As previously discussed, there is as yet no experimental verification of the general theory of evolution. As well, there is a lack of a significant amount of transitional forms in the fossil record. Darwin himself pointed this out as a failure of the empirical evidence to support his general theory of evolution, and in the 150 years since while many more fossils have been discovered this empirical evidence has not materialised.
Other, modified versions of evolutionary theory have been put forward, such as Punctuated Equilibrium [wikipedia], to explain how evolution might take place in a way that would not leave lots of transitional fossils.
In Punctuated Equilibrium new species form as geographic isolated daughter populations on the edge of a previous species. The new species then migrates back into the "ecological mainland" to appear fully-formed in the fossil record in large numbers.
"Punctuated Equilibrium", below the "Phyletic Gradualism" originally proposed by Darwin's general theory of evolution
It's an attempt to rescue evolutionary theory from the lack of empirical evidence for the gradual transition between species.
This is reminiscent of a cartoon that I saw over at Bhakta Chris' blog:
In this case, however, it is reversed. Scientists are trying to preserve a central doctrine, and looking for evidence and interpretations to support it.
What is the central doctrine that they are trying to preserve?
That the various genetic species of bodies develop according to processes that can be explained and understood in terms of known natural laws of the universe
That is the underlying doctrine.
Two types of objectors to general evolutionary theory
On the other side of the fence you have two different parties objecting to general evolutionary theory.
- Empirical objectors. There are those who say: "Hey, the evidence doesn't seem to support this, perhaps there is some other natural process at work"
These people are empirical objectors. They are open to the central doctrine underlying evolution, that the various genetic species of bodies develop according to processes that can be explained and understood in terms of known natural laws of the universe. However, they point out empirical mismatches with the evidence.
Religious objectors. The second class of objectors are religious objectors. They will often use all the same arguments as the empirical objectors, however, they object not just to the current model, but to the central doctrine underlying evolution. For them, the development of the different species of bodies cannot be explained "merely" in terms of known natural processes and laws of the universe, but instead must involve the direct supernatural intervention of God.
Incompatibility of traditional Theism (for example: Christianity) with Evolution
The "Evolution defeats God" meme comes from the predominance of Christianity in the West.
Christianity posited a theistic model. Not Theistic in the sense of holding the existence of God to be true, but in sense of the theism/deism contrast:
Theism conceives of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism which contended that God — though transcendent and supreme — did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation. [from wikipedia]
Theism is incompatible with evolution, because speciation occurs in a theistic model through God's direct intervention (creation of species), rather than by known natural processes (development of species).
The Bible, in Genesis, explains that God personally created all the different species of life.
So once you show that speciation takes place by natural processes, you do away with a big part of Theism.
The Philosophy of Krishna Consciousness is simultaneously Theistic and Deistic
I first heard about Deism in a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza over at Gauranga Kishore's blog.
The idea of Deism is that God creates the universe, and then it runs according to natural processes. It's the "watchmaker" idea: natural processes, which can be comprehended by humans, are at work - no supernatural, special case divine intervention here. In the last 400 years science has removed huge amounts of ignorance and superstition about the universe. It is no longer an arbitrary environment, but a structured one that operates according to comprehensible rules and systems. The idea then is that this same structured and comprehensible regime extends to the limits of the universe, and that we can, over time, extend our understanding to encompass it.
This is actually the philosophy of Krishna Consciousness. I would like to present a few quotes from sastra and Srila Prabhupada's purports to support this.
In the first one I have taken the liberty to bold some of Srila Prabhupada's purports, to further bring out the point that he is repeating emphatically.
This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, O son of Kunti, producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again.
PURPORT
It is clearly stated here that the Supreme Lord, although aloof from all the activities of the material world, remains the supreme director. The Supreme Lord is the supreme will and the background of this material manifestation, but the management is being conducted by material nature. Krishna also states in Bhagavad-gita that of all of the living entities in different forms and species, "I am the father." The father gives seeds to the womb of the mother for the child, and similarly the Supreme Lord by His mere glance injects all the living entities into the womb of material nature, and they come out in their different forms and species, according to their last desires and activities. All these living entities, although born under the glance of the Supreme Lord, take their different bodies according to their past deeds and desires. So the Lord is not directly attached to this material creation. He simply glances over material nature; material nature is thus activated, and everything is created immediately. Because He glances over material nature, there is undoubtedly activity on the part of the Supreme Lord, but He has nothing to do with the manifestation of the material world directly. This example is given in the smriti: when there is a fragrant flower before someone, the fragrance is touched by the smelling power of the person, yet the smelling and the flower are detached from one another. There is a similar connection between the material world and the Supreme Personality of Godhead; actually He has nothing to do with this material world, but He creates by His glance and ordains. In summary, material nature, without the superintendence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, cannot do anything. Yet the Supreme Personality is detached from all material activities.
