Bhaktivedanta Institute – A Mission Transforming Material Science into Spiritual Science

A humble offering on the 75th Vyasapuja of
Srila Sripad Bhaktisvarupa Damodara Goswami Maharaja
(18th December 2012)
Table of Contents
1. How Educational System Transformed from Spiritual to Material?
2. Bhakti Vedanta Institute for Spiritual Culture and Science – a mission transforming darkness into light (tamaso ma jyotir gamaya)
3. Mechanistic Worldview of Reductionism is Self-Defeating in Nature
4. Foundation of Scientific Sankirtan

5. First Victory of Scientific Sankirtan Over Material Science
6. Transcendental Power of Srila Prabhupada’s Mantra to Scientists
7. Subjective Evolution of Consciousness
8. Srila Sripad Maharaja’s Scientific Sankirtan Worldwide
9. Hint of Prominent Beginning of Transformation of Material Science into Spiritual Science
10. Mission in the Safe Hands of Affectionate Guardian?
11. Acknowledgements
12. References

1. How Educational System Transformed from Spiritual to Material?

Our attitude is greatly dependent on the way our education has prepared us to think about reality. Systems of schooling include institutionalized education and acquiring knowledge based on a syllabus, which itself is based on a predetermined purpose of the schools in the system. In the past school systems were founded on religion providing them different curricula. At that time education was for the sake of itself. The main reasons people pursued education and attended schools were to satisfy the spiritual quest – athato brahma jijnasa (Vedanta-sutra (1.1.1)) and longing for spiritual development, to uplift oneself, without livelihood-based motivations for doing so. The prime focus of modern education is to acquire necessary knowledge and skills to improve ability to learn basic interpersonal communication, literacy skills and earn a livelihood for themselves. The three main pillars responsible for this transformation of educational systems from spiritual to material are: (1) Francis Bacon’s campaign of “power/control over nature”, (2) Descartes’ epistemology – science can ‘make us masters and possessors of nature’, and (3) Darwinian’s objective evolutionary biology.

Francis Bacon1.1 Francis Bacon’s campaign ‘power/control over nature’

Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was one of the prominent personalities in natural philosophy and in the subject matter of scientific methodology during the shift from the Renaissance to the beginning of modern era. Bacon discussed questions of ethics (Essays) in his works on natural philosophy (The Advancement of Learning).[1]He criticized Plato, Aristotle, humanists and Renaissance scholars such as Paracelsus and Bernardino Telesio. Bacon, in his systematic structure of the disciplines in the Advancement of Learning (1605), rejects the book learning of the humanists, on the grounds that they ‘hunt more after words than matter’ (Bacon, III [1887], 283).[2] Furthermore, he carps about the Cambridge University curriculum for giving importance on dialectical and sophistical training (Bacon, III [1887], 326).[3] Thus Bacon reformulated and altered Aristotle’s conception of science as knowledge of necessary causes. Rejecting Aristotle’s logic (which is based on his metaphysical theory), Bacon assumed that our sensual experience (things as they appear), automatically presents things as they are to our understanding. Bacon pursued his work on natural philosophy and brought back the concepts of Pre-Socratic philosophers, especially the atomists, and among them, Democritus, as the leading figures. Bacon gave preferences to Democritus’ natural philosophy and thus dismissed Aristotle’s deductive logic and belief in authorities. Bacon rejects any approach based on tradition to start with and believes in a direct investigation of nature and then to ascend to empirical and general knowledge.[4] For Bacon the value of power and utility is so immense that frequently truth, power and utility become identical concepts in his understanding. Bacon stated in Novum Organum,[5]

Truth, therefore, and utility, are here perfectly identical, and effects are of more value as pledges of truth than from the benefit they confer on man... There is a most intimate connection between the ways of human power and human knowledge... and that which is most useful in practice is most correct in theory.

The great scientist of the seventeenth century, Newton, developed the mechanistic concept of reality in science by deriving inspiration from Bacon’s work. This has caused a shift from harmonious organic or wholistic word view to dangerous mechanistic worldview of reductionism. Bourdeau stated,

For Bacon we must subdue nature, penetrate its secrets and chain it to satisfy our desires. Man is the center of the world and the object of science is to dominate nature.[6]

In the past nature was seen as a worshipable divine gift of God and after Bacon’s campaign all that has changed. Bourdeau futher stated,[7]

… Now nature is threatened by man who has become detached from it. Technology has endowed humans with the power of a major geological agency, which may act on a continental or even planetary scale (e.g. acid rain, photochemical smog, radioactive contamination, stratospheric ozone depletion, climate change).

“These man-made environmental problems cannot all be solved by technology alone. Changes in human behaviour are necessary, hence the need for codes of conduct based on the ethics of the environment. The relationship between man and nature must be reconsidered. 

Descartes 1.2 Descartes’ epistemology – science can ‘make us masters and possessors of nature’

 Bacon’s mechanistic science is further strengthened by Rene Descartes’ (1596 – 1650) dualistic philosophy – Cartesian duality. In the Cartesian view, to make sure that we believe only what is authentically definite, we must first knowingly reject all of the confidently held but debatable beliefs we have formerly acquired by experience and education. Separateness of the physical and mental reality was established by Descartes theory of perception and his famous cogito ergo sum – ‘I think, therefore I am.’ For Descartes the power of the human mind/reason is central to science. By exercising the mind for understanding nature, one can obtain scientific knowledge and hence can become the master and possessor of nature. Descartes explained that man must overcome the slavery to nature and by developing the knowledge of nature man can make nature useful to men. Thus Descartes established a mechanistic understanding of reality by proposing nature as a bag of tools ready for any human purposes. In Descartes view we were considered to be sitting dualistically outside the world discovering the laws of physics to direct them towards our own purposes.

Descartes explained that human beings are made up of two things: res extensae (corporeal body, physicochemical, material and tangible entity) and res cogitans (metaphysical mind–non-corporeal, intangible, immaterial entity unavailable for empirical examination by any observational natural science). However, he could not provide a convincing explanation on how something non-physical could be intimately related with something physical. Descartes’ dualistic view is like a ‘ghost in a machine’, but he was not sure how a ghost can control the machine. In addition to this mind-body dualism, Descartes also explained that animals are completely distinct from humans because he believed that animals don’t have res cogitans – ‘thinking substance’. For Descartes animals are organic automata (machines), which are much more fabulous than artificial ones, but machines nonetheless. Gaukroger [8]stated,

Descartes completely reshapes the relation between metaphysics and natural philosophy, and develops the first mechanist physical cosmology,… the first mechanist physiology and embryology, the first mechanist account of animal sentience …

In Introduction to Animal Rights,[9] Gary Francione describes the anticipated consequences of the Cartesian view:

Descartes and his followers performed experiments in which they nailed animals by their paws onto boards and cut them open to reveal their beating hearts. They burned, scalded, and mutilated animals in every conceivable manner. When the animals reacted as though they were suffering pain, Descartes dismissed the reaction as no different from the sound of a machine that was functioning improperly. A crying dog, Descartes maintained, is no different from a whining gear that needs oil.

