Evolution and Intelligent Design
in The Secret Doctrine

Contemporary science seems to regard the belief that a personal god created the heavens and earth within the past 10,000 years as a deliberate surrendering of the intellect to superstition, and is justifiably indignant. In their eyes, it is mind boggling that, in the year 2006, 45% of the American population claims to hold such a belief in the face of the tremendous body of undeniable scientific facts about the age of this earth and its diverse fauna and flora that have existed upon it for millions of years. Many adherents of evolutionary theory regard this not as a triumph of faith, but as a failure of education.

A large portion of the Christian community does not see it quite so—they see their own views as a rejection of an unwarranted intrusion by science upon their spiritual intuitions. These Christians are indignant that evolutionary science is based upon the idea that chance is the supreme guiding principle behind the manifold diversity and ingenious intelligence that is so evident throughout this earth, as “chance” is most definitely a slap aimed directly at their deity’s cheek. They are equally horrified at the scientific proposition that the human race is descended from an animal ancestor also common to the anthropoid and pithecoid apes.

Christians are not alone in having this feeling. Something in the intuitions of men and women of every tradition very rightly rejects this provenance for Humanity. There is just too much evidence testifying to the noble origins of humanity. One simply has to think of all the examples of heroic self-sacrifice and devotion to duty that populate one’s own local mental horizon to cast serious doubt upon the proposition that “man is nothing but a higher animal.”

But the possibility that Man has both an animal and a divine origin is one that neither contemporary science nor conventional Christianity cares to seriously consider.

To some astute thinkers, it is as likely that the higher apes are descended from humans as vice-versa. That some members of early humanity were guilty of unnatural couplings with animals of lower forms, and produced an offspring that—over several millions of years—resulted in the higher apes, is a possibility not incompatible with the scientific evidence of genetic homology between humans and apes. There are enough gaps in this area of evolutionary “theory”—and at this level, it is indeed a “theory”—to allow one reasonably to not believe in ape-like ancestors for humans. However we formulate our views, we must keep alive our intuitions that there is something grander and nobler to life in the human form than merely promoting one’s individual existence, perpetuation of the species, or serving as the helpless agent of all-powerful chance.

Science is quite right in fighting against the idea of the intervention of a supposed personal god, and Christianity is quite right in fighting against the assumption of meaningless chance and ape ancestors for humans in evolutionary science. Clearly, what is needed is a synthesis of the truths of science and religion, not more either/or false dichotomies.

Is there any middle ground in this debate?

If there is a middle ground, it lies in the indestructible intuitions of human beings that there is some kind of guiding intelligence behind all of Nature (of which humans are a part). Whether it is one being, a trinity of beings, or perhaps galaxies of myriads of intelligent spiritual beings, they do not act by chance; they act with purpose throughout all of invisible Nature, they act hierarchically, and they act harmonically, in accord with universal law in guiding evolution. They are not visible to most of us ordinary humans; rather, they are the invisible agents who propel evolution forward in accordance with some overarching plan within the mind of Nature, what some of the ancients (pagans, mostly) called “universal mind,” and whom they viewed as the real “intelligent designer.” Theosophically, we human beings are evolved from these same spiritual ancestors; that is why those ancients considered us to be both divine and animal, divine beings in animal bodies.

In her exposition(s) of the Theosophical philosophy (in “Isis Unveiled” and “The Secret Doctrine”), H. P. Blavatsky taught that spirit and matter are two aspects of a single reality, thereby rejecting both Cartesian dualism and crude reductionism. The universe is unitary, and no fundamental feature of it arises as an epiphenomenon at some stage in its development. Fact and value, spirit and matter, form and consciousness, all are present in some important way from the very beginning of the cosmos and evolve with it at every point. This teaching has some very practical implications that differ widely from contemporary scientific evolutionary theory—with its postulate of blind chance as the driving force behind evolution—and from contemporary Christian theology—with its postulate of a special creation by a personal deity of every human soul. Theosophically, Man is a divine being, and integral to the evolution of the universe in which he finds himself.

