>
>
> On May 23, 2006, at 5:06 PM, sparaig wrote:
>
> > Insomuch as humans show the same patterns of behavior in every
> > society, the analogy
> > with Christian Fundamentalism may be useful. However, since
> > Hinduism is usually a far
> > more flexable and accomidating religion or set-of-religions than
> > Christianity traditionally
> > has been (for instance, there's no Nicene Creed test for Hindus
as
> > far as I know), the
> > analogy can only go so far.
>
>
> The reasons it would be important would be the same or very
similar
> reasons it was important to question teaching intelligent design
in
> our schools. In other words, it raises the question 'should
Hindutva
> based initiatives be allowed to teach Vedic Intelligent Design in
the
> public school system of India?' Of course that's probably already
> what's happening at schools like the Maharishi School for the Age
of
> Enlightenment--it's just that they hide behind buzz-phrases
like "The
> Science of Creative Intelligence". And of course as anyone who has
> heard even a fraction of the 100's of hours of rambling on about
> Quantum mechanics, the Rig Veda, Vedic literature, the sequential
> unfolding of creation, etc., etc. should be able to immediately
sense
> the relevance. A Christian Intelligent Design curriculum is doing
> basically the same thing, except they're not waxing Quantum on
Agnim
> ile...but using Bereshith/Genesis instead. You say Rig Veda, I say
> Genesis...it's a similar spiel.
Just for the record, the concept of "intelligent design"
had a very long and respectable history in the West before
the fundamentalist Christians got hold of it. In its
original version, it was in no way incompatible with
science because it didn't *intersect* with science; nobody
would have dreamed of advocating that it be taught *as*
scientific, much less that science could "prove"
intelligent design. It had absolutely zilch to do with
Creationism.
MMY's version of intelligent design is much closer to
the original than the corrupted version proposed by
fundamentalist Christians. To the extent that he
proposes it to be "scientific," it's in the sense of
a science of the *subjective*.
For one contemporary, entirely non-fundamentalist
view of intelligent design, see:
http://www.origins.org/articles/davies_templetonaddress.html
This is an address given by physicist John Davies
in 1995, well before the fundamentalist version of
Intelligent Design had emerged. (Interestingly, it
was given under the auspices of the Templeton
Foundation, the same institution at which Meera
Nanda is a fellow.)
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Maharishi university of management | Maharishi mahesh yogi | Ramana maharshi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
