Talk:Buddhism and evolution

message: I removed the following sentence:"Such interpretations are supported by the fact that there is no apparent reason why the Buddha would describe the creation of the world to Vasettha yet remain pointedly silent on the same question when it was directed to him at another time."
Cf.:
(beginning at "A beautiful story about Gautam Buddha...")
Yonderboy 18:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Views edit

message: This article seems to be a bit pro-Buddhist...  and it doesn't have any citations. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Saimdusan is correct. We are not getting to see the real evolution theory of Buddhism at all.. Whatever we read here is "buddhists agree, they disagree, they say that, they won't say this", no theories at all! Bladesmulti (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-Buddhist bias

message: I hope this wasn't too bold of me, but I cut out most of the non-neutral, block-of-text that made up the article previously and put it after a basic statement of the mainstream Buddhist perspective on evolution. Sorry if I've offended the author of the essay; it was a great read, but most of it wasn't right for an article.
--Dammit McFadden (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. However, it still lacks proper citations. It does cite Buddhist scriptures - maybe I'm thick, but - I really don't see the correlation between the text and evolutionary theory. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 09:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I just found this article, and after reading it (and this talk page) decided to go look at the original article. I think the first draft was much better. 68.53.56.209 (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as the scriptures go, you're right, they don't really deal with "Buddhism and evolution". They're more about cosmology, and I think they were the subject of the original article because the idea of evolution is often seen in terms of the whole evolution/creationism debate. Once this article is fixed up and properly sourced, should it be incorporated into the Buddhist cosmology entry? For now, though, at least we can take the NPOV tag down. Thanks! --Dammit McFadden (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article doesn't seem to be clear on the fact that the Big Bang is not part of evolution. It in fact only explains the diversity of life, it doesn't explain its origin (that's abiogenesis), so it's strange to suggest that it gets into cosmology. Nor does evolution contradict or is particularly relevant to the idea of a creator god, which is also addressed in the article. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 07:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul of article

message: not sure where to find secondary sources on this, but reading Vasubhandu's kosha didn't give me much conviction on the compatibility of traditional buddhist cosmology and contermporaty science, particularly evolution - classes of beings like humans, various classes of gods, animals etc are taken to be ethernal arhetypes, which arise in the opposite order during the formation of a new 'universe' - first what they see as higher, and in particular humans BEFORE animals etc. I didn't notice any hints of evolution, rather the tone seems to be that of degeneration. I could quote kosha but that's a primary source so I guess that's insufficient for wikipedia? Aryah (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  abhidharma cosmology 

message: Doesn't evolution imply a start to life? (Meaning, we go from the first single celled organism to all of the various forms of life today) This implies that at one point there was not life. Therefore, how can reincarnation work? I know Buddhism does differentiate between sentient life and inanimate things, so how could this process of reincarnation start? What caused it to start? (and I do understand the whole concept of each separate being being a sort of bundle of consiousness, which can be added to and taken away from, but): How do you explain stating from one single celled organism to billions of organisms of millions of varieties? (just as a side note, this is where the Theists [Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Deists, et cetera] have a great point: you can't just have things exist out of nothing for no reason. Either the universe and life are eternal, or there was a First Cause, an Unmoved Mover to start it.) I would be very interseted to know what Buddhists (and Hindus, but they are actually Theists as well) thought about how reincarnation fits into evolution (not just in the "evolution of the soul" concept, but in the light of ultimate origins).
Anthony 'Timoteo' Fisher 16:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  But what about Reincarnation? 

message: "The Buddha does not talk about a specific earth, but about earthlike planets in general."
That's real perculiar then how he kept refering to "this world".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.62.23 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizarre assumption 

message: It's unclear why this article exists. Unlike Christianity, there has been no historical conflict between Buddhism and evolution. Furthermore, the presentation of Buddhism as a monolithic religion is completely inaccurate and gives the reader absolutely false conceptions of Buddhism. Finally, the article appears to barely talk about the theory of evolution! (For example, one part is talking about the origin of the Universe instead!) I would also add that, as with many Wikipedia articles on Buddhism, this page presents the Dalai Lama as though his word is the canonical Buddhist point of view.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.27.96 (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear why this article exists