In rejecting reductionism, H. P. Blavatsky pointed to the limits of science as then and now conceived. Many scientists today reject any simple-minded form of reductionism. As mathematician Ian Stewart and reproductive biologist Jack Cohen show in their book “Figments of Reality: The Evolution of the Curious Mind,” such reductionism is inadequate to the task of providing complete explanations in science. Huston Smith in “Why Religion Matters” and Tenzin Gyatso, the XIVth Dalai Lama, in “The Universe in a Single Atom,” agree in quite different ways that the problem in modern science is not science itself, but the metaphysical assumptions that scientists too easily make: (1) how science discovers truth is the only way to discover truth, and (2) what empirical science explores, the material world, is all there is to explore. For his part, the Dalai Lama embraces the findings of empirical science, but notes that much that is not objectively empirical is worth of deep study, e.g. the discoveries about consciousness that occur in deep meditative states. He supports a confluence of objective and subjective methods as mutually beneficial ways to discern truth.

H. P. Blavatsky taught that the evolution of the universe and the evolution of man form a seamless whole. Because spirit and matter constitute a continuum, the evolution of man and his real nature must be studied within the context of the nature, structure, and evolution of the universe. This comprehensive approach, refusing to fall prey to scientific compartmentalization or sectarian exclusivity, requires a radically revised anthropology. Additionally, she held that all religions contain a core of truth, but, being subjected to the limited understanding of generations upon generations of human beings, that truth is largely buried within an obscure system of allegory and symbolism, and has to be teased out of the encrusted religious traditions vying for the world’s allegiance. “There is no religion higher than Truth” was the motto she picked for the Theosophical quest for truth, and that motto puts both science and religion in a distinctive perspective.

H. P. Blavatsky clearly set the false dichotomy between Darwinian evolution and biblical intelligent design within the historical framework and human mind-sets in which it arose, and she offered Theosophy as a liberating and truth-oriented alternative. She wrote:

“The pendulum of thought oscillates between extremes. Having now finally emancipated herself from the shackles of theology, Science has embraced the opposite fallacy; and in the attempt to interpret Nature on purely materialistic lines, she has built up that most extravagant theory of the ages—the derivation of man from a ferocious and brutal ape. So rooted has this doctrine, in one form or another, now become, that the most Herculean efforts will be needed to bring about its final rejection. The Darwinian anthropology is the incubus of the ethnologist, a sturdy child of modern Materialism, which has brown up and acquired increasing vigour, as the ineptitude of the theological legend of Man’s “creation” became more and more apparent. It has thriven on account of the strange delusion that—as a scientist of repute puts it—“All hypotheses and theories with respect to the rise of man can be reduced to two (the Evolutionist and the Biblical exoteric account). There is no other hypothesis conceivable…”!! The anthropology of the secret volumes is, however, the best possible answer to such a worthless contention.” –H.P.B., The Secret Doctrine, 1888, p. 689.

The human eye sees only part of the electromagnetic spectrum, that part called “visible light.” X-rays, radio waves, infrared and ultraviolet light and much else fall outside that scope. To deny their existence because we can’t see them would be bad common sense and bad science. Similarly, to divide the world into ‘spiritual’ and ‘material’ would be to fail to understand that both those terms cover wide ranges of subjective and objective phenomena. H. P. Blavatsky’s writings explore the rainbow of phenomena that constitutes our universe and ourselves, and in so doing, she redefines science and spirituality, showing that we and the universe are simultaneously more subtle and complex than any simple dichotomies and dogmas can begin to encompass.

A careful reading of the following passages will open up perspectives that profoundly aid a vastly deeper understanding of the inextricable links between the evolution of the universe and humankind; the remarkable philosophy behind them will certainly provoke a perplexity which only its deeper realization may at last relieve.