1.3 Darwinian objective evolutionary biology

DarwinFollowing Descartes physics started developing based on the mechanistic Cartesian world view, and on that foundation the principles of Newtonian physics retained their strong authority in Western scientific thinking. Even though Descartes’ straightforward mechanistic biology was revised significantly, the faith that all features of living organisms can be explained by reducing them to their smallest constituents, and the mechanisms through which these interact, forms the foundation of evolutionary biology developed by Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882) and his faithful followers.  In biology, the Cartesian view of living organisms as machines made from distinct parts, provided the central conceptual framework until the last few decades of the 20th Century. Clear evidence of the mechanistic view of reductionism in biology can be sensed from this statement of a textbook on modern biology: “One of the acid tests of understanding an object is the ability to put it together from its component parts. Ultimately, molecular biologists will attempt to subject their understanding of cell structure and function to this sort of test by trying to synthesize a cell.[10]

Under the command of Captain Robert FitzRoy, the HMS Beagle set sail in 1831, with British naturalist Darwin on board. In this voyage, serving as a naturalist, Darwin studied the geographic distribution of plants and animals in terms of the uniformitarian geology based on Charles Lyell’s published Principles of Geology. The patterns of extinct fossil forms and extant life gave Darwin an impression that some natural and gradual process that involved migration and adaptation to local environments had taken effect, rather than some act of inimitable or extraordinary creation of God. Thus he tried to come up with a general rationalization for his observations of the natural world. Influenced by Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Robert Malthus, Darwin believed that competition for natural resources was a fact of life and that populations remained stable as a result of processes that included checks and balances. In a struggle for existence, individuals with the most favorable characteristics would be favored to survive and reproduce themselves. Thus, Darwin claimed that over a large time scale, organisms with favorable traits and characters would diverge from their ancestral forms to give rise to new species.

In the year 1859 Darwin explained ‘descent with modification’ by means of ‘natural selection’ in his famous publicationOn the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.[11] Although Darwin had only one line on human evolution in his 1859 book, his theory clearly indicated that humans were also subject to the same mechanistic process as plants and animals. Thus, this mechanistic theory of natural selection provided a naturalistic foundation for modern biology by eliminating God’s creation and established a nonpurposive view of reality. In a famous letter[12] to his botanist friend Joseph D. Hooker in 1871, Darwin stated “It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present which could ever have been present. But If (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes at the present such matter would be instantly devoured, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” Hence, in Darwin’s view, life is nothing but a majestic arrangement of atoms and molecules.

2. Bhakti Vedanta Institute for Spiritual Culture and Science – a mission transforming darkness into light (tamaso ma jyotir gamaya)

Gaura BhaktavrindaLord Sri Krishna and Lord Balaram mercifully appeared as two full moons in the form of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Lord Nityanada Prabhu to dispel the dense darkness of ignorance in this dark age of Kali by spreading the cooling rays of extreme mercy. In Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.5.32, we find evidence of the advent of Kali-yugaavatar Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and His associates:


krsna-varnam tvisa 'krsnam sangopangastra-parsadam
yajnaih sankirtana-prayair yajanti hi su-medhasah

Translation: In the age of Kali, persons of great piety and intelligence will worship the Lord as Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. He will appear in a golden form chanting Krishna’s name, accompanied by His associates and entourage.


Lord Chaitanya appeared along with His eternal associates 500 years back in Sri Navadwip Dham, West Bengal, India and established the congregational chanting or Sankirttan, as the universal religion for this age of Kali. Lord Nityananda Prabhu appeared in Rada-desa, Birbhum District, West Bengal, India. Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu predicted that his mercy would spread to every town and village and Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s manifesting potency Lord Nityanda Prabhu, expansively initiated that distributing function. Lord Nityananda Prabhu was running after fallen souls, making them qualified by giving his causeless mercy and finally sending them to his master Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (the relishing function). Hence, the mercy of Nityananda Prabhu is the foundation of devotion to Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Only by the mercy of Lord Nityanda one can obtain Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s divine grace. These two divine functions of Absolute: relishing and distributing functions are eternally manifesting in our Gaudiya Sampradaya.


Srila Prabhupada Srila Sridhar MaharajaAfter 500 years of Mahaprabhu’s appearance, distributing and relishing functions of Absolute again appeared extensively in the form of Srila A.C. Bhakti Vedanta Swami Prabhupada and Srila Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaja. Fulfilling the prediction of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, in ten short years, Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada inundated the whole world with Krishna consciousness. Srila Prabhupada went to the West in 1965 and distributed Krishna consciousness in an extraordinary manner, which is unique in the history of our Sampradaya. Like merciful Nityananda Prabhu, Srila Prabhupada ran after the most fallen souls in western civilization and made them qualified to accept Krishna consciousness in their practicing life. Prior to his divine disappearance from this mortal world in 1977, Srila Prabhupada guided his disciples and followers to obtain further spiritual guidance from Srila Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaja, whom he considered his own siksha Gurudev. Srila Sridhar Maharaja affectionately nourished the sincere souls, who approached him following the order of Srila Prabhupada. Srila Sridhar Maharaja is world renowned as the guardian of pure devotion for his saintly simplicity, affectionate nature and many other wonderful Vaisnava qualities. He blessed the world with many beautiful compositions of spiritual prayers and literature, revealing a devotional stature in common with that of the famed Goswamis of Vrindavan.

Srila Prabhupada decided to go to America, because whole world (especially India) was following the American mentality. Srila Prabhupada thought if America took to Krishna consciousness, other countries would simply follow. This was a wonderful vision of Srila Prabhupada and he could practically achieve it by convincing the whole world about Krishna consciousness in ten short years. However, the scientific community of the world did not take up the movement of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu very seriously. As explained before, scientists believe that life can be reduced to molecules and in the future, by massive molecular manipulation, they can successfully synthesize life in their laboratory. Knowing scientists are the powerful preachers of modern materialistic civilization, Srila Prabhupada was very concerned about their mentality. To save the world from this dangerous position, Srila Prabhupada organized a scientific preaching mission ‘Bhaktivedanta Institute’ under the leadership of Srila Sripad Bhaktisvarupa Damodara Goswami Maharaja (Srila Sripad Maharaja, also known as Dr. T.D. Singh). Srila Prabhupada gave much energy and special attention for this most important preaching mission of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu to defeat materialistic science and to gradually transform it into spiritual science. Lord Sri Krishna says in Srimad Bhagavad-Gita 3.21 that,

yad yad acarati sresthas tat tad evetaro janah
sa yat pramanam kurute lokas tad anuvartate

Translation: Whatever action is performed by a great man, common men follow in his footsteps. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues.

