Blavatsky Net
Foundation

This site focuses on Madame Blavatsky and her teaching - Theosophy. It features an introduction to Theosophy, study aids, research tools, original text, supporting evidence, membership, and visitor interaction.

Ancient knowledge on Evolution

Dear Member of Blavatsky Net,

One day many years ago I visited a local coffee shop for lunch in a small town known mostly for lending its name to an exit on the New York State Turnpike. What made that day memorable for me was one sentence from me in the ensuing conversation and the one sentence response from a stranger.

I positioned myself on the stool at the lunch counter next to another patron that I had seen at that coffee shop every time I had been there. Thought I would make his acquaintance. I guess I am not good at small talk. One of my conversational gambits was "I don't believe in Darwinism". He responded with alarm "What! You believe in Jesus?"

The chagrin I felt then, I feel still today. Maybe I believed in Vishnu. Maybe I was an agnostic. While I have deep respect for Christians, he had lumped me in with a belief system with very problematic metaphysics - with which I disagree - a system with mangled texts from its early history, with political decisions determining its beliefs and with required devotion to an external representative of the deity, contrary to the mystic traditions of the world.

And, as asserted, the alternative, Darwinism is simply wrong. The preceding newsletters amply demonstrate the problem. Notes at the end of this newsletter give more sources for pursuing that assertion.

For those like myself who also deeply appreciate science and scientists, the approach of Darwinists to the emerging issue of intelligent design, (ID), is an abandonment of the principles of science. Darwinists are failing to go where the evidence leads. That is wholly unscientific. They declare as "supernatural" - and therefore a priori false - all those propositions that do not fit their preconceived materialistic assumptions. But the world around us has much evidence of realities beyond that of matter and the energy of physics. As a result, mainstream science shuts its eyes in denial and acts as the religion of materialism. Mainstream science today bases its conclusions ultimately upon an axiom of faith.

Moreover, many people today formulate the conflict of Darwinism versus ID as an either/or issue. And this is the key. It isn't so. Instead, there is a distinct third alternative. That alternative is the knowledge of the wisdom tradition. The evidence in the Darwinism/ID debate confirms the specific relevant assertions of that ancient knowledge. So it is the purpose of this newsletter to explain how there could possibly be a third alternative, what that third alternative is, how the evidence confirms it, and to offer suggestions for more study to determine truth for yourself.

In the process this has become much longer than a newsletter. My apology is that the attempt here is to assemble together the many and various ideas of the ancient wisdom as presented by Madame Helena Blavatsky and show in detail how they apply and how they differentiate the third alternative from either science or religion as commonly understood in the current debate. The overview of this issue is no longer sufficient. The debate is very serious. This letter contains detail along with the overview.

Meanwhile the debate in the real world intensifies as people take their positions. The interim president of Cornell University, Hunter Rawlings III, felt it incumbent upon him to announce that he was against the teaching of intelligent design in the science curriculum.

UPI says "John West, a fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle -- a leader in the intelligent design movement -- told the Times he's concerned Rawlings is "fanning the flames of intolerance."

But Rawlings was outdone by the faculty at Lehigh University. Lehigh is the home of Michael Behe, the author of "Darwin's Black box", an influential seminal book describing how the modern molecular evidence not available to Darwin now points very strongly to the conclusion that at least some life forms reveal intelligent design. So the faculty at that university recently felt compelled to collectively declare that they are materialists and do not support the views of Behe. They do so on their web site. They assert they are materialists in order to preserve and protect the reputation of their university as they perceive it.

But Rawlings and the faculty of Lehigh are far outdone by the scientists of Australia. In Australia, 70,000 scientists have lent their names to a document in support of Darwinism and against ID.

I take much hope from all this - particularly from the 70,000 scientists of Australia. It means the issue is alive, well, and knowledge is growing amongst the people. 70,000 scientists would not join in that effort unless the issues have greatly intensified and their religion of materialism been seriously threatened.

