IT is not right for Mr. Stanely Permaul to accuse me of misquoting him (KN June 3rd) when all I am guilty of is being misled by his poorly explained premise.

He says that in a previous letter he was talking about the “science of spirituality” and not religion. I certainly did not understand the “huge difference” that he claims exists between the two. I confess to being no expert on Hindu mysticism – pardon me, I mean the “science of spirituality”.

To most people the ethics of their religion is the guide to their spirituality; their religion is a manifestation of their spiritual sense. But if you arrive at this “correct but irrelevant” conclusion, then you may be guilty of “misquoting” Mr. Permaul because he has his own ideas about merging science and spirituality.

Like those religious fundamentalists who talk of “Creation Science” Mr. Permaul has coveted the word science to boost his spiritual thoughts. He suggests that there is “a supreme being or a master designer, if you will, at the cosmic keyboard.”

Christian fundamentalists would be happy to learn that Yogic, Vedic, and Hindu devotees have found the Intelligent Designer. They can learn a lot by asking Mr. Permaul who or what the designer is. Was Jehovah, Yahweh or Jesus tapping the keyboard? Or, was Shiva doing the dance of creation the “master designer”?

To those who are real scientists, what Mr. Permaul calls the science of spirituality is really just the study of Hindu mysticism. To others, Mr. Permaul is basically dabbling in some sort of Eastern metaphysics.

In his June 3rd letter Mr. Permaul laid out the correct practice of the Scientific Method which ends in the confirmation of hypotheses. He claims “Yogic science” was practiced by his God, Krishna. I do not know much about this deity except that he seems have blue skin color. In my understanding of real science an investigation would be warranted to determine what environment produced this skin coloration.

In the world of real science melatonin does not produce blue skin. Of course, if Krishna is a God who is beyond what is natural then he is also beyond science as practiced by the modern scientific method. Krishna cannot be studied by scientists using the method; he can only be studied by mystics, sages, shamans and of course Stanley Permaul, who, in studying Krishna would have you know that he is in fact, practicing “science”.

Such “science” is also practiced by one Sai Baba, according to Mr. Permaul. Sai Baba is thought of as a reincarnated God; a fat man with afro hair, dressed in an orange gown, and often pictured sitting down, Sai Baba is supposed to be a living Man-God. Has Mr. Permaul used the scientific method to investigate the mechanisms of reincarnation? Can we, as is a standard requirement in science, duplicate his results? Would Mr. Permaul agree to use himself as a subject in his “science” of reincarnation?

He does claim that his scientific format is “verifiable”, so he must present the data and the proof. Remember, Mr. Permaul, “have you tried it, if not, how do you know?”

Mr. Permaul now pretends to be confused; how could I tell him that science has not closed the deal in relation to the formation of life and still advise him to read books on evolution? Just like he merged science and spirituality, Mr. Permaul has deliberately merged the answers to two separate questions. He had first asked about life formation, about how chemicals suddenly become alive and then separately he asked about microevolution in living things.

I hesitate to think that he is deliberately trying to sow confusion while claiming to engage in “an honest exchange of opinions.” I know that he is well aware that he asked two separate things.

Science was not around when life formed, so they are still figuring out what happened. The Milller-Urey experiment and the more recent discoveries by Dr. Sutherland in regards to the formation of complex amino-acids are leaps forward in our understanding of what may have happened. This is abiogenesis, as Mr. Permaul clearly knows. Yet he complains that these discoveries talk about what “could have” happened. I am sorry, but I will not repeat yet again that genuine science works with that which is most probable. If Mr. Permaul seeks absolute answers, he can stick to the “science” of his Gods.

Evolution is what happens to life after it is formed, it is what is happening in the world today and science is well equipped to understand this. Books are available for Mr. Permaul to read about how micro-evolution results in macro-evolution.

The bottom line is that I deal with empirical science, Mr. Permaul deals with mysticism which he labels as science. We are clearly talking about two different things, but if he makes the mistake of ridiculing real empirical science in his effort to advertise his Hindu, Yogic, or Surat Shabd “science” then he and I will undoubtedly tangle.
JUSTIN de FREITAS