BI PrabhupadaIn the same lines, Srila Prabhupada envisioned that, if the top class man of society, engineers, medical men and scientists take up the Krishna Consciousness movement as a scientific movement, following them common men will also do the same. Srila Prabhupada said,  

… we have formed one party of scientists under the leadership of Sriman Svarupa Damodara Prabhu. Also we have formed the Bhaktivedanta Institute for organizing scientific presentations of Krishna Consciousness. This party is our most important preaching arm with which we will be able to destroy the bogus speculation and cheating which goes under the banner of scientific advancement.

Therefore I have got great hope for Svarupa Damodara and his colleagues. I want them to travel vigorously throughout the world to lecture in all universities and other institutions. There is no lack of financial resources and we shall spare nothing to see to this party’s success.”.

The three main members of Srila Prabhupada’s party of scientists are Srila Bhaktisvarupa Damodara Goswami Maharaja, Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja (Sripad Puri Maharaja) and Sripad Sadaputa Prabhu. All the three members are Ph.D. degree holders in different scientific curricula. It is explained in Srimad Bhagavatam1.5.22

idam hi pumsas tapasah srutasya va svishtasya suktasya ca buddhi-dattayoh

avicyuto 'rthah kavibhir nirupito yad-uttamasloka-gunanuvarnanam

Translation: Learned circles have positively concluded that the infallible purpose of the advancement of knowledge, namely austerities, study of the Vedas, sacrifice, chanting of hymns and charity, culminates in the transcendental descriptions of the Lord, who is defined in choice poetry.

In the purport of this verse of Srimad Bhagavatam Srila Prabhupada says, “When advancement of knowledge is applied in the service of the Lord, the whole process becomes absolute. The Personality of Godhead and His transcendental name, fame, glory, etc., are all nondifferent from Him. Therefore, all the sages and devotees of the Lord have recommended that the subject matter of art, science, philosophy, physics, chemistry, psychology and all other branches of knowledge should be wholly and solely applied in the service of the Lord. Art, literature, poetry, painting, etc., may be used in glorifying the Lord. The fiction writers, poets and celebrated litterateurs are generally engaged in writing of sensuous subjects, but if they turn towards the service of the Lord they can describe the transcendental pastimes of the Lord. Valmiki was a great poet, and similarly Vyasadeva is a great writer, and both of them have absolutely engaged themselves in delineating the transcendental activities of the Lord and by doing so have become immortal. Similarly, science and philosophy also should be applied in the service of the Lord. There is no use presenting dry speculative theories for sense gratification. Philosophy and science should be engaged to establish the glory of the Lord. Advanced people are eager to understand the Absolute Truth through the medium of science, and therefore a great scientist should endeavor to prove the existence of the Lord on a scientific basis. Similarly, philosophical speculations should be utilized to establish the Supreme Truth as sentient and all-powerful. Similarly, all other branches of knowledge should always be engaged in the service of the Lord. In the Bhagavad-gita also the same is affirmed. All “knowledge” not engaged in the service of the Lord is but nescience. Real utilization of advanced knowledge is to establish the glories of the Lord, and that is the real import. Scientific knowledge engaged in the service of the Lord and all similar activities are all factually hari-kirtana, or glorification of the Lord.

Life Comes from LifeSrila Prabhupada wanted his scientist disciples to engage themselves in such scientific sankirtan under the banner of Bhaktivedanta Institute. It is described in Srimad Bhagavad-Gita 7.6:

etad-yonini bhutani sarvanity upadharaya

aham krtsnasya jagatah prabhavah pralayas tatha


Translation: All created beings have their source in these two natures. Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that I am both the origin and the dissolution.

Srila Prabhupada wanted to make scientists understand these teachings of Srimad Bhagavad-Gita that life is a non-material principle and is distinct from molecules or matter and that the Supreme Lord is the source of both life and matter. To convince the scientists, Srila Prabhupada gave two very powerful mantras: (1) Life Comes From Life, and (2) Matter Comes From Life. Srila Prabhupada empowered and trained Srila Sripad Maharaja to preach expansively the first mantra ‘Life Comes From Life’ and Srila Prabhupada gave the task of developing the scientific philosophical understanding of the second mantra ‘Matter Comes From Life’ to Sripad Puri Maharaja.

3. Mechanistic Worldview of Reductionism is Self-Defeating in Nature

Darwin, the father of modern objective evolutionary theory, had suspicions about his own suggested elucidation for the diversity of life. He was seriously concerned about the philosophical implications of his dogma. According to Darwin, human’s sentient belief producing abilities had evolved from purposeless chemicals and the lower animals. Hence, the reductionistic view explains that non-rational, random accumulation of molecules produced human reasoning ability, which is rational, self-aware, intelligent and purposive (teleological) in nature. Obviously this non-rational source for human rationality creates valid suspicion about the trustworthiness of human reason. Furthermore, the whole emphasis of objective evolution is about species survivability and hence cannot explain anything about cultivation of true beliefs. Therefore, Darwin’s objective evolution theory fails to provide a practical pathway to guarantee that humans developed trustworthy, true beliefs about reality.[13] This fact is evident from the statement of world renowned biologist Francis Crick[14]: “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truth, but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive and leave descendents.” In this reductionistic view, reliability of true beliefs is founded on survivability and hence the truthfulness of human beliefs about reality is highly uncertain. Following his own dogma, can Darwin put his confidence in his own beliefs? Darwin’s insecure position is very clear from his own statement[15]:

With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?

