The Fossil Record
Dear Member of Blavatsky Net,
Apologies for a couple of days delay in presenting this newsletter.
Estela and I have moved from New York State to the state of Georgia
and are happily settling in the beautiful and pleasant mountains of
Appalachia. Because of this major move it has taken some days for
us to become reconnected to the internet and to accommodate the
exigencies of moving.
But on to this month's newsletter and a return to a topic that is
One of the reason's for the appearance of Madame Blavatsky in the
latter 19th century was to combat the rise in materialism that was
occurring at that time due to the success of a materialistic based
science. Today we see this same struggle continuing as materialistic
and spiritual philosophies compete for the allegiance of all.
Most notably we see this competition in the very current struggle
between Darwinists and those supporting intelligent design. A local
school board in the state of Kansas wants to include in the school
curriculum information on the problems in the theory of Darwin and it
makes headlines in newspapers in Europe. President Bush announces
his view that intelligent design should be also presented in schools
along with Darwinism. Howard Dean, titular head of the opposing
political party announces that it should not. Harvard University
announces a one million dollar research program and expresses
confidence that they will at last solve the problem of the origin of
the species and that the answer will be a simple one. Time magazine
devotes a cover story to the issue to bolster the position of the
Darwinists. The New York Times newspaper runs a front page series
on evolution. While that newspaper generally supports the view of
the Darwinist it also presented some of the view of the anti-
Darwinists. In general the debate on origins has erupted in press
around the world.
The significance of the issue (and perhaps the heat behind its
argumentation) is presented well in "The Facts on Creation vs.
The issue of creation/evolution is important because, in the end,
the subject of origins tells us who we are. Are we the product of
the impersonal forces of matter, chance, and time - with all that
implies? Or the result of special creation by an infinite, personal
God - with all that implies? Because of the larger implications in
areas such as science, religion, society, and morality as well as its
personal implications for individual identity and meaning in life,
no one can deny the relevance of the subject. (John Ankerberg & John
Weldon, 1993, pp. 5.)
In pursuit of the truth on this subject I will be covering several
1. Reveal the generally unknown facts of the fossil record that
thoroughly contradict the hypothesis of Darwin.
2. Demonstrate that this issue of Darwinism is one of the strongest
proofs of the correctness of Theosophy.
3. The above quote, useful as it is, has yet a flaw. It
presents two dichotomous choices - chance or God. After concluding this
lengthy newsletter I will lead into next month's newsletter that will
show Theosophy - the ancient wisdom - as the third choice.
PROBLEMS WITH THE FOSSIL RECORD
There are three major problems with the fossil record.
1. The first is that the fossil record shows species originating
abruptly. This contradicts the predictions of Darwin's hypothesis.
His hypothesis calls for very many intermediate forms gradually
grading from one species to another. But instead the record shows
the opposite - species arise abruptly.
2. Secondly, the geologic record shows that species do not change
significantly through time. For millions of years they remain
constant - with only minor and random change. This also contradicts
the predictions of the hypothesis of Darwin.
3. The "Cambrian explosion" represents a period in which most of
the current phyla [broad groups of life forms] all appeared in a
very short geological span of time. This also seriously
contradicts the hypothesis of Darwin.
The problems with the fossil record are more extreme that it might
seem. The evidence of the fossils is in stunning contradiction to
Darwin's theory. Generally this contradiction is not well known and
so I have attempted in this newsletter to bring out the details.
SPECIES DON'T SIGNICANTLY CHANGE
In pursuit of this subject, I acquired a copy of "The Structure of
Evolutionary Theory" by Steven Jay Gould. It is a 1400 page tome
that, while well written, would not appeal to the general reader.
I wanted to reach a clearly knowledgeable source and Gould is a
well known Darwinist who also admits to some of the problems in
Darwin's view. Most of the quotes from Gould are from that book.
Gould has called "stasis" the "trade secret of paleontology." One
section of the book attracted my interest. In chapter nine that
section is headed "What every Paleontologist knows." I hoped that
chapter would reveal and prove the "secret". And it did. Most of
the quotes here from Gould are from that source. Now more people
can learn the "trade secret of paleontology."
Some reasons according to Gould why there naturally occurs such
The common knowledge of a profession often goes unrecorded in
technical literature for two reasons: one need not preach
commonplaces to the initiated; and one should not attempt to
inform the uninitiated in publications they do not read.
