Darwinism can only be believed through blind faith
Posted on February 28th, 2012

Ajit Randeniya

 A writer named R. Chandrasoma has written to the Lankaweb about my postings on Richard Dawkins and Darwinism, describing the matter contained as a diatribe: to describe my criticism of Darwin and his so-called “ƒ”¹…”theory’, and Dawkins’ wild interpretation of it, as ‘diatribe’ is based on cliched use of the word without a proper understanding of its meaning.

 What I have done in those articles is to ask some pertinent questions about Darwin’s credentials as a scientist, and point to some glaring holes in his “ƒ”¹…”theory’: reference to such analysis as a “ƒ”¹…”caricature of Darwinism’ shows that Mr Chandrasoma is yet to evolve to the advanced stage of the tree his God Darwin described.

 I presented some important questions about Darwin’s credentials as a scientist and the veracity of the conclusions he reached about past events, based on some fossil remnants. In doing so I relied on nothing but established facts on Darwin’s life and education, and critical evaluation of the method he adopted in coming to the conclusions he presented in his books. In the light of weaknesses that surface during such analysis one cannot help but question the basis of the propaganda of Darwin’s work being carried out by people like Richard Dawkins and his disciples such as R. Chandrasoma.

 In unmistakeable Dawkins fashion, Chandrasoma has adopted the usual tactic of accusing me, as someone who has dared to cast doubts on the humbug they believe without questioning, of being a “ƒ”¹…”creationist’ and a religionist; Chandrasoma couldn’t have been more wrong!

 This writer didn’t get on to the subject as a representative or defender of any established religious organisation based on creationism or any other philosophy that is in conflict with Richard Dawkins’ “ƒ”¹…”expanded’ version of Darwin’s conjecture; in fact the article follows the best traditions of scientific inquiry and scepticism honed through doctoral studies in the biological sciences.

 If Chandrasoma or Dawkins wants to “ƒ”¹…”rebut’ questions about Darwin’s qualifications as a scientist or the gaping holes in his “ƒ”¹…”theory’, they must do so without reference to the critics’ particular beliefs: that particular aspect is irrelevant to the matter under discussion. Chandrasoma claims that: “there are highly influential people “”…” ranging from George Bush to Sarah Palin “”…” who believe that God made man (and his planetary abode) about 4000 years ago and that the animals around us are the descendants of species taken “ƒ”¹…”two by two’ by Noah after the great flood”. But this writer is not highly influential, or share those particular beliefs!

 One simply cannot see the relationship between the answer to the question whether Darwin had a background or education in science and the questioner’s belief in God or otherwise! The wise path for Chandrasoma would be to read-up on Darwin’s educational background and to decide for himself whether Darwin was a theologian or a scientist and then answer the question whether he would be happy to accept a similar (or contrary) “ƒ”¹…”theory’ purported to be a “ƒ”¹…”scientific’ theory, if preached to the world by the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury.

 The circular argument Chandrasoma presents in the value-laden statement: “in his later work “”…” The Descent of Man “”…” Darwin assembled an impressive body of evidence to show the animal nature (in structure and basic functions) of the species once regarded as made in the image of God. The intellectual revolution was the acceptance that we are truly part of the Animal Kingdom”.

 On the issue of Dawkins’ connection with his ancestor’s slave business, I didn’t try to condemn him for being born in to such an ancestry, or suggest that he has inherited any “ƒ”¹…”genes’ that compels him to own slaves: I merely raised the question as to whether his own colonialist family background was a factor in his virulent defence of Darwin’s race based theory. After all, he owns a 400 acre farm in England, purchased with the wealth his ancestors made through slave trade!

 In the light of the few examples of the “ƒ”¹…”rebuttal’ cited above, there appears to be little point in spending time in trying to show reason to Chandrasoma: he, like most defenders of Darwin and his humbug, appears to have got convinced of the “ƒ”¹…”theory’ without asking the relevant questions, and then trying to defend, ipso facto, what he believes in!

 Chandrasoma may benefit by the helpful advice Buddha preached in Kalama Sutta, (The Instruction to the Kalamas Anguttara Nikaya, Tika Nipata, Mahavagga, Sutta No. 65) on the criteria to be used when confronted with new “ƒ”¹…”theories’ such as Darwin’s. I quote the sections relevant to acceptance and rejection of new ideas:

 The criterion for acceptance: “Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumour; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.

 The criterion for rejection: “It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumour; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them.

 I reject Darwinism because it fails these tests. In fact I reject it as unproven, unprovable rubbish. Chandrasoma believes in it because he has blind faith in Richard Dawkins!

17 Responses to “Darwinism can only be believed through blind faith”

  1. Wickrama Says:

    Dear Mr. Randeniya, by the same principles, (Kalama Sutta) do you also reject the “theory” of god’s creation of Universe as described in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc, etc?

  2. Dham Says:

    Fuly agree with Ajit.
    “Darwin Theory” should be renamed “Darwin’s Hypothesis”. It is not a theory.
    Any one can make an Hypothesis but only fools take Hypothesis to a level of theory without proof.
    Bottom of the list fools assume “Darwin’s Hypothesis” as a factual modern scientific proof.