Being ignorant about the foundation of such imprudent philosophy, a few extremely overconfident scientists claim that faith in God, existence of the soul and morality are mere evolutionarily driven realities which might have provided some survival benefits in the distant past. Lawrence Krauss said, “Religious belief that the universe is the handiwork of an all-powerful being is not subject to refutation. This sort of reliance on faith may itself have an evolutionary basis. There has been talk of a “god gene”: the idea of an early advantage in the struggle for survival for those endowed with a belief in a hidden patrimony that gives order, purpose and meaning to the universe we experience.[16] World renowned atheist of modern times, Richard Dawkins, explains that religiousness in human culture is basically an outcome of a defective ‘mental virus.’[17] However, these scientists forget that, the very foundation of science is based upon humans having trustworthy and true beliefs about reality. If human beliefs are product of mutation in an evolutionary development, then they should realize that the human belief based scientific claims of scientists are completely untrustworthy. The foundation of objective evolution theory suffers from epistemological incoherence and hence is self-defeating in nature.[18]

4. Foundation of Scientific Sankirtan

Materialists or Mayavadis adopt the above mentioned defective process of knowing by argument and reason, which is known as aroha-pantha in Vedantic tradition. According to Mayavada philosophy, all living entities are one with Brahman. In the similar lines, modern science believes that all living beings are mere atoms or molecules. There is no space for distinct individuality within the monotony of atoms and molecules in modern science. Hence, modern science is in a sense modern Mayavad. On the other hand, men of highest intelligence follow the perfect process of knowing or avaroha-pantha – descending knowledge or acceptance of parampara system. It is impossible to teach a Mayavadi or a materialistic scientist immediately about the parampara system or avaroha-pantha. One must follow the path shown in this regard by Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Himself – trinad api sunichena taror iva sahishnunaamanina manadena kirtaniyah sada harih: “One who is more humble than a blade of grass, more tolerant than a tree, respects everyone, without desire for respect from anyone, only such a person is qualified to taste the sweet nectar of Mahaprabhu’s sankirtan rasa.” These teachings, Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Himself practiced in his dealings with leaders of Mayavaids – Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya and Prakashananda Saraswati. Like, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, a scientific preacher must respectfully hear and properly understand the explanations of scientists, and only with a mood of great humility one can explain the deficiencies of those scientific theories in a language understandable to scientists.

Srila Sripad AcharyaOn several occasions, Srila Prabhupada recognized Srila Sripad Maharaja as a perfect Vaisnava, because Srila Sripad had those qualities (trinad api sunichena taror iva sahishnunaamanina manadena kirtaniyah sada harih) to taste and preach the sweet nectar of Mahaprabhu’s sankirtan rasa in the educated section of the society. Following the example of Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Srila Prabhupada also wanted that sincere devotees of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu must take up the task of preaching to the modern Mayavadis – scientists, in a most compassionate attitude under the expert guidance of Srila Sripad Maharaja. In 1977, prior to his divine departure, Srila Prabhupada said to Srila Sripad Maharaja, “The next phase is yours. You must establish our movement as a genuine scientific movement.” After successfully establishing, Krishna consciousness throughout the world Srila Prabhupada wanted Krishna consciousness to be accepted scientifically in the highest academic circles so that the whole world would understand that Krishna consciousness is not simply religious sentiment but the authentic ontological Truth of Reality. To fulfill this mission Srila Prabhupada transferred all his potency to Srila Sripad Maharaja and highly empowered him to spread scientific sankirtan moment all over the world.

5. First Victory of Scientific Sankirtan Over Material Science

Venice Beach In 1968 addressing faculties and students at MIT, Srila Prabhupada stated that, although the modern educational system has so many departments of knowledge, none of them explain, what makes the difference between a living body and a dead body. Srila Prabhupada challenged, if you materialistic scientists are really competent, then you should be able to make the dead body alive by injecting the missing chemicals in the dead body. However, Srila Prabhupada wanted that devotees should present the explanations of ‘Science of the Soul’ from Srimad Bhagavat-Gita more scientifically to convince the scientists. Srila Prabhupada instructed Srila Sripad Maharaja, “… when you present more scientifically, then they will be convinced.”

The ‘spontaneous generation of life’ hypothesis includes a conspicuous history of unrelenting derision from several prominent personalities in science. At various times in its history, ‘spontaneous generation’ has been identified by two different concepts. They are: (a) abiogenesis, and (b) heterogenesis. Abiogenesis is the field of science dedicated to study how life might have arisen spontaneously for the first time from inorganic chemicals. On the other hand, the notion that life can arise from dead organic matter, such as the appearance of maggots from decaying meat, is known as heterogenesis. For a long time major western thinkers like Newton, Harvey, Descartes and von Helmont accepted heterogenesis with full confidence. Francesco Redi by his experiments demonstrated that meat placed under a screen of muslin never developed maggots. The works of Schulze, Schwann, von Dusch and Schroeder provided significant challenges to heterogenesis, and finally in 1864 Louis Pasteur’s famous swan-neck flask experiment sounded the death knell for this theory. Pasteur famously stated that “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment”.[19]

However, soon after establishment of Pasteur’s famous biogenesis theory – ‘Life Comes from Life’, the reductionist school proposed an even more intricate and incredible form of spontaneous generation – abiogenesis. This hypothesis gathered its support mainly due to the collapse of the false dilemma of organic and inorganic matter (synthesis of urea in 1828 by Wohler), and the development of the concept of conservation of energy.[20] The modern form of chemical evolution theory began to develop following the proposal by Russian biochemist A.I. Oparin.[21] According to this claim, complex molecular arrangements and functions of living systems evolved from simpler molecules that pre-existed on the lifeless, primitive earth. Thus, abiogenesis provided an ideal sense of balance to the Darwinian objective evolution theory, requiring billions of years to go from dead atoms and molecules to cells, and then, via random mutation or natural selection, from cells to the varieties of living beings present today. Following Oparin, in 1929 John Haldane proposed that in a reducing primitive atmosphere and with a suitable supply of energy, such as lightning or ultraviolet light, a wide range of organic compounds might be synthesized.[22] According to Haldane, the primordial sea was the source of a vast chemical laboratory motorized by solar energy. Haldane explained that, in due course of time, the sea turned into a ‘hot diluted soup’ containing large populations of organic monomers and polymers. The term ‘prebiotic soup’ was coined by Haldane, and is well-known as Oparin-Haldane’s view of the origin of life.

MillerIn 1953 Stanley Miller[23] offered experimental support for the theory of prebiotic evolution. Miller experimentally produced amino acids such as glycine, alanine, aspartic acid, and glutamic acid by passing an electric discharge through a gaseous mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor. Thus, he suggested that the implausible complexity in the molecular organization of living cells might someway have been produced from nothing more than simple chemicals interacting at random in a primordial ocean. It is suggested by scientists that the potential resources of energy for primitive cells are heat, chemical, and light energies.[24] However, the major impasse is: how can unguided physical energies manufacture a state of such massive complexity and specificity as a living cell? Srila Sripad Maharaja in 1973 asked molecular evolutionist Stanley Miller at one of his lectures on the origins of life at the University of California, Irvine, “Suppose, if I were to give you all of the ready- made bio- molecules, DNA, proteins, lipids, sugars, etc., will you be able to produce life within a test-tube by combining these molecules?” Miller’s immediate answer was, “I do not know.”[25]

Srila Prabhupada was extremely pleased to hear about this incident. In several lectures and conversations Srila Prabhupada mentioned this incident and stated that, our Svarupa Damodar had challenged the scientist and defeated the idea that life comes from matter. Referring to this incident Srila Prabhupada stated to Srila Sripad Maharaja, “… you are also scientist, there are other scientists. But your consciousness is different from theirs. Therefore you could challenge him like that: if you can create life by accumulation of these facts? He says that I do not know. He is not confident in his science.

6. Transcendental Power of Srila Prabhupada’s Mantra to Scientists

Sripad Puri Maharaja with Srila Prabhupada

Srila Prabhupada specifically asked Sripad Puri Maharaja to preach about ‘Matter Comes from Life’. With utmost faith in his spiritual master in 1980, Sripad Puri Maharaja approached Professor of Biology at Harvard University Nobel Laureate George Wald (1906-1997), who was still a hardcore atheist at that time. Professor Wald was having strong faith in the Darwinian view of origin of life and it is very much evident from his statement:

The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at least once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at-least-once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.    

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.[26]

During the meeting, with a simple heart and strong faith on the words of his spiritual master, Sripad Puri Maharaja asked Professor Wald: Why do you think that life comes from matter? Why don’t you think opposite, ‘Matter Comes from Life’? Miraculously, this pure deliverance of mantra of Srila Prabhupada entered deeply in the heart of Professor Wald. In a very short time, Professor Wald completely rejected all his past concepts on the material origin of life and became an active supporter of the message of Bhaktivedanta Institute – ‘Matter Comes from Life’. His change is very strongly evident from his statement:

Let me say that it is not only easier to say these things to physicists than to my fellow biologists, but easier to say them in India than in the West. For when I speak of Mind pervading the universe, of Mind as a creative principle perhaps primary to matter, any Hindu will acquiesce, will think, yes, of course, he is speaking of Brahman [God].

That is the stuff of the universe, mind-stuff; and yes, each of us shares in it.[27]


In the photograph Srila Sripad Maharaja and Madhava Das (Brahmachari name of Sripad Puri Maharaja) with Professor George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, at the Bhaktivedanta Institute campus, Bombay in 1981.

“The Bhaktivedanta Institute is greatly to be congratulated for having produced so crucial and productive a discussion. It should be given every encouragement and support in going ahead with an enterprise so well begun.”

Professor George Wald

Professor Wald actively participated in the conferences and activities of Bhaktivedanta Institute. He delivered the key-note address at the ‘First World Congress for the Synthesis of Science and Religion’ held in Bombay in 1986 and also participated in the ‘First International Conference on the Study of Consciousness within Science’ in San Francisco, 1990.

7. Subjective Evolution of Consciousness

Subjective EvolutionAfter the divine departure of Srila Prabhupada, both Srila Sripad Maharaja and Sripad Puri Maharaja approached Srila Sridhar Maharaja for spiritual guidance to carry forward services of Bhaktivedanta Institute. Srila Sridhar Maharaja with great love and affection encouraged the scientific preaching services envisioned by Srila Prabhupada. Srila Sridhar Maharaja mentioned to Srila Sripad Maharaja, Swami Maharaja (Swami is the Sanyas title of Srila Prabhupada) gave you the task of building a temple on the tomb of the Darwin. In several discourses Srila Sridhar Maharaja explained that consciousness is the foundation and its objective content or world is floating on it connected by a shadowy medium like mind. These collections of Srila Sridhar Maharaj’s taped discourses have been compiled as a unique book:Subjective Evolution of Consciousness – The Play of the Sweet Absolute.[28] This book is an incomparable synthesis of thought from Descartes, Berkeley and Hegel in the West to Buddha, Shankara, and Sri Chaitanya in the East to reveal the ultimate conception of reality in all its comprehensive beauty and fulfillment.

8. Srila Sripad Maharaja’s Scientific Sankirtan Worldwide

Srila Prabhupada, the founder Acharya of the Bhaktivedanta Institute appointed Srila Sripad Maharaja as the founding director of institute. Srila Prabhupada instructed Srila Sripad Maharaja to organize scientific conferences, and to write books and articles that scientifically present Krishna Consciousness or Bhagavata Culture. In Srila Prabhupada’s presence Srila Sripad Maharaja organized a conference in Vrindavan, India, produced literature and delivered lectures at various institutions. Srila Sripad Maharaja was the only disciple of Srila Prabhupada to write a Scientific basis of KCbook during Srila Prabhupada’s manifest pastime that Srila Prabhupada himself ordered to be  printed and distributed in mass. The book is entitled, The Scientific Basis of Krishna Consciousness and is based on instructions that Srila Sripad Maharaja had received from Srila Prabhupada. Srila Sripad Maharaja offered the book to Srila Prabhupada on his Vyasa Puja day, in Los Angeles, in 1973. Srila Prabhupada was extremely impressed with the book. Srila Prabhupada would often show it to his guests, stating that the book was written by one of his scientist disciples. He ordered the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT) to publish and print over 100,000 copies of the book. This book is still being used extensively for presenting Krishna consciousness to students at colleges and universities throughout the world and over a quarter million copies have been printed to date. For this purpose it has been translated into many different languages.

newspaper clippingsDuring the initial period of the Institute, Srila Sripad Maharaja was working as a research scientist at Emory University and therefore most of the Institute’s major activities were done after Srila Prabhupada’s departure from this world. After Srila Prabhupada’s departure, Srila Sripad Maharaja underwent a long struggle to establish the Bhaktivedanta Institute’s activities. This was primarily due to a lack of financial support. In spite of the financial obstacles that Srila Sripad Maharaja faced in establishing the Bhaktivedanta Institute, it is now a well recognized research and educational institution. Srila Prabhupada was eager to have Srila Sripad Maharaja scientifically present the ‘Life Comes From Life’ paradigm at colleges and universities around the world. Srila Sripad Maharaja’s acceptance of his spiritual master’s instructions as his life and soul has caused Srila Prabhupada’s vision of introducing the Bhagavata Paradigm to the world’s scientists, intellectuals and leaders to become a reality. For over three decades, Srila Sripad Maharaja has been giving lectures on the spiritually based Bhagavata Paradigm. He has spoken on such subjects as Bioethics, Theobiology, Life Comes From Life and the Synthesis of Science and Religion at many of the world’s most prestigious colleges and universities such as, Stanford University, USA; National University of Singapore, Singapore; Tehran University, Iran; University of Durban, South Africa; Federal University of Campina Grande, Brazil; Medical College, Suva, Fiji; Udayana University, Bali, Indonesia; University of Malaya, Malaysia; Emory University, Atlanta, USA; Institute for Oriental Studies, Peru; National Institute of Medicine, Senigaglia, Italy; the IIT at Bombay, Kanpur, Madras, Gauhati, Delhi, Kharagpur; Andhra University, Andhra Pradesh; University of Calcutta; University of San Francisco, USA; University of Malaga, Spain and Vishva Bharati University, West Bengal.

