Re: 'Abdu'l-Bahá and evolution
- From: adrianhindes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:42:25 CST
Dear Mavaddat,
Thanks for posting such an interesting question. The
statement you refer to in Promulgation of Universal Peace
appears to be the only reference that Abdu?l-Bahá has
made to the ?lost link? in Darwinism. Furthermore it is
included in a series of talks so does not have the same
authority as other Abdu?l-Bahá?s writings. I would be
very interested to see if Shoghi Effendi or the Universal
House of Justice has referred to this specific comment. I
suspect that they have not.
As you are no doubt aware to get the gist of what the
Bahá?í writings actually say about evolution one would
have to study all the relevant writings without having undue
emphasis on one particular sentence or paragraph. Here?s a
paper that appears comprehensive.
http://www.bahai-studies.ca/archives/jbs/13_1_4_MehanianFriberg.pdf
Evolution is not really my field though I did complete a
zoology degree a few years back. Evolution was one of the
most controversial and interesting topics throughout my
undergraduate studies. It became apparent that there were a
multitude of theories concerning what constituted a species
and the processes through which one species might transform
or evolve into another. The Darwinian theory with its
emphasis on natural selection was but one theory.
Orthogenesis is another and is distinct from Darwinism by
its emphasis on evolution being driven ?internally?
rather than ?externally.?
One theory might indicate a gradual process of change from
one species to another, as does Darwinism, whereas another
would indicate a relatively rapid change. An example where
rapid changes might occur is in circumstances where a sudden
change of environment occurs such as a population of
seafaring creatures finding themselves in an enclosed lake
and no longer in the open sea.
Lets assume that Abdu?l-Bahá should be taken at face
value in his talk. One argument that Abdu?l-Bahá has
given is that of the developing embryo. He says that as the
embryo develops through to adulthood it is always a human
and never an animal. The embryo goes through various stages
but is always human even in the most primitive forms. Of
course the process of evolution does not necessarily mirror
that of a developing foetus. However it is a clear example
where an adult human being does not require an animal stage
in its development. Therefore why should we insist that the
process of evolution for humans *must* incorporate a primate
stage such as an ape?
So where did humans come from if they did not come from
apes? How about parallel evolution? That is humans and other
so called primates have developed along separate lines. How
far back the branch occurred is undoubtedly an area for
scientists to consider on the vast amount of scientific data
available.
This line of reasoning assumes that Abdu?l-Bahá was
speaking literally rather than metaphorically. What is the
evidence for a metaphorical interpretation of
Abdu?l-Bahá?s ?missing link? comment? Maybe the
missing link is not a species to connect apes with humans at
all. Maybe it is the rational soul. Wouldn?t that be a
more important spiritual principle consistent with
Abdu?l-Bahá?s perspective as a whole? Perhaps the
great error for a Darwinian theory of evolution is to assume
a close relationship between primates and man because of
similar physical appearance alone, but to completely
overlook the spiritual difference.
When considering the existence of man?s consciousness and
intellectual capacities then the difference between apes and
man become irreconcilable. This appears to be the point
where the philosophy of the West and Orient disagree. A
Western viewpoint has no trouble assuming that a primate
must be one of those stages, because it assumes the
non-existence of the Divine. The Oriental philosophers
cannot and do not make such a separation. They cannot
separate science and religion as we do. Therefore they argue
that an ape cannot possibly have been a stage in the
development of humans becuase apes are irreconcilably
different from humans.
I therefore wonder if the missing link that Abdu?l-Bahá
refers is the rational soul! In that case the whole planet
could be excavated and it will never be found!
Regards, Adrian
----- Original Message Follows -----
> 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?
> >
> >
> >
> >
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Humankind "forgetful of its God"
- Next by Date: Re: Unity of Thought
- Previous by thread: Payment to teachers
- Next by thread: Re: 'Abdu'l-Bahá and evolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