The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin,
of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by
professional paleontologists ... p 749-750
But another reason, beyond tacitly shared knowledge, soon arose
to drive stasis more actively into textual silence. Darwinian
evolution became the great intellectual novelty of the later
19th century, and paleontology held the archives of life's
history. Darwin proclaimed insensibly gradual transition as the
canonical expectation for evolution's expression in the fossil
record. He knew, of course, that the detailed histories of
species rarely show such a pattern, so he explained the literal
appearance of stasis and abrupt replacement as an artifact of a
woefully imperfect fossil record. Thus, paleontologist could be
good Darwinians and still acknowledge the primary fact of their
profession - but only at the price of sheepishness or
embarrassment. No one can take great comfort when the primary
observation of their discipline becomes an artifact of limited
evidence rather than an expression of nature's ways. Thus,
once gradualism emerged as the expected pattern for documenting
evolution - with an evident implication that the fossil record's
dominant signal of stasis and abrupt replacement can only be a
sign of evidentiary poverty - paleontologist became cowed or
puzzled, and even less likely to showcase their primary datum.
Gould gives a number of quotes to confirm the fact of stasis of
species. He concludes with this:
In what I regard as the most fascinating and revealing comment of
all, Gorge Gaylord Simpson, the greatest and most biologically
astute paleontologist of the 20th century (and a strong opponent
of punctuated equilibrium in his later years), [Gould's own theory]
acknowledged the literal appearance of stasis and geologically
abrupt origin as *the* outstanding general fact of the fossil
record, and as a pattern that would "pose one of the most
important theoretical problems in the whole history of life" if
Darwin's argument for artifactual status failed. Simpson stated
at the 1959 Chicago centennial celebration for the "Origin of
Species" (in Tax, 1960, p149):
It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa
appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a
sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such
as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution A great many
sequences of two or a few temporally intergrading species are
known, but even at this level most species appear without
known intermediate ancestors, and really, perfectly complete
sequence of numerous species are exceedingly rare ... These
peculiarities of the record pose one of the most important
theoretical problems in the whole history of life; is the
sudden appearance ... a phenomenon of evolution or of the
record only, due to sampling bias and other inadequacies?
Such a discordance between theoretical expectation and actual
observation surely falls within the category of troubling
"anomalies" that, in Kuhn's celebrated view of scientific change
(1962), often spur a major reformulation. p 755
Translation: The data so strongly disconfirm the hypothesis that it
may induce a paradigm shift.
Darwin claimed the reason for the discrepancy was an "imperfect" record.
Gould claims this reason "works". But while seeming to excuse Darwin
he admits the contrariness is "stunning."
The "argument from imperfection" ( with its preposition
purposefully chosen by analogy to the "argument from design")
works adequately as a device to save gradualism in the face of an
empirical signal of quite stunning contrariness when read at face
value." (p 758)
But if an "imperfect" record can excuse the sudden appearance of species,
how does one explain the unchanging nature of a species once it appears?
This unchanging nature is called "stasis." After hearing so much
"explaining away" Gould makes the point that stasis is data. Since
those on the spiritual path will have heard of mantras I thought you
might enjoy Gould's emphatic explanation.
But how can imperfection possibly explain away stasis (the
equilibrium of punctuated equilibrium)? Abrupt appearance may
record an absences of information, but *stasis is data*. Eldredge and I became so frustrated by the failure of many
colleagues to grasp this evident point - though a quarter
century of subsequent debate has finally propelled our claim
to general acceptance (while much else about punctuated
equilibrium remains controversial) - that we urged the
incorporation of this little phrase as a mantra or motto. Say
it ten times before breakfast every day for a week, and the
argument will surely seep in by osmosis: "stasis is data:
stasis is data ..."
The fossil record may, after all, be 99 percent imperfect,
but if you can, nonetheless, sample a species at a large number
of horizons well spread over several million years, and if these
samples record no net change, with beginning and end points
substantially the same, and with only mild and errant
fluctuation among the numerous collections in between, then a
conclusion of stasis rests on the *presence* of data, not on
Another admission from Gould (I respect his honesty):
So if stasis could not be explained away as missing information,
how could gradualism face this most prominent signal from the
fossil record? The most negative of all strategies - a quite
unconscious conspiracy of silence - dictated the canonical
response of paleontologists to their observations of stasis.