Professor Arber and Maharaja

Srila Sripad Maharaja with Professor Werner Arber from the University of Basel, Switzerland, Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine. He is an authority on viruses. Maharaja visited him a few times in his laboratory in Switzerland to discuss about life and its Origin. Their dialogue was published in the Journal of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, Savijnanam.


“I think that life could be beyond the assembly of biomolecules.”

– Professor Werner Arber,
Nobel Laureate


Professor Ernst and Maharaja

Srila Sripad Maharaja with Professor Richard R. Ernst, Noble Laureate in Chemistry. Professor Ernst contributed an article on, ‘Science in the Third Millennium: Expectations between Hope and Fear’ for the Bhaktivedanta Institute’s publication, Thoughts on Synthesis of Science and Religion.


“Science and technology alone cannot solve the problems of the new millennium. We need additional guidelines for our actions, for the selection of our research projects and research goals. These guidelines have to do with ethics, with philosophy, and with faith.”

– Professor Richard R. Ernst,
Nobel Laureate

Professor Townes and Maharaja

Srila Sripad Maharaja with Professor Charles H. Townes, Nobel Laureate in Physics, reading the Journal of the Bhaktivedanta Institute. Professor Townes delivered the key-note address of the ‘Second World Congress for the Synthesis of Science and Religion’ held in Calcutta, India, 1997.


“In India, there is much more union between the two (science and spirituality) than there is in the West. I think that the Western scientists are coming back to that point of view - what the universe is all about. A few scientists are interested and their number is increasing.”


– Professor Charles H. Townes,
Nobel Laureate

In the name of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, Srila Sripad Maharaja has organized three major conferences and a large number of seminars. He has published two important books on the synthesis of science and religion and numerous other literatures, which have all received world wide acceptance from the academic community. As director of the Bhaktivedanta Institute he has interacted with thousands of scholars from around the globe, including many Nobel Laureates and leading scientists. Srila Sripad Maharaja has authored The Fundamental Principles of Reincarnation, Theobiology andWhat is Matter and What is Life? He co-edited two major volumes; Synthesis of Science and Religion – Critical Essays and Dialogues and Thoughts on Synthesis of Science and Religion containing important thoughts from some of the most prominent contemporary scientists and thinkers of the world including several Nobel Laureates. Srila Prabhupada also instructed Srila Sripad Maharaja to publish the Journal of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, Savijnanam. The title Savijnanam was given by Srila Prabhupada and was inspired by the Bhagavad-Gita Verse 7.2:

jnanam te 'ham sa-vijnanam idam vakshyamy aseshatah
yaj jnatva neha bhuyo 'nyaj jnatavyam avasishyate

Translation: I shall now declare unto you in full this knowledge, both phenomenal and numinous. This being known, nothing further shall remain for you to know.

Srila Prabhupada desired that an academic journal with a modern scientific perspective of the divine Bhagavata Paradigm be published. Capturing the mood of Srila Prabhupada, the English subtitle, “Scientific Exploration for a Spiritual Paradigm” has been added. Srila Prabhupada also instructed Srila Sripad Maharaja to write a scientific commentary on the Vedanta Sutra, the topmost philosophical treatise of the Vedic literatures. In Los Angeles in 1973, Srila Prabhupada said to Srila Sripad Maharaja, “…we can publish this scientific explanation of Vedanta Sutra. You have to explain scientifically that a human beings’ only business is to inquire about the Absolute Truth. … You have to prove it logically and scientifically... I will guide you for every sutra.” Srila Sripad Maharaja, praying for Srila Prabhupada’s mercy, has very humbly started writing a scientific commentary on the Vedanta Sutra as per Srila Prabhupada’s divine instructions and has presented his commentary on the first verse in his article in Savijnanam. Bhaktivedanta Institute published a book, Bhagavat Sevarpanam about Srila Sripad Maharaja’s scientific sankirtan world wide with relevant photos and is available online at

9. Hint of Prominent Beginning of Transformation of Material Science into Spiritual Science

Darwin proposed that all organisms have descended with modification from a common ancestor and, in addition, advocated natural selection as part of the mechanism of evolution. During the first half of the 20th century, the integration of genetics and population biology into Darwinian evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, also known as Modern Synthesis. Neo-Darwinism recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of the appearance of viable genes in a population and this defined evolution. The short summary of this conventional evolutionary theory, or Darwinism, is: the environment poses problems and the organisms posit solutions, of which the best is at last chosen.

With the advancement of molecular biology the concept of chromosome, DNA, RNA, gene, etc. came into the picture. Biologists believe that the gene is made up of a specific number and sequence of nucleotides. Furthermore, they consider that the sequence of nucleotide reveals the message of a gene. In the 1940s, the nexus between genetic information and proteins was explained by the ‘one gene one enzyme’ proposition of Beadle and Tatum. This nexus was the foundation for the functioning of the genetic code for amino acids. The central dogma of molecular biology was first formulated by Francis Crick in 1958.[29] This central dogma attempts to provide a mechanism by which genes could decide traits through protein synthesis. This wishful thinking of rigid mechanism for a biological system can be sensed from the words of Crick: “a boundless optimism that the basic concepts involved were rather simple and probably much the same in all living things.[30] It is a vision of oversimplification of the transfer of sequential information in an organism. According to this concept, sequential information in biological systems can only flow from the gene to the proteins and it cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or gene. Following this idea, geneticists proclaim that by the assistance of RNA, the structure of DNA can decide the structure of proteins.

Central Dogma: DNA → RNA → Protein (Enzyme) → Trait

This vision of the way DNA worked was translated into conventional evolutionary theory, and random mutations were considered as copying errors that changed the DNA sequence one base-pair at a time, and, as a result, changed protein sequences one amino acid at a time. This scheme was in line with the Neo-Darwinian view of gradual accidental change. It also supplied a molecular depiction of how proteins, the working molecules of the cell, could evolve new structures and functions.[31] Thus they attempted a total reduction of an organism to its genes, which they believed are mere combinations of purposeless molecules. They were under the impression that knowledge of genes is the knowledge of the organism. They believe that the organism has no control over the alteration process, and that the genome mechanically decides an organism’s characteristics. For them the genome is a read-only memory (ROM), which is modified only by accident. This claim of Darwinists about randomness and accident became dogmatic with the intent to reject all possible revivals of the role of a supernatural agent found in religious explanations as the cause of origin of diverse living organisms.