The evidence of activity on the other side is interesting. One hint that seemed especially relevant to me occurred at the very end of the CD "The Triumph of Design and the Demise of Darwin" featuring Philip Johnson, author of "Darwin on Trial". His book is an extremely rational and persuasive book that has helped lead the way in informing the people on this issue. At the end of the CD Johnson says that according to information he receives, students are now confronting their teachers with information. In class they raise questions and dispute the "information" being dispensed. That is portentous.

On a more formal scale, an international conference was held this past month, as announced at darwinanddesign.org, to "review evidence for intelligent design, drawing upon results in astronomy, physics, mathematics, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology." The momentum is growing.

And for the record, the list of scientists openly admitting to doubting Darwinism has grown to 400 at the web site for Discovery Institute, at discovery.org, a leading web site for promoting the study of problems with Darwinism.

Then there is the book "Of Pandas and People". It is a must reading for anyone wanting a primer on the problems confronting Darwinism. Read it carefully. Though there are now increasing numbers of excellent sources this is probably the best single source. I mention it in order to show some of the scientific sources willing to examine matters objectively. In the introduction it gives acknowledgements to 43 contributors with impressive scientific credentials from a wide range of disciples.

AIM OF "THE SECRET DOCTRINE" BY HELENA P. BLAVATSKY

In the preface to Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine she states the aims of the book. Oddly enough, the attempt to explain the view of the ancient wisdom upon the Darwinist/ID happens to invoke each of her aims. I will intersperse my comments with hers as we sometimes do in email.

The aim of this work may be thus stated: to show that Nature is not "a fortuitous concurrence of atoms,

How appropriate. What we are about is to explore the answer to the momentous question, are the life forms about us the result of "a fortuitous concurrence of atoms". (Was the materialism of Darwinism prominently in her sights as she wrote her magnum opus?) She continues:

and to assign to man his rightful place in the scheme of the Universe; ...

Certainly it should be our personal objective to determine this and the issue of Darwinism leads in this direction.

to rescue from degradation the archaic truths which are the basis of all religions; and to uncover, to some extent, the fundamental unity from which they all spring;

Surprisingly, this question follows naturally in the exposition.

finally, to show that the occult side of Nature has never been approached by the Science of modern civilization.

And that is a strong conclusion to the material of this newsletter. She adds:

If this is in any degree accomplished, the writer is content. It is written in the service of humanity, and by humanity and the future generations it must be judged. Its author recognises no inferior court of appeal. (preface SD)

In part we are that future generation and in part we are that court of appeal. So lets see how the case looks today.

MICRO-EVOLUTION VS. MACRO-EVOLUTION

In following the Darwinism/ID debate one will quickly hear from the Darwinist side that Darwinism has been well proven. From the other side one will hear there is no proof whatsoever that Darwinism explains the origin of the species. As contradictory as these statements seem, there is actually an explanation that reveals a truth to both.

The reconciliation comes from noting the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution studies how sub-species and variations arise. For example, the lengths of beaks of a certain bird have been show to change due to climatic changes. The percent of moths with certain colorations has seemingly changed in response to the changing needs of local camouflage. Micro-evolution has been shown to be correct in some instances. There are not as many such proofs as we might infer from the apologists for Darwinism and in some cases issues remain, but as a whole a reasonable person should certainly grant the principles of Darwinism have, in some cases, explained micro-evolution.

Macro-evolution refers to the origin of the species (not sub-species). This is what is at controversy.

The Darwinist making the above claims fails to mention something. He fails to mention that macro-evolution has not been proven. He may well shut his own eyes and believe that if micro-evolution has been proven then macro-evolution also has been proven. But it just isn't so.

For example: "Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any." (Wesson R. Beyond Natural Selection. Cambridge (USA): MIT Press, 1991)

Theosophy definitely grants to Darwinism the power to explain some micro-evolution. But after that concession, it describes Darwinism as only a "minor" law. If you read on and appreciate the scope of occultism's view, you will see that Darwinism is described correctly as indeed only a minor law.

