Darwin's Failure Confirms Theosophy
In my personal opinion the failure of Darwinism to explain
macroevolution is one of the strongest confirmations of the truth
of Theosophy - and perhaps the single best confirmation.
While the information presented in this and previous newsletters
may seem sufficient to justify that claim, there is yet more reason
to support it that requires a brief digression into the
epistemological nature of "proof".
Judging the truth of Theosophy occurs in numerous ways for different
people. Those ways include intuitive reaction, philosophical
reasonableness, internal consistency, integrative capacity, explanatory
power, and observation and study of life. Hopefully over time and
lives we progress to more direct knowing of the metaphysics. In more
external cases some predictions and assertions of Blavatsky can be
reasonably tested with objective data. Long time students of
Theosophy encounter a seemingly endless series of such confirmations
during their years of study.
Obviously her statements on Darwinism can be tested - more
effectively as the decades roll on. Specifically I am suggesting
testing her claim that Darwinism is true but only a "minor" law, and
that Darwinism does not account for the origin of the species.
Since her assertion was quite opposite to the accepted scientific
wisdom of her time, its vindication confers all the more strength to
Her primary book making this assertion was the "Secret Doctrine"
published in 1888. Darwin had published his "Origin of the Species"
in 1859. By her day Darwinism had taken the scientific world by
storm. By her time, any opposition to Darwinism labeled one as
ignorant and worse. So when she made her assertion in the face of
all the celebration and acclaim for Darwinism, it carries all the
more significance when she is finally shown to have been correct.
In a sense, the ideas of Karl Popper are similar. He promoted
the value of "falsifiability" of a theory. In more detail he said
the theory to be tested should make "risky predictions." Since
Theosophy is not presented as a theory but rather as an assertion -
determined by eons of testing and checking by seers - we should
look for a risky "assertion." And Blavatsky's assertions on
Darwinism fully qualify as risky in the sense used by Popper.
Her assertions were not only risky in a theoretical sense but
holding her view could destroy a person's career - then and now.
Louis Agassiz is the model of what happened to scientists who tried
to resist the rising tide of evolution. Agassiz's tragedy is
described in Gould's essay "Agassiz in the Galapagos," in "Hen's
Teeth and Horse's Toes." As Gould tells it, the Swiss-born
Harvard professor was "without doubt, the greatest and most
influential naturalist of nineteenth-century America," a great
scientist and a social lion who was an intimate of just about
everyone who mattered. "But Agassiz's summer of fame and fortune
turned into a winter of doubt and befuddlement," because his
idealist philosophical bias prevented him from embracing Darwin's
theory. All his students became evolutionists and he had long been
a sad and isolated figure when he died in 1873." (Darwin on Trial
(His "philosophical bias" must have been that he preferred truth and
knew the geologic record too well to accept Darwinism.)
While increasing numbers of scientists are beginning to express their
doubts about Darwinism, in general the road is still rocky and risky
for many. The August '05 issue of Whistleblower, devoted to
intelligent design, tells the following story.
The career of a prominent researcher at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington is in jeopardy after he
published a peer-reviewed article by a leading proponent of
intelligent design ...
Richard Sternberg says that although he continues to work in the
museum's Department of Zoology, he has been kicked out of his
office and shunned by colleagues, prompting him to file a complain
with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. ...
"I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a
scientific career," Sternberg told David Klinghoffer, a columnist
for the Jewish Forward, who reported the story in the Wall Street
[The article he published], "The Origin of Biological Information
and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," cites mainstream biologists
and paleontologists from schools such as the University of
Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford who are critical of certain
aspects of Darwinism.
We might not have thought that the Smithsonian Museum would have been
this close-minded and fanatical.
To give just one more example from current days - many will have heard
of the fuss in the local Kansas school board. The desire is not to
introduce study of the bible. It is not to introduce creationism. It
is not even to introduce the theory of intelligent design. All that
is desired is to introduce into the public classroom the facts
concerning problems with Darwinism. And that makes headlines in
Europe and the advocates of presenting this information are pilloried
in the press.
So this issue fully qualifies under Popper's rule of a "risky"
assertion. Therefore this vindication of Blavatsky's view has first
its inherent merits. But in addition, it becomes a greatly stronger
vindication because it was so bold, so contrary, and so "risky".
Blavatsky, of course, was simply presenting the ancient wisdom -
verified in its turn by eons of seers. What we are witnessing is a
very major vindication of the ancient wisdom.
Written by Reed Wood Carson - founder of Blavatsky Net and Theosophy Foundation of Georgia.
"No Religion Higher Than Truth"
Support this site by visiting our donation page.
Site copyright © 1996-2014 by Estela Carson-Priede