Paleontologists therefore came to view stasis as just another
failure to document evolution. Stasis existed in overwhelming
abundance, as every paleontologist always knew. But this primary
signal of the fossil record, defined as an absence of data for
evolution, only highlighted our frustration - and certainly did
not represent anything worth publishing. Paleontology therefore
fell into a literally absurd vicious circle. No one ventured
to document or quantify - indeed, hardly anyone even bothered
to mention or publish at all - the most common pattern in the
fossil record: the stasis of most morphospecies throughout
their geological duration.
The trade secret comes out:
All paleontologists recognized the phenomenon, but few
scientists write papers about failure to document a desired
result. As a consequence, most nonpaleontologists never
learned about the predominance of stasis, and simply assumed
that gradualism must prevail, as illustrated by the exceedingly
few cases that became textbook "classics": the coiling of
*Gryphae*, the increasing body size of horses, etc.
(Interestingly, nearly all these "classics" have since been
disproved, thus providing another testimony for the temporary
triumph of hope and expectation over evidence - see Gould,
1972.) Thus, when punctuated equilibrium finally granted
theoretical space and importance to stasis, and this
fundamental phenomenon finally emerged from the closet,
nonpaleontologists were often astounded and incredulous.
Gould is probably not thinking exactly what I am thinking when
he writes these words:
I find this situation particularly frustrating as
paleontology's primary example of an insidious phenomenon in
science that simply has not been recognized for the serious
and distorting results perpetrated under its aegis.
(In his defense, actually Gould refers to problems that result for
science in general when this kind of selection against publishing
occurs in any field of study. But in this case, the results for
humanity are very serious indeed.)
The problem with the so-called "Cambrian explosion" is that many basic
different body plans of animals appeared relatively instantaneously -
in geologic time - about 600 million years ago. This is exactly the
opposite of Darwinism's prediction of gradual development of life forms.
I quote here from "Darwin on Trial", a very well written book by Philip
Johnson published in 1991 that has significantly raised people's
awareness of the problems of Darwinism.
The single greatest problem which the fossil record poses for
Darwinism is the "Cambrian explosion" of around 600 million years
ago. Nearly all the animal phyla appear in the rocks of this
period, without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that
Darwinists require. As Richard Dawkins [a staunch advocate of
Darwinism] puts it, "It is as though they were just planted
there, without any evolutionary history." In Darwin's time
there was no evidence for the existence of pre-Cambrian life, and
he conceded in "The Origin of Species" that "The case at present
must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid
argument against the views here entertained." If his theory was
true, Darwin wrote, the pre-Cambrian would must have "swarmed
with living creatures."
In recent years evidence of bacteria and algae has been found in
some of the earth's oldest rocks, and it is generally accepted
today that these single-celled forms of life may have first
appeared as long ago as four billion years. ... And then dozens
of independent groups of multicellular animals appeared without
any visible process of evolutionary development. Darwinist
theory requires that there have been very lengthy sets of
intermediate forms between unicellular organisms and animals
like insects, worms, and clams. The evidence that these existed
is missing, however, and with no good excuse.
The problem posed by the Cambrian explosion has become known to
many contemporary readers due to the success of Gould's book
"Wonderful Life". ...
The general picture of animal history is thus a burst of
general body plans followed by extinction. No new phyla
evolved thereafter. Many species exist today which are absent
from the rocks of the remote past, but these all fit within
general taxonomic categories present at the outset. The
picture is one of evolution of a sort, but only within the
confines of basic categories which themselves show no previous
evolutionary history. Gould described the reclassification
of the Burgess fossils as the "death knell of the artifact
theory." [the theory proposed by Darwin that it is only an
accident of the record that the evidence is so bad.] ...
An orthodox Darwinist would answer that a direct leap from
unicellular organisms to 25 to 50 complex animal phyla without
a long succession of transitional intermediates is not the
sort of thing for which a plausible genetic mechanism exists,
to put it mildly. Gould is describing something he calls
"evolution," but the picture is so different from what Darwin
and his successors had in mind that perhaps a different term
ought to be found. The Darwinian model of evolution is what
Gould calls the "cone of increasing diversity." This means
that the story of multicellular animal life should begin with
a small number of species evolving from simple forms. The
dozens of different basic body plans manifest in the Cambrian
fossils would then be the product of a long and gradual
process of evolution from less differentiated beginnings.