Blavatsky's summary view of Darwinism:

The fact is, that only the partial truth of many of the secondary "laws" of Darwinism is beyond question" (SDii662)

Since Darwinism has been shown to be inadequate after a century and a half to explain macro-evolution, her assertions of 1888 have been vindicated.

ARCHAIC TRUTHS

Having shown the relation of Theosophy to science on this subject, the next subject is Theosophy's relation to the theistic religions that have at their head, obvious "designers". Western culture is immersed in the concept of the monotheistic religions of Christianity and Judaism. The casual reader may not be aware of different alternatives. So a major digression is required to discuss how the "archaic truths which are the basis of all religions" offer a third alternative.

The idea of a God outside the cosmos who creates it - with omniscience and omnipotence - is not the grandest metaphysical conception. The question may be expressed, what is the highest cosmic ultimate in a given metaphysics. In standard Christianity it is God. In the archaic traditions is a nameless reality that is beyond all description and all expressions of words. Imagine the most abstract abstraction we can imagine. It is beyond that.

In a key passage it is "described" as

An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable PRINCIPLE on which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of thought. (SDi14)

In English it is called the Absolute.

In my experience, people find her continuation helpful:

and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or similitude.

So if we describe it we dwarf it. It is said that the most advanced seers sense it.

The phrase "Neti, neti" means not "not that, not that". It refers to a teaching device in which the student is told to reach for some grand abstraction. Once the student has imagined that abstraction the student is told "not that, not that."

There is a vast difference between this cosmic metaphysical ultimate and a "God". The God of the Bible, in contrast, displays jealousy, rage and sorrow.

I mention this under "archaic truths" because it is such. We see it very clearly under Hinduism. We see it in the Hebrew Kabalah as Ainsoph (literally translated as "nothing.") It can be found in Buddhism though that engenders a discussion beyond our scope at the moment. It is believed in today by 100,000,000 Chinese (or more?) Interestingly a similar idea appears in the German Christian concept of "Gottheit". And this idea is routinely found in the mystic traditions of the world.

So on the basis of this Absolute alone, Theosophy - the ancient wisdom as represented by Blavatsky - is a third way in contrast to the Gods of theistic religions.

CONSCIOUSNESS

Before discussing "intelligence" as in "intelligent design" it is appropriate to discuss consciousness because as the terms are used in our language, consciousness suggests something more general than intelligence to the metaphysical philosopher.

Materialist science asserts that consciousness is an "epiphenonomen" occurring inside our craniums. It is the result of neurons "firing". It is merely an effect of this very fancy, elaborate assemblage of hydrocarbons.

Of course more open-minded science is beginning to permit this subject of study. It is good that a phenonomen so obvious and so real to each of us as individuals may now, in some quarters, be studied.

In physics consciousness is now required to do what the physicists call "collapse the wave function". In simpler terms, in order to make sense of the equations of physics, a concept of "consciousness" is now required. I say that Consciousness is the unwelcome guest at the dinner table of physics.

Some argue that consciousness - quite outside our skulls - is necessary to resolve the paradoxes of quantum physics.

In softer sciences consciousness is being analyzed directly.

Now in presenting the ancient wisdom as a third alternative in the Darwinism/ID debate, it is relevant to introduce the role of consciousness in Theosophy. Before quoting Blavatsky's dense language in the original I should introduce a few words first.

Theosophy, as most readers will know, is the ancient wisdom as presented by Blavatsky as taught to her by her teachers in Tibet - flesh and blood human beings.

Theosophy has the Absolute, called Parabrahm in Hinduism, as the one reality. We can't even say it exists "for all time" because time is a subsidiary concept. The absolute is beyond time. But periodically a universe emerges from the Absolute. It does so in stages.

At an early stage is a duality of spirit and matter. From this in turn the universe manifests itself. But that spirit is also described as consciousness.

What this means to the debate at hand is that the Theosophical view places consciousness very fundamental to the nature of the universe itself. From this position "intelligence", a more worldly property, is seen as a natural underlying property of the universe. To see this intelligence as guiding and helping evolution is only a very natural concept.