    Wickrama,
    Ofcourse Ajit will reject God’s creation too ! He is not in the list !

  3. Wickrama Says:

    Dham,
    Are you the mouthpiece of Ajit? Please let him answer the question himself without you butting in!
    By the way, a Hypothesis is not necessarily wrong or untrue just because a proof is not available. Hypotheses like Darwin’s are sometimes arrived at long painstaking observations.
    Keep in mind that the famous “Fermat’s last theorem” first conjectured by Pierre de Fermat in 1637, was without a proof for 360 years until 1995 !!

  4. helaya Says:

    Mr. Randeniya,
    With respect I reject your writing asking Darwin’s qulification as a scientist. Even though he did not have degree or established scientific career, his theory is solid as as it can be. Bill Gate. Shucher Bgerger did nothave college degrees, but their discoveries changed the world. I hope you out up your credential so we can see how you qaulified to disparage Drawin/

  5. Naram Says:

    I hope Mr Randeniya will read and understand a bit more before embarking on a weighty subject like the science of evolution.

    For the benefit of other readers let me say that both Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace stated very littleon human beings in their original thesis. I do not think this is the fit placeto establish the truth of the bible or other beliefs mankind still carry. Not only Darwin, butCOpernicus and Galileo also had to face the wroth oforganised religion.

    In the internet one can find even U tube accounts of these times.

    CD was a graduate of natural sciences from Cambridge; ARW had his first degree from the University of Manchester; they developed the theory of evolution of all human beings, and the Earth itself. A visitor to a Science or Geological museum in the developed world will see the wealth ofevidence there is to build up the geological history of the world. Not only age of earth [4.5 Bn years] but the causes and stages of death of stars are taught in AL Physics courses today.

    Of coourse Darwin did not discover every item. With the available knowledge of the time, he wondered at the cause of the differnce of living forms in Australia and itsneibouring islans. Theory of continental drift wasaccpted in scientific circles only in the 1960s. THe deep fuming geological faults that exist in the midle ofthe Atlantic ocean was a secret only known to Defence circles till 1990s.

  6. Vijendra Says:

    Anyone believing in anyone other than himself or herself is bound to be disappointed! One needs to understand what, how, why and when of anything through scientific reasoning. Scientists form a hypothesis and then prove it or disprove it with scientific evidence to support such action.

    With regard to Darwin, he made his theory based on his observations in the Galapagos finches and other animals. His theory has several components, such as species (populations of interbreeding organisms) change over time and space, all organisms share common ancestors with other organisms (have commonalities in the gene pool), from generation to generation, the evolutionary change is very slow and there is natural selection of those who are capable of surviving the adversities of the environment. This theory was formulated through observation and scientific reasoning at a time when relatively very little was known of the modern day genetics or the “genetic code” or the “genome”.

    To me, Darwin was a great scientist because he used the scientific method to prove his theory. If there are scientists (not believers) who can disprove his theory, they should go ahead and do so without challenging Darwin’s educational credentials. As we all know, educational credentials by themselves do not necessarily show much unless they have done something worth while for the benefit of the fellow human beings.

  7. Ben_silva Says:

    Darvin’s theory is based on scientific reasoning and observation and various evidence provided by nature.. Darvins theory is supported by evidence including DNA profiling of species. Darvins theory attempt to describe nature as it is and does not deal with morality. It would be helpful if Ajith actually provide evidence why Darvi.s theory is incorrect. Any one can challenge Darvin’s theories with appropriate evidence. It has been found that on numerous occasions, when Darvin was Challenged, that Darvin was found to be correct. In contrast religions are dependent on blind faith. For example , God is a concept used in many religions. In Buddhism, Nirvana, sansare, Karma and rebirth are believed in blind faith, and there is not a single piece of evidence supporting these concepts.. Darvins ideas on ‘survival of the fittest ‘ can be used to understand the situation in Lanka. It appears that, as the Sinhgalese have lost their living space in the North, East etc, that we have not been fit.
    The most sensible thing to do is understand why we are not fit and take steps to halt further decline. I fully support any thing tht relies on evidence and reasoning rather than belief. It is indeed time to dump dangerous beliefs that promote giving up desires and start developing skills to survive, before we are eliminated, as described by Darvin. Buddhism has been dumped by even the source country India and evidence of Buddhists in the silk route and Nalanda indicate that Buddhism has delivered the kiss of death to its supporters. Many thinkers have said religion is a thing of the past. If not for WW2, we would still be under the British, facing extinction, following Darvin’s theory. Time to wake up and act, rather than having blind faith in religeion.

  8. Wickrama Says:

    I repeat my original query on;
    February 28th, 2012 at 5:38 pm

    Dear Mr. Randeniya, by the same principles, (Kalama Sutta) do you also reject the “theory” of god’s creation of Universe as described in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc, etc?

  9. Dham Says:

    “Darvin’s theory is based on scientific reasoning and observation and various evidence provided by nature..”
    The fact is ther is no proof. These are speculations based on observations.