Maharaja at blackboardSrila Prabhupada once said, “The evolution theory is there in the Padma Purana. It is not Darwin’s theory. Darwin stole it from the Padma Purana, and he presented it in a distorted way with his own imagination. The soul is wandering within the different species. This is Vedic knowledge.” For over thirty years, Srila Sripad Maharaja has been presenting this Vedic paradigm of evolution of consciousness versus evolution of species, as per Srila Prabhupada’s instructions. These extensive efforts of Bhaktivedanta Institute under the leadership of Srila Sripad Maharaja lead to a prominent beginning of the transformation of material science into spiritual science.

The last three decades of the 20th century witnessed increasing research findings that rigorously challenged the assumptions of both Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian theories, which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. Rose and Oakley stated that, “The foundations of that ‘Modernist’ biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st century.[32] Despite the fact that the knowledge of the molecular minutiae of living organisms is undergoing a revolutionary growth, unprejudiced consideration of the consequences of these findings are very rare. A pioneering biologist, James A. Shapiro, Professor of Microbiology, University of Chicago, states: “We have progressed from the Constant Genome, subject only to random, localized changes at a more or less constant mutation rate, to the Fluid Genome, subject to episodic, massive and non-random reorganizations capable of producing new functional architectures. Inevitably, such a profound advance in awareness of genetic capabilities will dramatically alter our understanding of the evolutionary process. Nonetheless, neo-Darwinist writers like Dawkins continue to ignore or trivialize the new knowledge and insist on gradualism as the only path for evolutionary change.[33] In the same article Shapiro also states that: “The past five decades of research in genetics and molecular biology have brought us revolutionary discoveries. Upsetting the oversimplified views of cellular organization and function held at mid-century, the molecular revolution has revealed an unanticipated realm of complexity and interaction more consistent with computer technology than with the mechanical viewpoint which dominated the field when the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis was formulated. The conceptual changes in biology are comparable in magnitude to the transition from classical physics to relativistic and quantum physics.

Research shows that proteins evolve by accumulating and rearranging polypeptide domains and not by a series of individual amino acid alterations. Hence, the evolutionary genomic alterations are not stochastic, localized point mutations, but exchanges of DNA encoding segments. The DNA substantiation does not verify the slow gathering of random gradual changes transmitted by restricted patterns of vertical descent, as claimed for 50 years by Neo-Darwinian theory.[34] It is being reported that cells have the ability to modify themselves adaptively and to change their own heredity. Upsetting the speculations of the past mechanistic views, it is well acknowledged that recombination has the capability to produce information and to modify the content of the genetic storage. Barbara McClintock’s findings have shown that organisms can engineer their DNA.[35] Following the same line of research, Shapiro coined the term ‘natural genetic engineering’, which corresponds to the ability of living cells to manipulate and restructure the DNA molecules that make up their genomes.[36] Large parts of DNA alteration in bacteria and eukaryotes are a result of a coordinated accomplishment of natural genetic engineering. Hence, the traditional understanding of genome variation as stochastic events or unpredictable accidents is now replaced by a controlled and coordinated accomplishment of cellular biochemistry. This paradigm shift is a major setback to Neo-Darwinism, because cellular biochemistry is based on guided mechanisms and thus acts in predictable ways. In contrast to Neo-Darwinism, DNA changes are now known as nonrandom with respect to time, physiology and life history.[37]

As a result of all these developments, frontier biology rejected the dogmatic faith of Darwinists: genome is a read-only memory (ROM), which is only modified by accident. The emerging alternative view of 21st century biology explains the genome as a read-write memory (RW) system subject to nonrandom change by dedicated cell functions. The genome is actively modified in a coordinated and controlled mode by the sentient cell functions and hence new biology views life forms as self-modifying beings. The ability of living organisms to modify their own heredity is irrefutable and thus shows the failure of the black-box approach of Darwinism in incorporating this fundamental feature of life.

The declaration of the First Annual Francis Crick Memorial Conference states, “… the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”.[38] Furthermore, Shapiro states, “Contemporary research in many laboratories on cell-cell signaling, symbiosis and pathogenesis show that bacteria utilise sophisticated mechanisms for intercellular communication and even have the ability to commandeer the basic cell biology of 'higher' plants and animals to meet their own needs. This remarkable series of observations requires us to revise basic ideas about biological information processing and recognise that even the smallest cells are sentient beings.”. [39] Hence, Darwin’s abiology or molecular view of life has no place in the frontier biology. 21st century biology is trying to understand how the whole thing is integrated within the cell, how the information is processed within the cell and how the cells achieve the needed goal. Cell sensing and its molecular bases are all well recognized by 21st century biology.[40] Old biology based on the reductionistic approach only helped in knowing the components of the cell that are participating in signal transfer and decision-making, but 21st century biology focuses on knowing how the whole system works, which we call a functional cell. The impasse of the scientific approach is that it requires a reductionistic approach to get meaningful answers and make observations. However, when science tries to understand those observations, then the reductionistic view fails to provide an explanation for the whole picture and seeks the help of an integrationist view. Biologists are now certain that there is an interaction between the participating members and the whole cell which is far more complex and multidirectional than what reductionists believed.

Darwin’s abiology tried to exclude things a priori, which is unwanted from a truly scientific point of view and also does not serve the purpose of scientific understanding of reality. Modern biologists are more broadminded and more open in their approach to finding solutions to these problems. Science witnessed that biology evolved from DNA-centrism to cell-centrism, where cells operate in a sentient manner, which a few biologists are trying to compare with information processing; on the other hand, some try to see it as computational. However, none of these explanations include the sensory feature of how cells act. All these developments give the impression as if a cell has thinking or maybe there essentially exists a mind which is a vital symptom of cognition. In contrast to Darwinism, scientific evidences are forcing the scientists or academically minded people to reconsider the explanations on cognition that we find in ancient religious texts.