Nor should the cone have stopped expanding abruptly after the
Cambrian explosion. If the disconfirming facts were not
already known, any Darwinist would be confident that the
hundreds of millions of years of post-Cambrian evolution
would have produced many new phyla. [But none were
Instead we see the basic body plans all appearing first,
many of these becoming extinct, and further diversification
proceeding strictly with the boundaries of the original
phyla. These original Cambrian groups have no visible
evolutionary history, and the "artifact theory" which
should supply such a history has to be discarded. Maybe
a few evolutionary intermediates existed for some of the
groups, although none have been conclusively identified,
but otherwise just about all we have between complex
mulicellular animals and single cells is some words like
"fast-transition." We can call this thoroughly
un-Darwinian scenario "evolution," but we are just
attaching a label to a mystery.
Sudden appearance and stasis of species in the fossil
record is the opposite of what Darwinian theory would
predict. (pp 54-56)
Gould's book "Wonderful Life", mentioned above, studies the Cambrian
period from the "Burgess Shale in Canada that gives the best fossil
record of the Cambrian period up to that time. In doing just a
little research on the Cambrian period on the internet, I came
across this information on a yet better and more recent fossil
record of that period, the Chengjiang site. This site is "much older
than the Burgess Shale and the preservation of the specimens is much
The following interview is between "Real Issue", a Christian outlet,
and Dr. Paul Chien, now a Christian due to his findings and who has
changed his career in biology to further study this issue. Dr. Paul
Chien was born in China and graduated from university in Hong Kong
where he earned degrees in chemistry and botany. He completed his
doctorate at the University of California, Irvine, and his post-doc
at Cal Tech in marine biology. Presently he is the chairman of the
biology department at the University of San Francisco.
Chien recently accepted a unique invitation to travel to China to
study the fossils at the Chengjiang site. What Chien found and what
he has since learned about the Cambrian fauna, has changed the
focus of his career. Today, Chien concentrates on further exploring
and promoting the mysteries of the Cambrian explosion of life.
Subsequently, Chien possesses the largest collection of Chinese
Cambrian fossils in North America.
Real Issue: As you became more interested in this and discovered
more about it, did you find it really was an "explosion of life"?
Chien: Yes. A simple way of putting it is that currently we have
about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total
number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including
those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla.
That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning,
where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now.
Stephen J. Gould, [a Harvard University evolutionary biologist],
has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory
of evolution implies that things get more and more complex and
get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole
thing turns out to be reversed. We have more diverse groups in
the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off
over time, and we have less and less now.
RI: What information is the public hearing or not hearing about
the Cambrian explosion?
Chien: The general impression people get is that we began with
micro-organisms, then came lowly animals that don't amount to
much, and then came the birds, mammals and man. Scientists were
looking at a very small branch of the whole animal kingdom, and
they saw more complexity and advanced features in that group.
But it turns out that this concept does not apply to the entire
spectrum of animals or to the appearance or creation of different
groups. Take all the different body plans of roundworms,
flatworms, coral, jellyfish and whatever all those appeared at the
very first instant.
Most textbooks will show a live tree of evolution with the groups
evolving through a long period of time. If you take that tree and
chop off 99 percent of [the earlier portion of] it, [what is left]
is closer to reality; it's the true beginning of every group of
animals, all represented at the very beginning.
Notice Chien's conclusion "all represented at the very beginning."
It is also interesting that Gould calls this a "reverse cone of
diversity". The complete opposite of what Darwin proposed.
CONFESSIONS OF DARWIN
If we did not know better, we would expect that the "Origin of the Species"
to contain a dramatic chapter on the fossil record in which Darwin
demonstrates how the evidence of the bones confirms his theory. However,
Darwin knew quite well that the record was contrary to his theory. Gould
Only one chapter of the "Origin of Species" bears an apologetic title -
ironically, for the subject that should have provided the crown of
direct evidence for evolution in the large: the archive of life's
actual history as displayed in the fossil record. Yet Darwin entitled
Chapter 9 "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record."
