judments when they see where science and philosophy interact. Show people the ever evolving research and let them decide on the spiritual implications of the findings. Religious fundamentalism must not hijack the educational process . . . isn't that the problem with many areas of the mid-east? We must keep church and state separate if we are to grow and evolve.
Thanks for giving the address to this site at the
end of the show! Donna

Basically the assumption is made for us. Can anyone conceive of nothing? No because then they could conceive. So by our very ability to ask the question, we are part of the infinite. Our awareness is only limited by our belief systems. What is to be gained by a fundamentalist christian finite belief system? Basically control, or perceived control. So that is the fundamental issue in my way of thinking. Looking at the world however, The fundamental chritian view has many benefits. The western world with its modern advances grew from the we only go around once in life belief. The eastern phliosophy provides a defined path to greater awareness. Now we see a debate amongst the two. How wonderful. This is truly a milepost in human evolution.

Thoughts and prayers be with you and people of like mind.

coincidences: THERE ARE NO coincidences.... We are all one and all connected thru a higher force that is unknown the most of the Mother Earth at this present moment in time.

BUT The Truth of who we are is slowly but surely emerging from the depths of the ocean.

This is but the tip of the Iceberg people, there is awhole another surface of knowledge await the masses of this world, underneath the water!!!

Enjoy watching this great time in our history unfold infront of our beautiful, divine, universally connected eyes.

I like the intelligent scientific point of you, great analysis. What is most critical issue in this short life?
The definition of success--To laugh much; to win respect of intelligent persons and the affections of children; to earn the approbation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to give one's self; to leave the world a little better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to have played and laughed with enthusiasm, and sung with exultation; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived--this is to have succeeded."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

1- break DNA into smaller segments, its composition is reactive and interactive and from these properties emerges the characteristics of complexity. RNAi is showing this currently as a way of correcting the chain of evolutionary traits by subverting negative DNA traits and by proxy aligned positive traits.

2- this elads to this conclusion that negative traits simply fail to meet the criteria demand for adaptable traits and thus do not replicate enough to be monitored.

3- because sharks kept a constant background for adaptation

4- the course of eons and environment determines the final characteristic' adpative integration into code

5- because some algae had to exist in light free environemnts such as oil seeps

6- the substructures are always inherent, we have bones of no use and it is simply a matter of dormancy instead of negative factors which would constitue threats to reproduction/replication,survival

7- oxygen undergoes a nanomorphosis in which it gains charged properties and then is engineered or simply takes on characterisitics as such that forms the chemical basis for synthesis

8- this is limiting the scope of random and you forget the presence of radiation and other chemical influences in the spectrum of mutation

9- there is a law of cooperative niche fulfillment that is defined as adaptation, a sociological text/background to species continuance

10- androgeny is a trait we have at fetal stages the bees simply were able to maintain strains in this capacity

11- seems as if you're taking an assumption past certain points most likely the smaller environment produced such a strain and geography then spreads such traits out... the insects/birds that feed off certain flowers often carrey seeds/pollinate them in fecal remain or feathers, hairs,ets

12- applying labels of value such as beautiful seems to be an attempt to personify traits and takes no account for the other animal traits and introduction of mutative influences

Actually evolution seems to favor its own theory with less contradictions. Noah had no place for dinosaurs? He found food for all of these animals, each to its range of diet? Not on the spans and dimensions of the shipe he described. Ask any zookeeper.

The symbolic power of the flood story is that 'we are all in the same boat' as the saying goes. (/Clintonism)

Most likely the anthropomorphic influence upon on environment led to paradigm shifts in global climate. Neanderthals using hunter-gather tactics ravaged swaths of woodland which brought with it drought and their way of life(slash and burn) eventually ran wild across dry expanse and the resulting floods for climate heat led to ice advances in reply.

Literally we've shaped/acted upon environment to a large degree and this is a part of the history of species beyond thew scope of written and part of the 'day as a thousand years' eons in which man was yet to emerge from creation and was still in a stage of being a beast with no culture or civillzation, just loose social constructs.

Basically the assumption is made for us. Can anyone conceive of nothing? No because then they could conceive. So by our very ability to ask the question, we are part of the infinite. Our awareness is only limited by our belief systems. What is to be gained by a fundamentalist christian finite belief system? Basically control, or perceived control. So that is the fundamental issue in my way of thinking. Looking at the world however, The fundamental chritian view has many benefits. The western world with its modern advances grew from the we only go around once in life belief. The eastern phliosophy provides a defined path to greater awareness. Now we see a debate amongst the two. How wonderful. This is truly a milepost in human evolution.

I have always wondered why this is a topic for such heated debate.

