From a recent interview with Stephen Batchelor:

"I would understand greed, hatred, delusion, the big "baddies" in Buddhism, to originate from within our physical organism, our nervous system, our brain, which has developed over millions of years. The origins of hatred, craving, and so on would seem to be found in our own evolution. I can’t see where else they could come from. Unless, of course, one adopts the supernaturalistic notion of a formless, ethereal mind that somehow inhabits and affects the body while being essentially different from it—a dualistic idea I find hard to comprehend. And if our delusions are physiological in origin, then we have to ask how and to what extent a spiritual practice such as meditation can transform or remove them. Meditation would seem, as research suggests, to be capable of changing certain neural patterns in the brain. But can it completely eradicate such primal instincts as fear and desire? Maybe—but as long as we remain embodied animals, I doubt it."

How does Buddhism cope with evolution? Can it deal with evolution? I'm speaking here of the evolution of both the human animal and the human mind. This seems to be a huge and difficult topic. The monotheistic religions I suppose deal with it, in a predictable way: God was guiding it. But Buddhism professes to be rational, and would need an explanation that makes sense. I've read quite a bit of Buddhist thought, but have never seen much discussion of this.

from "Semper Sensitive" in the current issue of Harper's magazine:

"Arabs do not believe in cause and effect but rather in isolated incidents or the will of Allah. Speeding on a winding road did not cause the wreck. Allah willed it to happen, etc."

Now, if indeed this is true as a generality, then here we have an example of entire societies living in delusion. How can a rational society come into being if the immutable laws of cause and effect, our concept of dependent origination, are not seen in the physical, mental and emotional worlds in which we move?

"Truly, monks, a noble disciple who is learned and has understood for himself, independent of faith in others, that 'When there is this, then there is that; with the arising of this, that arises ...'