Atheist geeft toe dat Evolutie theorie is DOOD!!!

[Revisor]

Rumi and Mulla Sadra

The above verses reveal to us an unusual world-view of Mawlana. Does not he say that when mineral beings died, it will gradually transform into vegetable, and vegetable into animal, and animal into human beings and so on. But Rumi did not elaborate it philosophically as to how this transformation really taken place. It seems that we have to wait several centuries later to find its philosophical explanation in Mulla Sadra’s teachıng of trans-substantial motion (al-haraka al-jawharıyya). According to this teaching any change or motion requires substantial motion. When Ibn Sina says that change can only take place at accidental categories (quality, quantity, situation and place) and allows no change at substantial category, Mulla Sadra says, “any change in the accidents of an object requires in fact a change in its substance, since accidents have no existence independent of substance.”

This trans-substantial change or movement, according to Sadra, is universal phenomenon and permeates every thing there is. The whole of the physical and even psychic or imaginal universes which extend up to the Immutable or luminous Archetypes are in constant motion or becoming. Therefore, the trans-substantial movement has taken place at every level of existence: cosmic, geological and biological levels, and even at psychic and imaginal. There is no doubt that this view is in accordance with Mawlana’s theory that the universe has undergone a long evolutionary process and does not cease after man dies. Like Rumi, Mulla Sadra also believes that this evolutionary movement does not end at human level, but will continue at psychic, imaginal, and even archetypal levels until it reaches Divine Presence. Describing this evolution, Sadra says, “All beings in this world are moving vertically as result of trans-substantial motion until they reach the plenum of their archetypal reality. The sperm becomes a foetus and grows to the form of a baby who is then born and continues to grow from one form to another until he or she reaches full maturity and the body becomes weaker as the soul grows stronger until one dies and reaches the “imaginal world” and finally the Divine Presence.”

With this trans-substantial motion theory, Mulla Sadra actually tells us that when this movement takes place in certain object, the previous elements or qualities were not left behind. Instead, this movement adds to it new elements or qualities, so that it will bring about the accumulation of qualities. In turn this accumulation of qualities will cause the transmutation of genus and species and tells us why and how a mineral being can transmute itself into vegetable and vegetable into animal and so on. But this massive movement in the universe, according to both Rumi and Sadra, has been brought about by a fundamental and creative force, which Mawlana calls love (‘ishq) but no name for it offered by Sadra.

Rumi and Darwin

After comparing Rumi with Mulla Sadra, it would not be complete if we do not compare him with Charles Darwin (d. 1882). Darwin was of course well-known to the world for his theory of evolution. He was often mistakenly considered as the pioneer of the theory, in spite of the fact that Lamarck and surely Rumi have anteceded him. While Mulla Sadra has given the philosophical explanation to Rumi’s theory of evolution, Darwin, to my mind, has substantially supplied it with empirical evidence, supporting greatly Rumi’s theory which was based only on mystical perception. Rumi says,

“And when he passed from the vegetable state to the animal state, the vegetable state was not remembered by him at all.
Save only for the inclination which he has towards that (state) especially in the season of spring and sweet herb—
Like the inclination of babes towards their mother; it (the babe) does not know the secret of its desire for being suckled;

With these empirical evidences supplied by Darwin, the truth of evolution as envisaged by Rumi became more evident, and what was in the past based only on mystical perception, now it can be proven empirically and scientifically. Therefore, both Rumi and Darwin have revealed to us the reality of evolution.

In spite of this positive correlation between Rumi and Darwin, their views on certain aspects of this evolution are fundamentally different. There are at least 4 points where we can find these differences. First, Darwin discusses the evolution only in biological level, while Rumi discusses it also in cosmic, geological, even psychic and imaginal levels. Therefore, the range of Rumi’s evolution is wider than Darwin’s, since it talks about this evolution not only in physical level but also in non-physical level.

Second, Darwin believes that it is the law of “natural selection” that was responsible for the biological evolution. This natural selection, considered as a dominant mechanical law, has brought about gradual changes in the biological world, and was especially responsible for the creation or origin of the species. It is, however, not really clear to me, whether this natural selection is actually “the power” that brought about this biological evolution or it is simply a “mechanism” through which evolution took place, while the real power behind this evolution is something else, for example, the will of the organic entities to survive, or in other word “the struggle for survival.” As for Rumi, the fundamental power that was responsible for the evolution in the world is love (‘ishq). It is love, according to him, that has caused the universe evolve in its various levels (cosmic, geological, biological, mental and even spiritual). Rumi says, “Love is the cause of the movement in the world of matter, earth and heavens revolve by virtue of love. It is growth in vegetable and motion in sentient beings. It is also love that gives union to the particles of matter. Love makes vegetation grow, and also love that makes animal move and multiply.