    Fool,
    Nirvana means reaching a mental status of exterme hapiness without depending on out side world. What is there to prove in this ?
    When your child suddenly pass away, you feel extreme sorrow, dukkha”. What is there to prove here ?
    When you here from your doctor ” you have 6 months to live ” do you feel happy ?. Do you need proof to it ?
    Do you understand this is the reason I call you THE FOOL ?

  10. Dham Says:

    Wickrema,
    Sorry to interfere again. I have never seen Ajit answered any qestion in the past. If he answers, he will be very abusive.
    In fact I too like to see your question answered. Lets be hopeful.

  11. Dham Says:

    Fool,
    In Kalamasutta Buddha asked to invertigate EVERYTHING.
    For example, modern blood pressure measument is measured by wrapping something around arm and checking the pressure exerted on the wrap. Is this blood pressure ? How is this applied to every human ?

    What is there to question when you feel “Dukkha” ? or when you feel “Dukkha Nirodha ” ? It is just you accept there is more happiness than sorrow or there is more sorrow than hapiiness. If you think there is more happiness you just reject Buddha and move on and make merry. Then you kill others because you are more powerful that others and be happy – follow survival of the fittest concept. Surely some one else will kill you too ! Buddhda did not ask him to follow him in bothe cases.

  12. Wickrama Says:

    DHAM, DHAM, DHAM!
    You yourself say,
    “ “Darvin’s theory is based on scientific reasoning and observation and various evidence provided by nature..”
    THAT ITSELF IS THE PROOF, SILLY !
    You claim,
    “I have never seen Ajit answered any qestion in the past. If he answers, he will be very abusive.”
    Interesting !
    IF you have NEVER seen Ajit answering any question, HOW THE HELL YOU THINK that he will be very abusive?? Do you have the power to read Ajit’s mind, OR ARE YOU AJIT’S MIND ITSELF??

    Now to your ridiculous and hilarious definition of Nirvana.

    If
    “Nirvana means reaching a mental status of exterme hapiness without depending on out side world.”

    So according to you the following instances are examples of status of Nirvana, although temporary?
    · A fully doped drug addict.
    · A burglar finding a large sum of money in a house.
    · A newly married couple after lovemaking on their wedding night.
    · A person winning millions in a lottery jackpot.
    · Etc; etc;

    According to Buddha, the state of Nirvana is NOT a state of EXTREME HAPPINESS. It is a state of ULTIMATE CALM. You don’t FEEL ANYTHING ! You have FINISHED your journey through Sansara. YOU ARE NO MORE !

    Then to your ABSURD question.

    “For example, modern blood pressure measument is measured by wrapping something around arm and checking the pressure exerted on the wrap. Is this blood pressure ? How is this applied to every human ?”

    If that is NOT blood pressure then WHAT THE HELL is it?
    Give me a break man!

  13. Vijendra Says:

    I am sorry to see that this is getting a bit personal.

    I guess what one needs to understand here is that there is a clear difference between belief in and understanding of something.

    Belief leads to a mental block preventing any questions being asked or other options being considered. Belief makes one blind to all other possibilities. To understand, on the other hand, one has to ask questions, consider the evidence in support and against and come to a justifiable conclusion, based on the evidence. Understanding leaves room to change the conclusion based on new evidence.

    Hope this helps.

  14. Dham Says:

    FOOLS,
    “Nibbanam Paramam Sukham” was translated to “Nirvana means reaching a mental status of exterme hapiness without depending on out side world.”
    You may use “extreme clam” or any other word.

    Drugs are not mentally created but the aadict buy it from out side.
    “You are no more” is mental only. After nibbana you(body and mind) exist until Parinibbana.

    Are you sure that pressure acting on the wrap is the same as internal blood pressure ?The accuracy of it. I asked you to investigate. That is all. Why foolish people do not question science ?
    This is what Ajit says “Blind Faith”.

  15. Wickrama Says:

    DHAM,

    In simple English, “extreme happiness” and “extreme calm” have EXTREMELY DIFFERENT MEANINGS !!. One cannot be used instead of the other. Mentally, they give rise to entirely different feelings.

    It does not matter who, what or how drugs are created. Drug addicts take them expecting to experience extreme HAPPINESS!! What about the other examples of “extreme happiness”??

    I am not sure of the mind, but the body DEFINITELY CEASES TO EXIST once you attain nibbana. Surely you should have known THAT?

    Parinibbana is not a further state after nibbana as you imply.(I don’t know from where you pick up these ABSURD ideas!) It is just the word used to describe the PASSING AWAY of Buddha or an Arahat !!

    Whatever the pressure acting on the strap, the equipment is DESIGNED and CALIBRATED to indicate the blood pressure upto THE ACCURACY NEEDED and SUFFICIENT for investigation/diagnosis/treatment. Many measuring equipment are so designed to indicate the amount of the physical quantity INDIRECTLY using proved, established scientific principles. People who simply dismiss them are DHAM, I mean UTTERLY DUMB!!

  16. Dham Says:

    Fools,
    Buddha said,
    “Asevanacha Balanam, panditanamcha sevana.”

  17. Wickrama Says:

    At last, somebody has come to his senses !

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2017 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress