Re: 'Abdu'l-Bahá and evolution

Abdul-Baha's words stand on their own - we cant offer authoritative
explanations. Of course we can ask Susan or other scholars of the
actual languages about the reliability of the translation.

That said then:
My guess would be that it means that no direct evidence will be
found to show primate lines splitting and changing into humans
and modern apes. I expect that would be pretty hard to determine
anyway without a time machine. We are talking about scattered
and fragmentary fossilized remains from several million years
back.

Tom

On 27 Aug 2005 at 22:50, Mavaddat wrote:

> As I was doing some research on the Bahá'í position on evolution, I
> stumbled upon this statement by 'Abdu'l-Bahá in "The Promulgation of
> Universal Peace", p.359, which I find greatly disturbing, if my
> understanding of it is correct:
>
> "The lost link of Darwinian theory is itself a proof that man is not an
> animal. How is it possible to have all the links present and that
> important link absent? Its absence is an indication that man has never
> been an animal. It will never be found."
>
> Firstly, since there is still much discovery to be made in the way of
> paleoanthropology, this line of reasoning seems to present an argument
> from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. (Especially in this case,
> absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)
>
> Secondly, the denial of a "lost link" seems to be entirely superfluous
> to 'Abdu'l-Bahá's previous reasoning, in which he admits that the
> human essence has been manifest in all of the physical forms of man:
>
> "Throughout this progression there has been a transference of type, a
> conservation of species or kind. Realizing this we may acknowledge the
> fact that at one time man was an inmate of the sea, at another period
> an invertebrate, then a vertebrate and finally a human being standing
> erect." (ibid., 358)
>
> So why say that there will never be a "lost link" found? If it were
> found, it would present no threat to 'Abdu'l-Bahá's formulation of
> evolution, since the human essence is not observable (and therefore not
> subject to denial) by scientists.
>
> Does anyone have or know of a scientifically compatible way to consider
> this statement of 'Abdu'l-Bahá?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.16/83 - Release Date: 8/26/2005
>




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.16/83 - Release Date: 8/26/2005


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Abdul-Bahá and evolution
    ... Kalimat Press has published a book on this subject called "Evolution ... Its absence is an indication that man has never ... the denial of a "lost link" seems to be entirely superfluous ... since the human essence is not observable (and therefore not ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • =?iso-8859-1?q?Abdul-Bah=E1_and_evolution?=
    ... Its absence is an indication that man has never ... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence) ... the denial of a "lost link" seems to be entirely superfluous ... since the human essence is not observable (and therefore not ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)