Third, in Darwin’s theory, this fundamental power is blind and random. In his view, all organic beings, including man--who surely has higher forms of life,--are the product of a blind chance. In Rumi’s theory, however, evolution has a clear destination and will not cease to evolve in human level, for if it so it will mean “stop” on the way. No, this universal evolution, according to Rumi, will continue to move, far beyond human kingdom, until its goal—that is to unite with the Beloved God, is reached.

The last (fourth), according to Darwin, the evolution takes place only in physical level. He even deliberately cuts it off from any relation with transcendent powers or realities (such as God and angels). For him it is not God, who has caused the organic beings to transmute from lower forms into higher and better ones, but the natural selection. In other words, it is not God who has created the species but natural forces. But according to Rumi this evolution requires the existence of God, as the main condition for evolution in this world, without whom, no evolution can be conceived. For if evolution was caused by love, love needs the beloved one, that is, God, without whom love would never have existed. God is, according to him, the efficient and also the final cause of it, He is the origin and also the returning place for everything exists in the universe. Therefore, compared to Darwin’s theory, Rumi’s theory of evolution is more suitable to religious doctrines or principles.

Rumi and Bergson

Other figure who could appropriately be compared to Rumi was Henri Bergson (d. 1939), the philosopher of life from French. Compared to Darwin, Bergson’s theory of evolution has many similarities with Rumi’s. Both Rumi and Bergson firmly believe in the existence of this fundamental force in the universe. Rumi names it love (‘ishq), while Bergson calls it “élan vital” (vital impetus). This impetus is described by Bergson as “a current consciousness that had penetrated matter, given rise to living bodies and determined the course of their evolution.” It is this impetus, according to Bergson, that was responsible for the evolution in the universe.

This evolution, according to Bergson, works creatively, and not mechanistically, as thought of by Darwin. There are many things in the biological world—such as reproductive phenomenon—which cannot be explained sufficiently in a mechanical way. The emergence of many truly new things in this world strongly indicates that the evolution has been controlled or directed by a creative force, which cannot be explained mechanically. The evolution, must have been creative in nature, in the sense producing truly new things, and therefore cannot be explained by both mechanics and teleology for they allow no novelty whatsoever in this universe.

Bergson in one of his work criticizes Darwin’s doctrine on the purpose of evolution. According to him Darwin failed to explain why living things have evolved in the direction of greater and greater complexity. The earliest living things were simple and well adapted to their environment. He then asks Darwin, “Why did the evolutionary process not stop at this stage? Why did life continue to complicate itself “more and more dangerously? This reveals to us that the purpose of evolution is not simply to adapt to the environment, but, as mentioned above, to penetrate the matter creatively. However, in order for the evolution to be creative, Bergson rejects mechanistic and teleological explanation. Both mechanism and teleology will never allow any notions of novelty in the biological world, hence their failure to explain biological phenomena.

But if there is no “law” to determine the course of evolution, I am afraid that this élan vital will become a blind force as conceptualized once by Schopenhaur. It is, in this context, that I see Rumi’s theory better than that of Bergson. As a religious thinker, Rumi believes that evolution is not random, but moves towards a clear purpose or destination. Describing this universal evolution, Rumi says:

I died to the inorganic state and became endowed with growth, and (then) I died to (vegetable) growth and attainted to the animal.
I died from animality and became Adam (man), why then I should fear, when have I become less by dying?
At next remove I shall die to man, that I may soar and lift up my head amongst the angels;
And I must escape even from (the state of) the angels: “Everything is perishing except His face.”
Once more I shall be sacrificed and died to angel: I shall become that which enter not to imagination.
Then I shall become non-existence: non-existent saith to me, (in tone loud) as an organ: “Verily unto Him shall we return.”

Rumi’s evolution is not random or blınd, but it is directed to God, the absolute Perfection. Does Rumi not say, that ‘everything is in love with that Perfection, and hasting upward like a sapling.’

Thank you. God bless you all.


404-Error: 404

[Wizdom]