In the above purport Srila Prabhupada spells out a clearly Deist philosophy. Krishna is ultimately the source and cause of the material energy and material creation, but it is the material nature that is responsible for everything in the material universe (karya-karana-kartrtve, hetuh prakritr ucyate - Bg. 13.21).
In other words, the central doctrine behind general evolutionary theory, that natural processes can be found and understood to explain the development of different bodies, is affirmed.
Why then do we hear stories from many religions about the Lord being directly involved in the act of creating the world and the different species of life?
The following verse and purport from the Srimad Bhagavatam explain this:
There is no direct engineering by the Lord for the creation and destruction of the material world. What is described in the Vedas about His direct interference is simply to counteract the idea that material nature is the creator.
PURPORT
The Vedic direction for the creation, maintenance and destruction of the material world is this: yato va imani bhutani jayante. yena jatani jivanti. yat prayanty abhisamvisanti, i.e., everything is created by Brahman, after creation everything is maintained by Brahman, and after annihilation everything is conserved in Brahman. Gross materialists without any knowledge of Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan conclude material nature to be the ultimate cause of the material manifestation, and the modern scientist also shares this view that the material nature is the ultimate cause of all the manifestations of the material world. This view is refuted by all Vedic literature. The Vedanta philosophy mentions that Brahman is the fountainhead of all creation, maintenance and destruction, and Srimad-Bhagavatam, the natural commentation on the Vedanta philosophy, says, janmady asya yato 'nvayad itaratas cartheshv abhijnah svarat [SB 1.1.1], etc.
Inert matter is undoubtedly energy with potential to interact, but it has no initiative of its own. Srimad-Bhagavatam therefore comments on the aphorism janmady asya by saying abhijnah and svarat, i.e., the Supreme Brahman is not inert matter, but He is supreme consciousness and is independent. Therefore inert matter cannot be the ultimate cause of the creation, maintenance and destruction of the material world. Superficially material nature appears to be the cause of creation, maintenance and destruction, but material nature is set into motion for creation by the supreme conscious being, the Personality of Godhead. He is the background of all creation, maintenance and destruction, and this is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gita (9.10):
mayadhyakshena prakritih
suyate sa-caracaram
hetunanena kaunteya
jagad viparivartate
The material nature is one of the energies of the Lord, and she can work under the direction of the Lord (adhyakshena). When the Lord throws His transcendental glance over the material nature, then only can the material nature act, as a father contacts the mother, who is then able to conceive a child. Although it appears to the layman that the mother gives birth to the child, the experienced man knows that the father gives birth to the child. The material nature therefore produces the moving and standing manifestations of the material world after being contacted by the supreme father, and not independently. Considering material nature to be the cause of creation, maintenance, etc., is called "the logic of nipples on the neck of a goat." The Caitanya-caritamrita by Srila Krishnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami describes this logic of aja-gala-stana-nyaya as follows (as explained by His Divine Grace Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja): "The material nature, as the material cause, is known as pradhana, and as efficient cause is known as maya. But since it is inert matter, it is not the remote cause of creation." Kaviraja Gosvami states as follows:
ataeva krishna mula-jagat-karana
prakriti -- karana yaiche aja-gala-stana
(Cc. Adi 5.61)
Because Karanarnavasayi Vishnu is a plenary expansion of Krishna, it is He who electrifies the matter to put it in motion. The example of electrification is quite appropriate. A piece of iron is certainly not fire, but when the iron is made red-hot, certainly it has the quality of fire through its burning capacity. Matter is compared to the piece of iron, and it is electrified or made red-hot by the glance or manipulation of the supreme consciousness of Vishnu. Only by such electrification is the energy of matter displayed in various actions and reactions. Therefore the inert matter is neither efficient nor the material cause of the cosmic manifestation. Sri Kapiladeva has said:
yatholmukad visphulingad
dhumad vapi sva-sambhavat
apy atmatvenabhimatad
yathagnih prithag ulmukat
(Bhag. 3.28.40)
The original fire, its flame, its sparks and its smoke are all one, for fire is still fire yet is different from the flame, flame is different from sparks, and sparks are different from the smoke. In every one of them, namely in the flames, in the sparks and in the smoke, the integrity of fire is present, yet all of them are differently situated with different positions. The cosmic manifestation is compared to the smoke because when smoke passes over the sky so many forms appear, resembling many known and unknown manifestations. The sparks are compared to living entities, and the flames are compared to material nature (pradhana). One must know that each and every one of them is effective simply because of being empowered by the quality of the original fire. Therefore all of them, namely the material nature, the cosmic manifestation and the living entities, are but different energies of the Lord (fire). Therefore those who accept the material nature as the cosmic manifestation's original cause (prakriti, the cause of creation according to Sankhya philosophy) are not correct in their conclusion. The material nature has no separate existence without the Lord. Therefore, setting aside the Supreme Lord as the cause of all causes is the logic of aja-gala-stana-nyaya, or trying to milk the nipples on the neck of a goat. The nipples on the neck of a goat may seem like sources of milk, but to try to get milk from such nipples will be foolish.
(quote ends)
The purpose of stories that involve the Lord directly in the matter of the creation of material categories is not to establish this as a scientific, empirical explanation, but rather to impress upon the minds of the hearers that the Lord is the ultimate cause.
This further serves to reinforce that with regards to the functioning of material nature, the philosophy of Krishna Consciousness is Deist. It has never been vulnerable to being "disproved" or threatened by explanations of speciation by natural processes.
No need to jump on the Christian bandwagon
Some devotees talk about aligning with Intelligent Design and Creationist movements that seek to defend a Christian Theistic conception.
Personally I don't think that's a good idea. There is a serious philosophical misalignment there. While we agree with them in the matter of the Supreme Lord as the ultimate cause, we also have agreement with the scientists in the matter of material nature as the efficient cause, and the comprehensibility of natural processes.
Those who try to promote a purely Theist conception in the face of empirical science are, simply put, wrong.
The Theistic conception in Krishna Consciousness
This is where Krishna Consciousness really shows its brilliance.
Krishna Consciousness is not simply purely Deist. It is also simultaneously and wonderfully Theist.
Krishna is aloof from the world, but He is also personally involved and knowable through revelation (pratyaksavagamam dharmyam - Bg. 9.2). However, he is only knowable to His devotees (ye yatha mam pradyante Bg. 4.11).
Krishna consciousness is the perfection of mysticism.
Srila Visvanath Chakravarti Thakura explains it like this, in the opening to one of his books:
Consider: if Krishna is in Goloka Vrndavan, sporting with his eternal associates and playing as one of them (that's the real "oneness with God"), then how will he hear the prayers of his devotee in this world?
I put it to you that he is present in every atom in this world, and in the heart of every living entity, in his form of Paramatma, the Supersoul. In this way he can hear the prayers of his devotees in this world.
Now, if you are satisfied with this answer, then this book, my friend, is not for you.
Visvanath Thakura goes on to explain: how fervent and heartfelt must our prayers be to be heard by the Lord in his eternal abode!
Krishna, the Supreme Person, transcendent and aloof from the material nature which is his inferior energy and which manifests this entire universe, becomes personally interested and involved in the existence of his devotee, a purely spiritual being who is presently experiencing existence in association with a body which is made of the eight separated material energies and is fully under the control of material nature.
That is indeed wonderful.
Conclusion
I feel that I am drawing to a close of my study of the current state of evolutionary theory. I have mastered arguments on both sides and can rationally state my understanding.
The general theory of evolution, including its various modifications, at present seems empirically unable to explain the situation completely. However, it offers many interesting and useful insights.
I feel no need to oppose the underlying central doctrine of evolutionary theory on philosophical grounds. It doesn't really threaten my Krishna consciousness. Empirically it is obviously imperfect and in need of more research and theoretical development. Good luck guys.
I have a few more things that I wish to complete - Denton's book and two audio books of Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker".
I also have a post about teleology (arguments about the purpose of the universe) and the difference between the body and the soul. The philosophy of Krishna Consciousness is atma-centric, not anthropocentric. In aspect again it shares affinity with science rather than Christianity.