Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00222)

dalval14@earthlink.net wrote:
> Actually our modern Science has no "traditions." Its only
> 3 to 400 years old. 

You must be using an incredibly narrow definition of "modern science"
if you're not including, for example, Hypocrites.

> SCIENCE HAS HYPOTHESES AND THEORIES -- no PROOFS
> 
> It has a bunch of varying theories -- H P B shows that there
> were several conflicting ones over 100 years ago. Every
> true scientist agrees that the current theory, is broadly
> based on Darwin's studies, and pursued through the hazardous
> and scanty method of analyzing a very FEW fossils. As a
> fact it is yet to be proved. 

Darwin created a theoretical framework more than a theory. There were a
number of pieces missing, at the time. One of the key pieces, although
discovered around Darwin's time, was not put into place until after
Darwin's (and Blavatsky's) death: genetics. Although there is
controversy about some of the subtheories within the framework, there is
virtually no controversy (except among an extreme minority) that the
framework itself is quite sound.

Blavatsky's writings does not contradict the framework, either; it
merely contradicts some of the theories contained within the framework
(for example, the cause of the beneficial mutations). 

> SOME TEND TO HIDE EVIDENCE THAT DISPROVES THEORIES
> De Quatrefages was an analytical physiologist and a
> paleographer. He looked at, and carefully compared the
> skeletal remains of ancient men and apes, and concluded
> that Man had priority. Man's skeleton was primitive if not
> primordial. It was non-specialized. The apes' skeleton
> showed specializations and adaptations due to its
> environment. It is a law in evolutionary development that
> specializations cannot give rise to primitive
> non-specialized forms. (S D II 675-685, 720 )

Not even Darwin claimed that men were descended from apes; that was a
statement of Darwin's opponents. His claim was that humans (which he did
not differentiate from human bodies) and apes had a common anscestor, an
extremely different statement, and, once again, not in conflict with
Blavatsky.

Bart Lidofsky