Talk:Hindu views on evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / History (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Hinduism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

{main} article tag in section on Christian creationism[edit]

The section on Hindu opposition to Christian creationism includes a {main} article tag pointing to Californian Hindu textbook controversy. I have commented this out, as I simply don't see the relation. If I understand correctly, the Californian Hindu textbook controversy was about the textbook's portrayal of various alleged negative aspects of Hinduism and its past, e.g. the caste system, women's rights, etc. What does that have to do with Christian creationism?? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Iskcon members ("Hare Krishnas") are NOT HINDUS[edit]

It is a well known and absolutely clear fact that so called Hare Krishnas are not Hindus. They explicitly and specifically have denied being Hindus and they have therefore no place in an article such as this, on Hindu views on evolution. What next, Buddhists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Laughter (talkcontribs) 02:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I have been reverted again, and NO ONE has even bothered to address what I have said. I was told to discuss this on talk. OK, I am trying. Now where are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Laughter (talkcontribs) 03:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are two references that discuss the issue in some details, and both reach the conclusion that while in his early days Prabhupada did try to distinguish between ISKCON and Hinduism, later on ISKCON identified itself and emphasized its position as a Hindu movement, and adherents who insist otherwise are a minority:
If you have other secondary sources that reach a different conclusion, feel free to bring them here, or better still at the talk page of the ISKCON article since that article is where the nuances can be described in greater detail. Abecedare (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The first of those two sources is vague and I would be dubious about accepting it. It does not really say specifically that Hare Krishnas are Hindus, though you might read it that way. The second source does not settle things either, and anyway, I think that what Prabhupada originally said, that ISKCON is not Hindu, is what matters. Dark Laughter (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:PST for how wikipedia prefers secondary writings by scholars who have explored the issue, rather than rely on primary sources, such as selective readings of Prabhupada's writings. I'd be happy to continue the discussion if you, I or anyone else finds other scholarly sources that contradict the discussion and clear conclusions of the sources I have cited above. Abecedare (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You are not really listening to what I said, but I'm not going to try to argue this at length. I hope I can find some sources that contradict yours. Dark Laughter (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Blavatsky's view[edit]

The article talks about Carl Sagan and Fritjof Capra's comparisons of modern cosmology to Hinduism as though they were original, a brand new idea that people had in the late 20th century. Actually such comparisons are older, and were made in the 19th century. I believe Blavatsky talks about this in "Isis Unveiled", for example. This is a major gap in the article's coverage of the subject. Should I add something about Blavatsky, or will someone find some reason for removing that if I try? Dark Laughter (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right; the Sagan and Capra views dealing with cosmology were misplaced in this article, which deals with theories of origin and evolution of life. As for Blavatsky views: theosophical views don't really belong in this article, but it's impossible to judge until we know what exactly you have in mind. You are free to edit the article in whatever manner you believe will improve it, but others will review the edits and make changes or even revert them, as they see fit (as the edit window notice says, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."). See WP:BRD on how this collaborative process is supposed to work without turning into an edit-war. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the content about Sagan and Capra was quite interesting; my point was that if they were mentioned Blavatsky should be too, since she made a similar point well before they did. Only now you've removed that content, so I probably won't add anything about Blavatsky. The scope of this article is rather too broad in that much of it is not about Hindu views of evolution at all; it is a discussion of Hindu creation beliefs in general. Dark Laughter (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the scope of this is too narrow. It is intended to parallel articles such as Catholic Church and evolution, Jewish views on evolution etc, which describe each faiths reaction over the last 150 years to theory of evolution. The problem is that Hinduism has treated these scientific discoveries largely with indifference (comparable, say, with most religions' reaction to discovery of plate tectonics) - and creationism vs evolution hasn't been a flashpoint in India. You'll be hard-pressed to find any book or research article devoted to the subject (I've searched!), and what we are left with is cataloging some minority views of people/movements that either reject "Darwinism", or regard it as a validation of some aspect of Hindu philosophy.
Hindu creation myths, on the other hand, is a vast and interesting subject that is only poorly covered in Creation myths. It really deserves an article on its own, but that would require someone to take up the task, read up a few books and scholarly papers on the subject, and summarize the findings in a balanced manner - no one has volunteered for that effort yet. Abecedare (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I realized that there is an existing article on Hindu cosmology, but it is in horrible shape. Abecedare (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Dark Laughter (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed this article essentially applies a controversy specific to few religions to another religion where it doesn't exist. There is hardly any scholarly nor religious interest. At the moment the summary of a few notable opinions gives a sense of WP:SYNTHESIS. You can even argue that the article's existence is Western-centric unless articles are also made and vague, indirect sources are retrieved for Karma in Islam, Reincarnation in Christianity and Caste system in Judaism. GizzaDiscuss © 00:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

iskon views should not seem to represent real hindu (i.e. indian philosophical) thaughts and theories. anybody could claim to be a hindu and spin weird theories in the name of hinduism. science and the way of searching for the "reason of living" is a cultural thing rather than a dogmatic thing. every culture has produced rational (like western science) and irrational (like western religion, i.e. christianity) approaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.1.159 (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hindus widely accept evolution?[edit]

The article mentioned that

"In India, Hindus widely accept the theory of biological evolution. In a survey, 77% of respondents in India agreed that enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and 88% of God-believing people said they believe in evolution as well."

According to those reference links, the survey consisted of about 1000 people max. Theres over a billion people in India. Is that wide acceptance of evolution?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.151.132.21 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

yes Hindus accept it widely (well the literate ones), there is no particular myth surrounding origin of species or universe among Hindus. Also in India in never became a heated topic like in west. Indians even Christians and Muslims accept it to some extent (well the literate ones). Pratpandey13 (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I pretty much corrected it, the sources were wrongly interpreted in that line, and agreed, no one in India denies this theory, neither they deny the 100% Hindu theories either. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Fringe table[edit]

I've removed that again. We don't use stuff from the American Chronicle, and I note that the author (a geologist so not even qualified to discuss this) seems to have endorsed some sort of ancient astronaut idea.[1]. There is also WP:UNDUE - what actually reliable sources link the boar with big mammals, Vamana with Neanderthals? I'll also note that a table like that is very eye-catching and impressive - which may be fine in some cases, but not when it's fringe. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I see. Vamana is simply regarded as Dwarf though. I have removed the recent added link too, because it wasn't RS either, neither related to this page. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)