Prof. Elton A. Hall
Boise, Idaho
January 2006

[Introduction, pp viii-ix. “Evolution and Intelligent Design in The Secret Doctrine,” compiled by the Editorial Board of Theosophy Trust, iUniverse, Lincoln Neb, 2006. ISBN 0-595-38738-1]

	Evolution and Intelligent Design
	Return
	Evolution and Intelligent Design in The Secret Doctrine Contemporary science seems to regard the belief that a personal god created the heavens and earth within the past 10,000 years as a deliberate surrendering of the intellect to superstition, and is justifiably indignant. In their eyes, it is mind boggling that, in the year 2006, 45% of the American population claims to hold such a belief in the face of the tremendous body of undeniable scientific facts about the age of this earth and its diverse fauna and flora that have existed upon it for millions of years. Many adherents of evolutionary theory regard this not as a triumph of faith, but as a failure of education. A large portion of the Christian community does not see it quite so—they see their own views as a rejection of an unwarranted intrusion by science upon their spiritual intuitions. These Christians are indignant that evolutionary science is based upon the idea that chance is the supreme guiding principle behind the manifold diversity and ingenious intelligence that is so evident throughout this earth, as “chance” is most definitely a slap aimed directly at their deity’s cheek. They are equally horrified at the scientific proposition that the human race is descended from an animal ancestor also common to the anthropoid and pithecoid apes. Christians are not alone in having this feeling. Something in the intuitions of men and women of every tradition very rightly rejects this provenance for Humanity. There is just too much evidence testifying to the noble origins of humanity. One simply has to think of all the examples of heroic self-sacrifice and devotion to duty that populate one’s own local mental horizon to cast serious doubt upon the proposition that “man is nothing but a higher animal.” But the possibility that Man has both an animal and a divine origin is one that neither contemporary science nor conventional Christianity cares to seriously consider. To some astute thinkers, it is as likely that the higher apes are descended from humans as vice-versa. That some members of early humanity were guilty of unnatural couplings with animals of lower forms, and produced an offspring that—over several millions of years—resulted in the higher apes, is a possibility not incompatible with the scientific evidence of genetic homology between humans and apes. There are enough gaps in this area of evolutionary “theory”—and at this level, it is indeed a “theory”—to allow one reasonably to not believe in ape-like ancestors for humans. However we formulate our views, we must keep alive our intuitions that there is something grander and nobler to life in the human form than merely promoting one’s individual existence, perpetuation of the species, or serving as the helpless agent of all-powerful chance. Science is quite right in fighting against the idea of the intervention of a supposed personal god, and Christianity is quite right in fighting against the assumption of meaningless chance and ape ancestors for humans in evolutionary science. Clearly, what is needed is a synthesis of the truths of science and religion, not more either/or false dichotomies. Is there any middle ground in this debate? If there is a middle ground, it lies in the indestructible intuitions of human beings that there is some kind of guiding intelligence behind all of Nature (of which humans are a part). Whether it is one being, a trinity of beings, or perhaps galaxies of myriads of intelligent spiritual beings, they do not act by chance; they act with purpose throughout all of invisible Nature, they act hierarchically, and they act harmonically, in accord with universal law in guiding evolution. They are not visible to most of us ordinary humans; rather, they are the invisible agents who propel evolution forward in accordance with some overarching plan within the mind of Nature, what some of the ancients (pagans, mostly) called “universal mind,” and whom they viewed as the real “intelligent designer.” Theosophically, we human beings are evolved from these same spiritual ancestors; that is why those ancients considered us to be both divine and animal, divine beings in animal bodies. In her exposition(s) of the Theosophical philosophy (in “Isis Unveiled” and “The Secret Doctrine”), H. P. Blavatsky taught that spirit and matter are two aspects of a single reality, thereby rejecting both Cartesian dualism and crude reductionism. The universe is unitary, and no fundamental feature of it arises as an epiphenomenon at some stage in its development. Fact and value, spirit and matter, form and consciousness, all are present in some important way from the very beginning of the cosmos and evolve with it at every point. This teaching has some very practical implications that differ widely from contemporary scientific evolutionary theory—with its postulate of blind chance as the driving