Despite this strong belief in geological gradualism, Darwin knew
perfectly well - as all paleontologists always have - that stasis and
abrupt appearance represent a norm for the *observed* history of most
species. I needn't rehearse Darwin's solution to this dilemma, for
his familiar argument represents more than a twice-told tale. Following
the lead of his mentor, Charles Lyle, Darwin attributed this striking
discordance between theoretical expectation and actual observation to
the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. (p. 757)
To quote the two most famous statement on this subject from the
"Origin of Species," Darwin summarizes his entire argument by closing
Chapter 9 with Lyell's metaphor of the book (1859, pp. 310-311)
For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural
geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and
written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last
volume along, relating only to two or three countries. Of this
volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved;
and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of
the slowly - changing language, in which the history is supposed to
be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession
of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of
life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated, formations.
In epitomizing both geological chapters, Darwin begins with a long
list of reasons for such an imperfect record, and then concludes with
his characteristic honesty (1859, p 342): "All these causes taken
conjointly, just have tended to make the geological record extremely
imperfect, and will to a large extent explain why we do not find
interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and
existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects
these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly
reject my whole theory." ...
In the next quote Darwin asserts that because his hypothesis is true,
while the evidence is contrary, it demonstrates how faulty the
evidence is. Of course this is backwards. And Gould in presenting this
quote twists this into a form of "sophistication" on Darwin's part.
The paradoxes set by Darwin's solution for the current practice of
paleontology and macroevolutionary theory receive their clearest
expression in another remarkable statement from the "Origin of
Species" (1859, p. 302), a testimony to Darwin's sophisticated
understanding that nature's "facts" do not stand before us in
pristine objectivity, but must be embedded within theories to make
any sense, or even to be "seen" at all. Darwin acknowledges that he
only understood the extreme imperfection of the geological record
when paleontological evidence of stasis and abrupt appearance
threatened to confute the gradualism that he "knew" to be true:
"But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor
a record of the mutation of life, the best preserved geological
section presented, had not the difficulty of our not discovering
innumerable transitional links between the species which appeared
at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so
hardly on my theory." (p 758)
(Translation: "I know the data does not support my theory. That shows
the data is worse than I would have thought.")
FALSITY OF DARWINISM AS CONFIRMATION OF 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.
In this newsletter we see that a century and a half of field
exploration of the fossil record does not support Darwinism. It
does not resolve the "imperfection" of the geologic record of which
Darwin was well aware. To the contrary, one and a half centuries
of field world have reasonably shown that the absences in the
record that contradicted Darwin's theory are still there. Now we
can say, the geologic record is in "stunning" (Gould's word)
contradiction to Darwin's hypothesis.
The newsletter of August 1 shows the result of chemical efforts to
produce the first life by chance that have been pursued over the
last half century. Those efforts have failed. That line of
exploration of Darwinism is left without a viable theory and is in
The newsletter of July 1 discussed the problems presented by the new
molecular information that was unavailable to Darwin. Darwinism
cannot explain the irreducible complexity found in the molecular
In sum, the field work of a century and a half and the hi-tech
laboratory analysis of the last half century repudiate the
hypothesis of Darwin.
When the details of these newsletters are reviewed, we see that
this is not a debate between religion and science - as often portrayed.
It is the details of science that are the issue. This is a debate
between science and science. The reigning paradigm of the biological
sciences is being dethroned - and being dethroned in our time before
our eyes. Darwinism is the creation story of materialism - and it has
When this paradigm falls, what takes its place?
A natural assumption is that the "designer" of intelligent design must
be the "God" of some theistic religion. But this conclusion does not
follow. There are other alternatives.
Students of Theosophy well know that Theosophy presents what may
fairly be called a third alternative. In Theosophy Darwinism is
regarded as a true but "minor" law of nature. Darwinism is not
granted sufficient power to explain the origin of the species.
Instead, consciousness is present even before the universe comes into
physical existence. Intelligence exists beyond the confines of the
craniums of humans. Intelligence pervades nature.
In addition evolution is a grand principle of Theosophy that confers
purposefulness to the universe and to each of our lives.
I have spent great length in this newsletter because of the
seriousness of the issues. I have wanted to present details
adequate to show the very compelling nature of the evidence. That
decision has made this well beyond the normal length of these
newsletters. The natural questions that follow on Theosophy's view
of evolution and on the structure of nature deserve a longer and more
attentive presentation than I can simply append here. So the next
newsletter will make an attempt to present Theosophy's view in more
That effort will be daunting. Hope you stay tuned.
"No Religion Higher Than Truth"
Support this site by visiting our donation page.
Site copyright © 1996-2014 by Estela Carson-Priede