10. Mission in the Safe Hands of Affectionate Guardian

Sripad Puri MaharajaSrila Sripad Maharaja left for the spiritual abode on October 2, 2006. Before his divine departure, Srila Sripad Maharaja instructed his scientist disciples to continue the scientific sankirtan services under the guidance of his scientist godbrother and senior most member of Bhaktivedanta Institute, Sripad Puri Maharaja. Sripad Puri Maharaja is a direct disciple of Srila Prabhupada and also Srila Sridhar Maharaja. Sripad Puri Maharaja is affectionately training devotees who are approaching him by the inspiration of Srila Sripad Maharaja. Under the guidance of Sripad Puri Maharaja a team of devotee scientists are regularly travelling to different colleges and universities to organize seminars and dialogue with scientists to convince them about ‘Science of the Soul’ and ‘Science of God’ in a scientific language. We are only a handful of devotee-scientists working on this, and so many more dedicated souls are needed to carry out this service. Some of the ongoing humble services under Sripad Puri Maharaja can be found at:

(1)THE BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE of Spiritual Culture and Science – 20 Nassau St., #116   Princeton, NJ 08542:  

(2)Darwin Under Siege: 

(3)Science and Scientist: 

(4)The Harmonizer:

(5)Videos – Scientific Presentations in Universities and Colleges:

(6)Videos – Interviews with Scientists:

(7)Online Classes:

(8)Vedanta and Hegelian Philosophy:

11. Acknowledgements

Srila Sripad Bhaktisvarupa Damodara Goswami Maharaja is Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's scientific ambassador to the world. This humble offering on the occasion of Srila Sripad Maharaja's upcoming 75th appearance day is an attempt to meditate on the mood of Scientific Sankirtan movement of Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sripad Maharaja.

12. References

[1] Bacon, F. (1962). The Advancement of Learning, ed. by G. W. Kitchin, London, New York.

[2] Bacon, F. (1887). The Works, ed. by J. Spedding, R. L. Ellis, and D.D. Heath, London, Vol. III.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Jurgen, K. "Francis Bacon" (Summer 2011 Edition). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, E.N. (ed.), URL: .

[5] Graham, R. and Wakely, M. (2004). The Instauratio magna Part II: Novum organum and Associated Texts. Oxford: Clarendon, 2004.

[6] Bourdeau P. (2004). The man-nature relationship and environmental ethics. J Environ Radioact. Vol. 72, pp. 9 - 15.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Gaukroger, Descartes' System of Natural Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 4.

[9] Francione, G. (2000). Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?, Temple University Press.

[10] Handler, P. (1970). Biology and the future of man. Oxford University Press, New York.

[11] Darwin, Charles (1859), On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. 1st ed., London: John Murray, p. 502, retrieved 2011-03-01.

[12] Darwin, C. (1898). The life and letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, p. 202. New York: Appleton, D.

[13] Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant and Proper Function. New York: Oxford University Press,  chapters 11 - 12.

[14] Crick, F. (1994). The astonishing hypothesis. New York: Touchstone, P. 262.

[15] Charles Darwin to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin (1897; repr., Boston: Elibron, 2005), 1:285.

[16] Krauss, L.M. (November 8, 2005). Science and religion share fascination in things unseen. New York Times.

[17] Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[18] Taylor, T. (1992). Metaphysics, 4th ed., Cliffs, E., NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[19] Radot, R.V. (1920). The life of Pasteur, from the French by Devonshire, R.L. Doubleday, New York p. 109.

[20] Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L., and Olsen, R.L. (1984). The mystery of life's origin: Reassessing current theories, Philosophical Library.

[21] Oparin, A.I. (1924). Proiskhozhdenie Zhizni, Izd. Moskovski Rabochii, Moscow. Origin of Life, trans. Morgulis, S. New York: Macmillan, 1938.

[22] Haldane, J.B.S. (1928). Rationalist Annual. Vol. 148, pp. 8 - 10.

[23] Miller, S.L. (1953). A production of amino acids under possible primitive Earth conditions. Science, Vol. 117, p. 528.

[24] Deamer, D.W. (1997). The first living systems: A bioenergetic perspective. Microbiology & Molecular Biology Reviews, Vol. 61, pp. 239 - 261.

[25] Professor S.L. Miller, the molecular evolutionist, gave lectures on "The origin of life" at the University of California, Irvine, on May 30 - 31, 1973.

[26] Wald, G. (1954). The origin of life.  Scientific American,  Vol. 191, p. 48.

[27] Wald, G. (1989). The cosmology of life and mind. Noetic Sciences Review, No. 10, p. 10, Institute of Noetic Sciences, California.

[28] Sridhar, B.R. (1989). Subjective evolution of consciousness - The play of the sweet Absolute. Published by Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math.

[29] Crick, F.H.C. (1958). On protein synthesis. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. XII, pp. 139 - 163.

[30] Crick, F. (1970). Central dogma of molecular biology. Nature, Vol. 227, pp. 561 - 563.

[31] Shapiro, J.A. (2012). How natural genetic engineering solves problems in protein evolution. Refer:

[32] Rose, M.R. and Oakley, T.H. (2007). The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis. Biol Direct. Vol. 24, pp. 2 - 30.

[33] Shapiro, J.A. A Third Way. Boston Review - A Political and Literary Forum. Refer:

[34] Witzany, G. (2012). Biosemiotics DOI 10.1007/s12304-012-9141-9. Review of Evolution: A View from the 21st Century, by James A. Shapiro (2011): New York: Financial Times Prentice Hall. 272 pages, ISBN: 978-0132780933.

[35] McClintock, B. (1987). Discovery and characterization of transposable elements: the collected papers of Barbara McClintock. Garland, New York.

[36] Shapiro, J.A. (1992). Natural genetic engineering in evolution. Genetica, Vol. 86, pp. 99 - 111.

[37] Shapiro, J.A. (1984). The use of Mudlac transposons as tools for vital staining to visualize clonal and non-clonal patterns of organization in bacterial growth on agar surfaces. Journal of General Microbiology, Vol. 130, pp. 1169 - 1181.

[38] The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in Non-Human Animals was publicly proclaimed in Cambridge, UK, on July 7, 2012, at the conclusion of The First Annual Francis Crick Memorial Conference, focusing on "Consciousness in Humans and Non-Human Animals", at Churchill College, University of Cambridge, by Philip Low, David Edelman and Christof Koch. It was written by Philip Low and edited by Jaak Panksepp, Diana Reiss, David Edelman, Bruno Van Swinderen, Philip Low, and Christof Koch. The Declaration was signed by the conference participants that very evening, in the presence of Stephen Hawking, in the Balfour Room at the Hotel du Vin in Cambridge, UK. Refere:

[39] Shapiro J.A. (2007). Bacteria are small but not stupid: cognition, natural genetic engineering and socio-bacteriology. Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci., Vol. 38, pp. 807 - 819.

Author: Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta
                     || Contact ||                      || Darwin Under Siege ||                      Visitor: