The idea that life can be reduced to chemistry and physics has become very prominent in the life sciences. According to this idea, all living organisms, including human beings, are simply aggregates of molecules interacting in accordance with chemical and physical laws.
If we want to determine whether it is the theory of evolution or the theory of production that is scientifically more valid, we must test both against the fossil record. It is there alone that we will find concrete evidence of creatures that lived in bygone ages.
You can explain their madness in so many ways, but first try to understand the main idea: a very educated man—when he becomes mad, then he and his words have no value.
Bhakti is as much a science as physics, chemistry or any other science. It is based on observation and experiment, and its results are capable of verification. But bhakti is a transcendental science, and its experiments are of a different nature.
We inhabitants of earth are quite likely the only civilized beings in our galaxy. So contends a scientific study that recently won front-page attention in the “Science” section of the New York Times.
According to some anthropologists, the human being is essentially an animal. “It is clear that we are an extremely old animal, perhaps three million years old, and we were evolved to live as hunter-gatherers,” says a Rutgers University anthropologist Lionel Tiger.
A scientist must be able to explain the origin of natural phenomena. As soon as he denies the existence of God, he must answer the question “Then where has life come from?”
I say to them, “Yes, you can see God—but first you have to have the eyes. You are blind; you have cataracts. Come to me and I will operate. Then you’ll see God.”
Our physical self, the outer body, is always changing-from childhood to adulthood to old age, from lifetime to lifetime, and even from species to species. Yet our spiritual self, the inner spark or soul , is always the same.
Life sciences are dominated by the idea that life can be understood within the framework of chemistry and physics. By this point of view, all features of life, from the metabolic functioning of cells to the mental phenomena of thinking, feeling, and willing, are to be explained as the consequences of underlying chemical processes.
Scientists have failed to demonstrate that the required high information-content was present in the earth’s primal biosphere, and this suggests that there must have been some kind of conscious guidance of the process of evolution.
Exploding the Big Bang Theory by Drutakarma dasa Like an AM radio song or a first-run movie, a scientific theory has to be catchy if it’s going to get anywhere. To begin with, it has to have a name that people will remember. Bright high school students should be able to make science fair displays […]
“Dr. Newton,” the man stared, “who made this wonderful contraption? The planets move with utter precision, you know. Why, it’s ingenious. Who made it?” “No one,” Newton replied. “One day last week it simply appeared here.”
Sciences’ theory that matter is the source of life isn’t based on any observed data. They have faith in chance, and we have faith in God. That’s what it comes down to.
The claim of molecular biologists that life has come about by evolutionary development—beginning from a primordial environment of methane, ammonia, and water sparked by an electromagnetic or thermal stimulus—has never been substantiated by experimental evidence.
The whole world of science and technology is running on the false idea that life is born from matter. We cannot allow this nonsensical theory to go unchallenged. Life does not come from matter. Matter is generated from life.
Charles Darwin’s conclusions rest heavily on a thin surface of guesswork. Real evidence supporting the theory of evolution is in short supply.