What this means is that to understand the intelligence of "intelligent design", Theosophy asserts that consciousness, and intelligence are totally fundamental to the nature of the world around us. Intelligence is utterly not something restricted to the inside of our skulls. Nor is intelligence something outside the cosmos that created that cosmos out of nothing. Instead consciousness is a fundamental aspect of nature.

Next is her rather condensed description. It is also notable because it says that the individual consciousness in each of us is derived from that consciousness that inaugurated the universe. - her words below "precosmic Ideation" is the source of "all individual consciousness".

And a key point for the purpose of this discussion, she then explains that this consciousness provides: "the guiding intelligence in the vast scheme of cosmic Evolution." Her words:

Parabrahm (the One Reality, the Absolute) is the field of Absolute Consciousness, i.e., that Essence which is out of all relation to conditioned existence, and of which conscious existence is a conditioned symbol. But once that we pass in thought from this (to us) Absolute Negation, duality supervenes in the contrast of Spirit (or consciousness) and Matter, Subject and Object. Spirit (or Consciousness) and Matter are, however, to be regarded, not as independent realities, but as the two facets or aspects of the Absolute (Parabrahm), which constitute the basis of conditioned Being whether subjective or objective. Considering this metaphysical triad as the Root from which proceeds all manifestation, the great Breath assumes the character of precosmic Ideation. It is the fons et origo [source and origin] of force and of all individual consciousness, and supplies the guiding intelligence in the vast scheme of cosmic Evolution. On the other hand, precosmic root-substance (Mulaprakriti) is that aspect of the Absolute which underlies all the objective planes of Nature. Just as pre-Cosmic Ideation is the root of all individual consciousness, so pre-Cosmic Substance is the substratum of matter in the various grades of its differentiation.

It will not be clear to the casual reader so let me try to explain. This "pre-Cosmic Ideation" evolves into what are called the Dhyan-Chohans. These represent the "intelligent" laws of nature. This intelligence in turn is the cause directing the underlying physiological variation of the species. In her words:

But even here the Darwinian Theory, even with the "expansions" recently attempted, is inadequate to meet the facts of the case. The underlying physiological variation in species - one to which all other laws are subordinate and secondary - is a sub-conscious intelligence pervading matter, ultimately traceable to a REFLECTION of the Divine and Dhyan-Chohanic wisdom. (SDii648)

You may possibly recall that one of her stated purposes for writing the Secret Doctrine as quoted above was "to assign to man his rightful place in the scheme of the Universe; ..." So we see that objective has begun to be met in our pursuit of this debate. In the course of discussing the ID debate we encounter the idea that the consciousness within us derives from the consciousness that underlies the universe. In this light, the ancient wisdom gives humanity a distinct "place in the scheme of the Universe";

HIERARCHIES

We now have several relevant differences between the version of cosmology according to the ancient wisdom and that of the "God did it" varieties.

One difference is a more abstract cosmic ultimate. Vastly different. A second difference is that the Absolute, and even consciousness, are not separate from the universe. "They" (It?) do not create something separate from themselves. God does, it doesn't.

Furthermore, we are fundamentally not distinct from the consciousness that underlies the universe. With the God-did-it version we are separate creations from the creator. Under that version we have a quite different place in the universe.

But yet another difference comes under the heading of "hierarchies". In a theistic religion, at least as standardly perceived, God does it all. The ancient wisdom says differently. The ancient wisdom has a hierarchy of intelligences involved. We also should note they are involved in varying degrees. Her words:

This hierarchy of spiritual Beings, through which the Universal Mind comes into action, is like an army-a "Host," truly-by means of which the fighting power of a nation manifests itself, and which is composed of army corps, divisions, brigades, regiments, and so forth, each with its separate individuality or life, and its limited freedom of action and limited responsibilities; each contained in a larger individuality, to which its own interests are subservient, and each containing lesser individualities in itself. (SDi38)

In the next passage Blavatsky refers to a "septenary hierarchy". This is the Dhyan Chohans referred to above as an early stage in the evolution of consciousness into a material world.

Stanza IV. shows the differentiation of the "Germ" of the Universe into the septenary hierarchy of conscious Divine Powers, who are the active manifestations of the One Supreme Energy. They are the framers, shapers, and ultimately the creators of all the manifested Universe, in the only sense in which the name "Creator" is intelligible; they inform and guide it; they are the intelligent Beings who adjust and control evolution, embodying in themselves those manifestations of the ONE LAW, which we know as "The Laws of Nature." Generically, they are known as the Dhyan Chohans, though each of the various groups has its own designation in the Secret Doctrine. This stage of evolution is spoken of in Hindu mythology as the "Creation" of the Gods. (SDi21-22)

In the next passage she makes an analogy between the earliest consciousness and the actual working out of the universe - an analogy between the Architect that never touches one stone of the building and the actual masons.

... we hope to have proven so far the following facts: ... (2) It admits a Logos or a collective "Creator" of the Universe; a Demi-urgos-in the sense implied when one speaks of an "Architect" as the "Creator" of an edifice, whereas that Architect has never touched one stone of it, but, while furnishing the plan, left all the manual labour to the masons; in our case the plan was furnished by the Ideation of the Universe, and the constructive labour was left to the Hosts of intelligent Powers and Forces. But that Demiurgos is no personal deity,-i.e., an imperfect extra-cosmic god,-but only the aggregate of the Dhyan-Chohans and the other forces.

Notice in this next quote that Blavatsky is referencing sentient Beings that have not yet reached the stage of man as well as sentient beings that have passed the stage of man.

The whole Kosmos is guided, controlled, and animated by almost endless series of Hierarchies of sentient Beings, each having a mission to perform . . . They vary infinitely in their respective degrees of consciousness and intelligence; and to call them all pure Spirits without any of the earthly alloy "which time is wont to prey upon" is only to indulge in poetical fancy. For each of these Beings either was, or prepares to become, a man, if not in the present, then in a past or a coming cycle (Manvantara). They are perfected, when not incipient, men... (SDi274-5)

IMPERFECTION

Occasionally these days a Darwinist will condemn the "Designer" for having produced an imperfect piece of handiwork - and thereby cast aspersions on the Designer's existence.

Sometimes the Darwinist will include remarks on the vicissitudes of life here on earth. Usually this is because the Darwinist is unaware of the metaphysics of occultism. Reincarnation, karma and the long term spiritual evolution of humanity make rational sense out of those vicissitudes.

That leaves an interesting question concerning the imperfections in the design of these life forms. Perhaps the same issue was floated in 1888 when Blavatsky published "The Secret Doctrine" because she mentions this several times.

For, it is those terrestrial spirits of Nature, who form the aggregated Nature; which, if it fails occasionally in its design, is neither to be considered blind, nor to be taxed with the failure; since, belonging to a differentiated sum of qualities and attributes, it is in virtue of that alone conditioned and imperfect. (SDii732-3)

Here she specifically disclaims omnipotence and omniscience for those designers.

But there are certainly "designers," though these are neither omnipotent nor omniscient in the absolute sense of the term. They are simply Builders, or Masons, working under the impulse given them by the ever-to-be-unknown, (on our plane) Master Mason - the ONE LIFE and Law. Belonging to this sphere, they have no hand in, or possibility of working on any other, during the present Manvantara, at any rate. That they work in cycles and on a strictly geometrical and mathematical scale of progression, is what the extinct animal species amply demonstrate; that they act by design in the details of minor lives (of side animal issues, etc.) is what natural history has sufficient evidence for.

Again she references the imperfection of the designers making them not fit subjects for worship.

This results in a perpetual series of physical manifestations and moral effects on Earth, during manvantaric periods, the whole being subservient to Karma. As that process is not always perfect; and since, however many proofs it may exhibit of a guiding intelligence behind the veil, it still shows gaps and flaws, and even results very often in evident failures - therefore, neither the collective Host (Demiurgos), nor any of the working powers individually, are proper subjects for divine honours or worship.

In this way the ancient wisdom contrasts again with standard theistic religion. The imperfections are philosophically an annoyance in the argument if God, the Designer, is omnipotent and omniscient.

The evidence of imperfection again points to ancient wisdom over standard religion and answers the criticisms of the Darwinists.

ASTRAL

The ancient wisdom asserts that the original life forms are created in the astral plane. This should seem less radical and impossible than it did at the time of the writing of the Secret Doctrine. Today we can look at Kirlian photography that produces actual photographs of some portion of the astral plane. We can note the healing work of such professionals as Barbara Hand that deals extensively with this aspect of the world.

Blavatsky explains that "ancestral types" are developed on this astral plane and provide the starting point for physical evolution.

Those purely secondary causes of differentiation, grouped under the head of sexual selection, natural selection, climate, isolation, etc., etc., mislead the Western Evolutionist and offer no real explanation whatever of the "whence" of the "ancestral types" which served as the starting point for physical development. The truth is that the differentiating "causes" known to modern science only come into operation after the physicalization of the primeval animal root-types out of the astral. Darwinism only meets Evolution at its midway point-that is to say when astral evolution has given place to the play of the ordinary physical forces with which our present senses acquaint us. (SDii648)

One other passage of hers has always struck me as sounding particularly like a description of design work on the astral plane.

In the creation of new species, departing sometimes very widely from the Parent stock, as in the great variety of the genus Felis-like the lynx, the tiger, the cat, etc.-it is the "designers" who direct the new evolution by adding to, or depriving the species of certain appendages, either needed or becoming useless in the new environments. Thus, when we say that Nature provides for every animal and plant, whether large or small, we speak correctly.

TRIPLE EVOLUTION

In almost all discussion, the term "evolution" refers to the development of the physical forms that we all know. But not in the ancient wisdom. That body of knowledge knows of a triple stream of evolution.

First the physical forms are evolving.

Second our spiritual natures are evolving. Our spiritual forms progress from life to reincarnated life and use the simultaneously evolving physical forms.

Thirdly, intelligence evolves. Theosophy asserts that intelligence cannot be developed by Darwinian means and its development must be "aided".

These three lines of evolution develop a trinity that is closely related to the true and full nature of the constitution of a complete human being - spiritual aspects included. But here the material proceeds quite beyond the scope of this newsletter.

Briefly, here are some of Blavatsky's words.

It now becomes plain that there exists in Nature a triple evolutionary scheme, for the formation of the three periodical Updates; or rather three separate schemes of evolution, which in our system are inextricably interwoven and interblended at every point. These are the Monadic (or spiritual), the intellectual, and the physical evolutions. ... Each of these three systems has its own laws ... "Nature," the physical evolutionary Power, could never evolve intelligence unaided-she can only create "senseless forms," (SDi182).

This is knowledge of the occult (hidden) side of nature. It is quite beyond the issues as posed in the current Darwinist/ID/religion debate.

WORSHIP

Should we worship the Designer? Again, the ancient wisdom differs from standard religion. The ancient wisdom does not suggest houses of worship which one visits to worship. However, appreciation of nature, perhaps in some ways like the well-known views of Einstein, is natural.

I am repeating an earlier quote so it can be continued in the context of the issue of worship.

This results in a perpetual series of physical manifestations and moral effects on Earth, during manvantaric periods, the whole being subservient to Karma. As that process is not always perfect; and since, however many proofs it may exhibit of a guiding intelligence behind the veil, it still shows gaps and flaws, and even results very often in evident failures - therefore, neither the collective Host (Demiurgos), nor any of the working powers individually, are proper subjects for divine honours or worship. All are entitled to the grateful reverence of Humanity, however, and man ought to be ever striving to help the divine evolution of Ideas, by becoming to the best of his ability a co-worker with nature in the cyclic task. The ever unknowable and incognizable Karana alone, the Causeless Cause of all causes, should have its shrine and altar on the holy and ever untrodden ground of our heart-invisible, intangible, unmentioned, save through "the still small voice" of our spiritual consciousness.

Her final words in this quote I have separated out in hopes they receive more notice:

Those who worship before it, ought to do so in the silence and the sanctified solitude of their Souls; making their spirit the sole mediator between them and the Universal Spirit, their good actions the only priests, and their sinful intentions the only visible and objective sacrificial victims to the Presence.

PERSPECTIVE

Blavatsky's final purpose in writing the Secret Doctrine was "finally, to show that the occult side of Nature has never been approached by the Science of modern civilization." It must be quite clear by now that she has achieved that goal.

It needs to be added that "evolution" in Theosophy is much more than an elaborate discussion of biological issues. It is a view of the universe. It encompasses the nature of the world, the nature of our lives, who we are, what we are doing here, and where we are going. In her words:

The whole order of nature evinces a progressive march towards a higher life. There is design in the action of the seemingly blindest forces. The whole process of evolution with its endless adaptations is a proof of this.

She continues in way that relates the "survival of the fittest" to the MIND of the Universe:

The immutable laws that weed out the weak and feeble species, to make room for the strong, and which ensure the "survival of the fittest," though so cruel in their immediate action - all are working toward the grand end. The very fact that adaptations do occur, that the fittest do survive in the struggle for existence, shows that what is called "unconscious Nature" is in reality an aggregate of forces manipulated by semi-intelligent beings (Elementals) guided by High Planetary Spirits, (Dhyan Chohans), whose collective aggregate forms the manifested verbum of the unmanifested LOGOS, and constitutes at one and the same time the MIND of the Universe and its immutable LAW. (SDi278-9)

And finally, the ancient wisdom speaks of the evolution of universes.

The Secret Doctrine teaches the progressive development of everything, worlds as well as atoms; and this stupendous development has neither conceivable beginning nor imaginable end. Our "Universe" is only one of an infinite number of Universes, all of them "Sons of Necessity," because links in the great Cosmic chain of Universes, each one standing in the relation of an effect as regards its predecessor, and being a cause as regards its successor. (SDi43)

MATERIALISTS

Prominent evolutionist Richard Lewontin, a geneticist at Harvard University, wrote:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ("Billions and Billions of Demons" New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28)

This quote occurs 54 times at Google. No wonder. Lewontin appears to reveal more than he intended.

This confession of Lewontin is an overt admission that orthodox Darwinism today clings to an axiom of materialism. Now supposedly objective orthodoxy defends even irrationality lest its axiom prove wrong. But that is not science. That is desperation and dogmatism - the very trait that science condemns.

Lewontin reminds me of Blavatsky's comment:

Are these representatives of modern thought all guilty of flagrant misrepresentation of the facts? No one says this - but there are a few very exceptional cases. However, the Scientists in their anti-clerical enthusiasm and despair of any alternative theory to Darwinism, except that of "special creation," are unconsciously insincere in "forcing" a hypothesis the elasticity of which is inadequate, and which resents the severe strain to which it is now subjected. (SDii645)

More generally she wrote:

"this failure of the scientists to discover the truth is entirely due to their materialism and contempt for transcendental sciences." (SDi600)

Science must develop an open-mind. It must adopt the true spirit of science. It must forget its centuries long battle with religion and pursue truth wherever it leads. Blavatsky asserts that will lead inevitably in the direction of occultism. Repeatedly she seems right. The evidence of ID is a very strong step in that direction.

As the debate over ID widens, one more and more sees revealed this broader struggle over the underlying axiom of materialism. Because of this, various future issues of the newsletter will address that axiom of materialism as it surfaces in a variety of costumes. Thanks for reading this far.

Reed Carson

___________

Blavatsky Net Foundation

Blavatsky Net - Theosophy

Ancient knowledge on Evolution

Blavatsky Net
Foundation