Genesis 1:2 says:
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Can no one see what I see? Does this scripture not speak of a black hole? A hole is formless! It's EMPTY! And in this scripture, it's DARK (black)!

Also, in Genesis 1:27, it's says:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

God has no physical FORM so how could we be created in His PHYSICAL image? An image is exactly that! An image is what you see in your MIND, not the physical presence of a thing. Can we not see that perhaps God created us in His spiritual image (being that He IS spirit)?

Is there no room for us to consider that evolutionism and creationism can co-exist? Could God not have created us in the physical form of an ape, or whatever else science is proving, and just POSSIBLY allowed us to grow in body, mind, and spirit?

I often wonder at the SYSTEMS God has created. The body, the weather, plants "breathing" in carbon dioxide (or is it MONoxide?) and breathing out oxygen while we breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon mon/dioxide. If you ever wondered about science vs. creationism, just read the last chapter of Job 40 and 41. read it slowly and consider.

One more thing........on Larry King tonight, one of the pastors said that the Bible says that God did all His creating in 6 24-hour days. It does NOT say that. It says that He created everything in 6 days......and then later on it says in 2 Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

Don't be too impressed. I didn't memorize those scriptures. I looked them up online. If I had paraphrased them, this post would have looked a LOT different! :o)

Laurel

When I watched this episode tonight there were some important points that were left out about this debate.
One problem with our debates is we usually side with one side or the other and we tend not to step back and see how both arguments can have a common ground.
Most humans believe in a higher power and
the higher power had some influence in the creation of the earth, or life on earth etc. The problem I have with someone arguing from a Genesis standpoint is it represents a Christian standpoint. Where is the representation from the Hindu, Muslim, Inuit, Buddhist...etc side of the argument? Evolution has scientific origins and has support from all races from all around the world. A human ancestor bone found in Asia has as much scientific significance and on found in Africa.
Darwin should never be dismissed as the theory to end all debates. Darwin never went so far as to discuss the origins of man. Yes, it could lead that way. However, he first observed "Micro evolution" as noticing that the birds in the Galapagos islands were different that ones on the mainland; suggesting adaptation.
I think the real debate should steer clear from Darwin and start asking how life began on earth
There is still no evidence how the double helix (DNA molecule) was created. That is more interesting to me than trying to disprove human origins.
So back to my original question why couldn’t there be Devine intervention and evolution combined??
Is so hard to switch to the thinking that a divine creator had a more passive approach in creating life?? Could evolution have divine or "intelligent roots"
Absolutely.
I just ask that people stop standing behind
"their God" and stop telling others the way things are.
Be more in the "why" and not in the "how".
As for school, show kids the FOSSIL records and let them come to their own "intelligent solutions"

Hi everyone reading this - I enjoyed the Larry King program tonight and thought that Deepak had the best points as far as scientific facts and where we need to go. I just read a book called The Quantum Gods by Jeff Love and anyone interested in the origin and nature of matter and consciousness might be very interested in this book. It is quite a fascinating read on this subject. Thanks for letting the audience know about this blog, Deepak - I never would have known about it!

When I watched this episode tonight there were some important points that were left out about this debate.
One problem with our debates is we usually side with one side or the other and we tend not to step back and see how both arguments can have a common ground.
Most humans believe in a higher power and
the higher power had some influence in the creation of the earth, or life on earth etc. The problem I have with someone arguing from a Genesis standpoint is it represents a Christian standpoint. Where is the representation from the Hindu, Muslim, Inuit, Buddhist...etc side of the argument? Evolution has scientific origins and has support from all races from all around the world. A human ancestor bone found in Asia has as much scientific significance and on found in Africa.
Darwin should never be dismissed as the theory to end all debates. Darwin never went so far as to discuss the origins of man. Yes, it could lead that way. However, he first observed "Micro evolution" as noticing that the birds in the Galapagos islands were different that ones on the mainland; suggesting adaptation.
I think the real debate should steer clear from Darwin and start asking how life began on earth
There is still no evidence how the double helix (DNA molecule) was created. That is more interesting to me than trying to disprove human origins.
So back to my original question why couldn’t there be Devine intervention and evolution combined??
Is so hard to switch to the thinking that a divine creator had a more passive approach in creating life?? Could evolution have divine or "intelligent roots"
Absolutely.
I just ask that people stop standing behind
"their God" and stop telling others the way things are.
Be more in the "why" and not in the "how".
As for school, show kids the FOSSIL records and let them come to their own "intelligent solutions"

YOUR COMMENTS ON LARRY KING WERE INTERESTING. I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE HEARD MORE OF YOU. I would be interested in the study of intelligent design, taking all theology out of the discussion. It could be studied scientifically.