The Evolution Debate

[gavesako]

New video with nice graphics to illustrate the meaning:


Bhante Anandajoti: Devolution and Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFaoyp_wrlY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This video is built around a talk given in the Vivekavana Buddhist Society, Bukit Mertajam, Penang, Malaysia on January 6th 2013.

The talk is illustrated with infographics describing the planes of existence and with photographs and complimentary text.

The talk describes the various ways the universe comes to destruction, and how it re-evolves.

It also talks about the moral devolution of humans, before a reversal happens which eventually leads to the emergence of Metteyya (Maitreya) Buddha.

The talk is mainly based on two discourses in the Dīghanikāya, Aggaññasutta (DN 27) and Cakkavattisīhanādasutta (DN 26).

The first video in this series on The Planes of Existence is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzPIeCaV-is" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[robertk]

Thanks for this!

[Ceisiwr]

In any virile society where men are free, to bend over and allow another man to penetrate them as he would a woman is a decapitational offence to the manhood of the receiver of this infamy. There is no way this "man" could ever regain his reputation as such in the company of other men - he would be a social outcast for the rest of his life.

And this is only natural from an evolutionary POV, as this is the best way to optimize reproduction.

Therefore, if Darwin is correct, his own believers are going to go extinct while those who believe in a stone-age moon godess fertility cult will eliminate the teaching of Darwin in schools.

Personally, I don't believe in Darwinism. Maybe thats why my gene's live on through my offspring, in a strange chain of logic.

The fruits of this path will be all too apparent in the next generation or two, but it would make Churchill hold his head in absolute shame.

How? When you keep in mind the fact that probably less than 5% of the population is homosexual, can you really ascribe the low birthrate in the West to the gays not doing their part? Though that may be true in a primitive society struggling for survival with very high maternal and newborn mortality rates, incessant wars killing off all the males with the resultant polygamy that was needed to take care of the widows in patriarchal societies, the 21st century is way past that and such attitudes no longer make any sense.

Not in itself does homosexuality makeup the aggregate of the birth rate, but all things being equal, does it increase it, decrease it, or make it stay the same? Ceteris Parabis, I'm asking?

The gayest civilization of all time was Islam (I use past tense since the remnants of this civilization are but bitter fruits of a once glorious society) in the sense that these males loved to penetrate other men - but they didn't want to receive. They are still extremely gay, an example being the "Bachi Boys" in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I doubt that pedophilia in Afghanistan and Pakistan was brought in by Islam. I'm pretty sure it predates it, and don't forget those same areas have been Buddhist in the past.

You say you doubt, but historical records point to muslims practicing gay-rape wherever they go on a massive scale, and no such records exist for Buddhists.

So, there's that.

You don’t believe in evolution via natural selection? Why?

[Manopubbangama]

And this is only natural from an evolutionary POV, as this is the best way to optimize reproduction.

Therefore, if Darwin is correct, his own believers are going to go extinct while those who believe in a stone-age moon godess fertility cult will eliminate the teaching of Darwin in schools.

Personally, I don't believe in Darwinism. Maybe thats why my gene's live on through my offspring, in a strange chain of logic.

How? When you keep in mind the fact that probably less than 5% of the population is homosexual, can you really ascribe the low birthrate in the West to the gays not doing their part? Though that may be true in a primitive society struggling for survival with very high maternal and newborn mortality rates, incessant wars killing off all the males with the resultant polygamy that was needed to take care of the widows in patriarchal societies, the 21st century is way past that and such attitudes no longer make any sense.

Not in itself does homosexuality makeup the aggregate of the birth rate, but all things being equal, does it increase it, decrease it, or make it stay the same? Ceteris Parabis, I'm asking?

I doubt that pedophilia in Afghanistan and Pakistan was brought in by Islam. I'm pretty sure it predates it, and don't forget those same areas have been Buddhist in the past.

You say you doubt, but historical records point to muslims practicing gay-rape wherever they go on a massive scale, and no such records exist for Buddhists.

So, there's that.

You don’t believe in evolution via natural selection? Why?

Hi friend,

Probably not the place to argue it but I will give a few reasons:

1. The gene-centric idea is nothing like the Victorian-era species-centric idea that Darwin stole from many other authors. Therefore, modern Darwinists don't believe in Darwinism.

2. There are not working examples of proven macro-evolution, nor of one species changing into another.

3. The gene-centric dogma has been deconstructed by E.O. Wilson.

4. The fact that there are analogous body-parts on different families of animals. Such as insects with wings - the probability of species developing exactly the same body parts at massively different times in deep history is virtually nil.

5. The fact that consciousness is totally unaccounted for in the original literature, as if it is NOT the central aspect of humanity.

6. I have my own religion and in nowhere in this Holistic worldview is evolution mentioned, or inferred.

[Ceisiwr]

Manopubbangama

2. There are not working examples of proven macro-evolution, nor of one species changing into another.

We have seen it happen in plants and crayfish.

6. I have my own religion and in nowhere in this Holistic worldview is evolution mentioned, or inferred.

It’s not denied either, unlike the Abrahamics.

[DooDoot]

I have my own religion and in nowhere in this Holistic worldview is evolution mentioned, or inferred.

Unlike the Abrahamic religions, it seems Buddhism does not have a "plan" for humanity or creation. Also, Buddhism might support the modern theory of evolution, as follows:

2. Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhis ... 0Kamma.htm

It is only in countries with dying birthrates, where such ideas have been auto-suggested into the heads of true-believer types, who believe it to be otherwise.

The Nazis promoted high birth rates & fertility because they needed to create a large inventory of soldiers for cannon fodder in war. Where as the Buddha taught "birth is suffering" and the "ending of birth". Jesus said: "Look, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore, and breasts that never nursed." (Luke 23:29). The Buddha said about child birth:

The disagreeable
in the guise of the agreeable,
the unlovable
in the guise of the lovable,
pain in the guise of bliss,
overcome
one who is heedless.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Manopubbangama sounds like Suppavāsā:

The Blessed One, knowing that Suppavāsā was gratified, joyful, rapturous, & happy, said to her, "Suppavāsā, would you like to have another son like this?"

"O Blessed One, lord, I would like to have seven more sons like this!"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[ToVincent]