force behind evolution—and from contemporary Christian theology—with its postulate of a special creation by a personal deity of every human soul. Theosophically, Man is a divine being, and integral to the evolution of the universe in which he finds himself. In rejecting reductionism, H. P. Blavatsky pointed to the limits of science as then and now conceived. Many scientists today reject any simple-minded form of reductionism. As mathematician Ian Stewart and reproductive biologist Jack Cohen show in their book “Figments of Reality: The Evolution of the Curious Mind,” such reductionism is inadequate to the task of providing complete explanations in science. Huston Smith in “Why Religion Matters” and Tenzin Gyatso, the XIVth Dalai Lama, in “The Universe in a Single Atom,” agree in quite different ways that the problem in modern science is not science itself, but the metaphysical assumptions that scientists too easily make: (1) how science discovers truth is the only way to discover truth, and (2) what empirical science explores, the material world, is all there is to explore. For his part, the Dalai Lama embraces the findings of empirical science, but notes that much that is not objectively empirical is worth of deep study, e.g. the discoveries about consciousness that occur in deep meditative states. He supports a confluence of objective and subjective methods as mutually beneficial ways to discern truth. H. P. Blavatsky taught that the evolution of the universe and the evolution of man form a seamless whole. Because spirit and matter constitute a continuum, the evolution of man and his real nature must be studied within the context of the nature, structure, and evolution of the universe. This comprehensive approach, refusing to fall prey to scientific compartmentalization or sectarian exclusivity, requires a radically revised anthropology. Additionally, she held that all religions contain a core of truth, but, being subjected to the limited understanding of generations upon generations of human beings, that truth is largely buried within an obscure system of allegory and symbolism, and has to be teased out of the encrusted religious traditions vying for the world’s allegiance. “There is no religion higher than Truth” was the motto she picked for the Theosophical quest for truth, and that motto puts both science and religion in a distinctive perspective. H. P. Blavatsky clearly set the false dichotomy between Darwinian evolution and biblical intelligent design within the historical framework and human mind-sets in which it arose, and she offered Theosophy as a liberating and truth-oriented alternative. She wrote: “The pendulum of thought oscillates between extremes. Having now finally emancipated herself from the shackles of theology, Science has embraced the opposite fallacy; and in the attempt to interpret Nature on purely materialistic lines, she has built up that most extravagant theory of the ages—the derivation of man from a ferocious and brutal ape. So rooted has this doctrine, in one form or another, now become, that the most Herculean efforts will be needed to bring about its final rejection. The Darwinian anthropology is the incubus of the ethnologist, a sturdy child of modern Materialism, which has brown up and acquired increasing vigour, as the ineptitude of the theological legend of Man’s “creation” became more and more apparent. It has thriven on account of the strange delusion that—as a scientist of repute puts it—“All hypotheses and theories with respect to the rise of man can be reduced to two (the Evolutionist and the Biblical exoteric account). There is no other hypothesis conceivable…”!! The anthropology of the secret volumes is, however, the best possible answer to such a worthless contention.” –H.P.B., The Secret Doctrine, 1888, p. 689. The human eye sees only part of the electromagnetic spectrum, that part called “visible light.” X-rays, radio waves, infrared and ultraviolet light and much else fall outside that scope. To deny their existence because we can’t see them would be bad common sense and bad science. Similarly, to divide the world into ‘spiritual’ and ‘material’ would be to fail to understand that both those terms cover wide ranges of subjective and objective phenomena. H. P. Blavatsky’s writings explore the rainbow of phenomena that constitutes our universe and ourselves, and in so doing, she redefines science and spirituality, showing that we and the universe are simultaneously more subtle and complex than any simple dichotomies and dogmas can begin to encompass. A careful reading of the following passages will open up perspectives that profoundly aid a vastly deeper understanding of the inextricable links between the evolution of the universe and humankind; the remarkable philosophy behind them will certainly provoke a perplexity which only its deeper realization may at last relieve. Prof. Elton A. Hall Boise, Idaho January 2006 [Introduction, pp viii-ix. “Evolution and Intelligent Design in The Secret Doctrine,” compiled by the Editorial Board of Theosophy Trust, iUniverse, Lincoln Neb, 2006. ISBN 0-595-38738-1] top of page return