Reply To: Quantum Mechanics – First Three Posts


Hello, autumn!

You wrote: “I am not saying that Darwin’s theory of evolution is 100% factual, however both the book you have suggested and the video shared by Johnny can be swiftly discredited with genuine evidence that supports evolution greater than “intelligent design”.

By the book I suggested, I think you mean Feynman’s QED? Of course, that book doesn’t say anything about evolution. That book explains my hypothesis that quantum mechanics is embedded in Buddha Dhamma. See #3 of the post, “Quantum Mechanics – A New Interpretation,” for the paper describing what I mean.

  • There are many videos on YouTube on both sides of the argument about Darwin’s theory of evolution. It is just a “theory”; it has not been proven or unproven with “scientific methods.” 
  • Those who believe in that theory see enough evidence for themselves. Those who oppose it see enough evidence the other way. 
  • The real question is: Do scientific theories currently accepted by scientists provide a coherent worldview? Scientists admit that there are many “holes” in our understanding. Do scientists say that they fully understand the workings of the human body? No. They do not. They don’t even understand how a living cell came into existence; see “Living Cell – How Did the First Cell Come to Existence?
  • On the other hand, those who have comprehended the teachings of Buddha believe that taken as a whole, it does provide a complete understanding. However, it is impossible to convince someone who does not have that background.

You wrote: “I can agree with the fact that the mind can/could influence adaptation in evolution, but that evolution is a well documented, observable and credible theory.”

  • I’m afraid I have to disagree. There is a consensus that it is the best theory that the scientists have. But there is never a “conclusive proof.”
  • If you read the book “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen Meyer, there are ample scientific arguments against the “theory of evolution.” I am aware that he is a fundamentalist Christian. Of course, I don’t agree with his explanation that a Creator created all life. But that does not change the facts he presents. My post above points out that modern science cannot even explain how the living cell could have “evolved.” Any person with expertise in bioscience will admit that they start building their theories starting with the living cell; they have no idea how it came into existence.

Regarding the comments of “A friend in dhamma” you quoted: I don’t think he has a good understanding of Buddha Dhamma. 

  • The following part of his comment tells me that he does not understand the “Agganna Sutta” where the Buddha explains how life evolves on the Earth: ” there are some missing puzzles if we take for example the “light body Brahmas” ate the earth and become humans..”
  • I have written an introduction to the Agganna Sutta: “Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27)” but it will take many such posts to discuss that deep sutta and to provide a decent explanation. Buddha Dhamma is more profound than quantum mechanics or any other branch of modern science.

If someone can understand the Agganna Sutta, then it will become evident that the “de-evolution process” (starting with “humans with Brahma-like” subtle bodies) cannot be reversed. What happens is that the Earth (Solar system and a cluster of other star systems close-by) will be destroyed in a supernova explosion at some point (scientists do agree on that. ) What they don’t know is that those start systems will be re-formed many billions of years after that. It is a cyclic process that has no beginning or end. My post provides some basic concepts/steps involved.

Finally, you wrote: “..I’m struggling a little bit with blind faith aspects.”

  • If one can understand the fundamentals of Buddha’s worldview, one will realize that there is nothing to be taken on “blind faith.” In contrast, scientific theories are just that” “theories,” and scientists readily admit to it. Over the years, scientific theories have been revised repeatedly to match new observations; yet, Buddha Dhamma remains the same: “Dhamma and Science – Introduction.” By Buddha Dhamma, I mean the 57 books in the Tipitaka written 2000 years ago: “Preservation of the Buddha Dhamma.”
  • I have discussed these issues in more detail in a series of posts: “Origin of Life.” There is no need to repeat those explanations. If you can read them and have questions, that is probably the best way to have a productive discussion.