Mahinda Weerasinghe The Author of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”The Origin of Species According To the BuddhaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢

FATALISTIC AND MECHANISTIC THEORIES OF LIFE

When the first edition of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”THE ORIGIN OF SPECIESƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ appeared in 1859, it was not touted as such, butƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  as; On the Origin of Species by Means of NatuƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚­ral Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin in fact, was not expounding on the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”origin of lifeƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢, but how differences in living forms, which naturalists specified as species, came into being.

In order to explain his ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”myƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ theory, he variously specified it as “the development theory” or “descent with modificationƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ for by 1859 he still has not hit upon the critical word, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”evolutionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ to connect up ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”his theoryƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢. Indeed we find notable lapses in the theory so he simply glossed these as ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”unexplainableƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢. We can for an example, concretely point to the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”indisputable factƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ that ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”sex was a function of reproductionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ to ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”ensureƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ the continuation of the species. But we find this basic ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”functionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ blatantly violated by homosexuals and lesbians in human species, thus countermanding the basic Darwinian precept. For these mortals were not motivated towards procreation in order to send their ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”types further in time and spaceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢, but something more crucial; quenching their ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”sensory lustsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢.

In spite of the persistent claim that DarwinƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s theory is ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”scientificƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢; we are unable to find tangible answers as to what mechanisms ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”firedƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ the transmutation of species. Perhaps, thatƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s why it is still defined as a ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”theoryƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ by the world at large.

Then, why should they hang on to such an inadequate theory?

In order to get an answer to this query we have to appreciate the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”mind setƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ of the society in which Darwin lived. Intellectuals at that point of history were seeking a rational and verifiable explanation in order to extricate and distance themselves from the myth of creation. Only alternative to counter that absurd ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”fairy taleƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ was DarwinƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s theory. So they placed all of their eggs into this basket and promoted ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”hisƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ theory as being ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”scientificƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢. In time free thinkers were so much committed to this ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”mechanisticƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ version of life, that they never investigated it rationally. In time his ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”theoryƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ has become like a run-a-way train, running on lock-in rails called ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”natural selectionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢, powered by its own hollow rhetoric, taking willy-nilly, the human species towards their obliteration.

Though unknown to most people there was and is an original ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”theory of becomingƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ elucidated some 2397 years prior to the publication of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”Origin of SpeciesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ but it was too profound for these ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”evolutionaryƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ pundits to grasp. Perhaps because, it was not a white man who had proposed it? On the contrary, it seems, Darwin and his disciples have reinvented the wheel minus its essential ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”bits and piecesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ when he formulated this mechanistic version of how species evolved. How so? In spite of the Darwinian insistence that ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-natural selectionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ is a fact of life, we find his whole set of connected ideas are nothing but hypotheses. It cannot be measured, like a pound of butter or a liter of milk. In short it should have been titled ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”luck by chanceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ survival theory!

The word ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”evolutionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ in that sense is vital for DarwinistsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢, for without this catch phrase they would never have got ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”his theoryƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ off the ground initially.

Considering the society he was living in (1859), he wisely did not challenge the Book of Genesis and the theory of creation in order to avoid agitating the true believers. Indeed, both camps avoided debating the most central issue under the circumstances. Indeed if man had descended from the monkey, are we to assume then that, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”The human animal is like any other ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”run of the millƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ creature, without an attached ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”soulƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ substance? And if there was no such ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”soulƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ essence affixed at his creation then ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”why the hell are these Judeo-Christian sects striving to save this non-existing quintessence?

Yet, most of the facts which Darwin adduced was, either common knowledge or available in the vast literature of natural history by 1859.

Indeed the idea of a ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-struggle for survivalƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ had come to himƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚as it did to WallaceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚through ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Malthus’s Essay on Population, published some sixty years before. In fact, the gradual evolution was already estabƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚­lished in geology and tentatively accepted in astronomy. Initially he considered naming it simply as; “Natural Selection.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ He rationally analyzed that; with the burgeoning of population, if individual species did not shape up, adapted and bettered itself; then they are bound make an exit and end up in the dust bin of history.

DarwinƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s publisher Murray found the work shoddy and lacking in quality. Under duress, he decided to print it, but limit it to 500 copies. Personally he was of the opinion that DarƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚­win’s theory was “as absurd as contemplating the fruitful union of a poker with a rabbit.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

Yet reducing the title to; ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”Origin of SpeciesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢, was a stroke of genius. Origin had an alluring amƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚­biguity: it irresistibly suggested, as it still does to casual readers today, the beginning of all things. Favored Races, Struggle for Life, Natural SelectionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚the idea of conflict for survival and strife encountered with tangible rewards for the victors. Indeed survival was the resultant ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”sieveƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ through which, this “iron law” of nature operated. It discarded anything related to ethics, morality and ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”common senseƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢, for these was in direct conflict with this funƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚­damental law of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”tooth and clawƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ for ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”the fittestƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ at the end that survived.

In that sense the timing of this work was perfect (1859). It matched the mood and the current mental ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”set upƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ of the crafty empire building British. For at that juncture ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”this nation of shop keepersƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ was gearing up for the great colonial adventure of exploitation and enslavement of the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”un-favored RacesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢. For the next one and a half centuries this book justified rape and exploitation of the resources of the modest and tolerant peoples of the world. The Bible, whiskey and opium no doubt chipped in, to give aid this ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”GodƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s chosen raceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ of conquerors. Also there were the Tamil coolies of the Indian subcontinent willing and waiting to serve slavishly, to these neo-colonial white masters. In that sense the historical moment of 1859 was impeccable.

All thatƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s water under the bridge now, and world is at cross-roads currently. Decay, regression and implosion of the global civilization are just a hop, step and a jump away. If we do not reject these additive deterministic creeds the human species we will end up in the dust bin of history as well, like any other lumbering species!

The historical moment is ripe for a rational analysis of the two concepts: Judeo-Christianity and Darwinism. The two creeds seemingly at odds with each other were in reality propping each other up, hastening the civilization towards its kismet. ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ For man has raped and undermined nature, by these egoistically self-centered beliefs of Judeo-Christianity and Darwinism): one fatalistic (creation by a loving God) and other mechanistic, (by a series of luck by chance events) which has driven the human kind and find themselves at the crossroads of eradication. A sweeping comparative analysis is a must now; as to how these two creeds made a mockery of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”common senseƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ and instead enthused egoistical self centeredness.

As for the magical theories of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”creationƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ no point in wasting valuable time for a comprehensive analysis. GodƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s contribution to human suffering is well documented, and not difficult to establish. Hence I will simply touch upon its high points. ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

Genesis (IX 2ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚3) informs what was ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”GodƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢sƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ injunctions to his ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”hangers-onƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ and conditioned their attitude as to the rest of its fellow creatures, the ecology and finally to the world at large and its repercussions are blatant.

ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-The fear of you and the dread of you all shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

Just switch on the TV and it will bring to your view in vivid colors, the Judeo Christian sects activities. Holy wars, pogroms of defenseless minorities, sectarian conflicts, inquisitions, witch burning, stoning of sinners to death, women degraded and acting as production machines for the dull sects to take over countries through procreation, all executed in the name of one or other of this Judeo-Christian ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”merciful and compassionateƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ God. Hence these ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”believersƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ dealings were divinely sanctioned!

Throughout history, the idol-worshiping Buddhist was at the receiving end of this God-loving peopleƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s wrath. For these ideal worshippers did not believe in a God, a Soul, a heaven or hell, or indeed, cared ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”two penceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ to live ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”unto eternityƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ with their loving God, hence needed to be dispatched to where they belong; ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”in hellƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢. Today thanks to the secular powers, information war, internet and UN, Buddhists, non-believers of a loving God, free thinkers and atheist had received a moratorium. So now it is time to ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”declare holy warƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ on each other, and the resultant victors of this ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”killing spreeƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ will be the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”fittestƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢.

Indeed Darwinian bull dogs did not act in such a mindless manner or overtly as the GodƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s chosen lot, after all they needed a scientific under-pinning for their dealings.

Before we get to the basic unanswered questions by the scientific ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”natural selectionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ mantra I will bring to the reader some of horrendous historical repercussions DarwinƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s creed had on the unfavoured nations.

In fact Social Darwinism’s chequered history can be traced back to the chief Guru himself. Charles Darwin’s work, “On The Origin of the Species by means of natural selection, (subtitled and note) The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” laid the foundation for the questionable theories that were to follow in its wake; such as Arthur J. de Gobineau’s manifesto, “The Inequality of the Races,” or the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx. These were all pure Darwinian spin offs. Naturally, “Survival of the fittest” paved the ideological path for “race struggles” and “class struggles” in societies.

Unwittingly Darwin had applied his biological selection process to the historical social process. What emerged soon was “Eugenics.” Eugenics can be defined as applied Darwinism. The founder of it was Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin, and the author of several highly influential works on heredity, especially “National Inheritance” (1889). Shortly after Galton published this work, a group of so-called “racial scientists” became active in Germany.

In time this catalyzed and validated Hitler’s scientific “biomedical vision”.

Indeed knowledgeable historians easily deciphered the concoction: Darwinian biology led to the evolutionary theory; Social Darwinism to God’s patronage and blessings for the fittest; and indeed a pseudo-science called “Eugenics. All built on a solid “scientific” edifice for “racial prejudice”, “racial discrimination” and “racism” was natural. Such vague, unscientific and polydimensional conceptions justified elitism, hate, racism, tribalism, war, holocaust, colonization, and a mystical economic destiny for the favoured nations.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ What differentiated Nazi “race purification” program from other genocidal campaigns was that, it was built on solid “scientific” (Darwinist) findings?

Currently Prof. Dawkins has taken on the mantle as Pundit, exponent and promoter of the neo-Darwinist mechanistic creed of life.

Prof. Dawkins is happy to offer us some helpful tips, concerning our mechanistically determined and unavoidable kismet. He informs:

ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Let us understand what our selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs. We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birthƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦We can even discuss waysƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism, something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

Empty, hollow, sentiments such as these, can be confusing. He contradicts every logic and common sense of any reasonable man. Indeed I wonder whether Dawkins himself is able to unravel the meaning of his statements.

If we take his views seriously, that we are ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-nothing but genetically powered machines,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ hence the advice given, seems as infantile as ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-inviting a chess-machine to play leap-frog.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  How can one ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-jump offƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ from such a ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-catch 22ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ type of fate? What these DarwinƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s watch dogs are asking us is: release our self from a fatalistically deterministic ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”God delusionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ and embraces instead, a mechanistically deterministic fate. For arenƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t we genetically powered machine and helpless and indeed, our existence aimless.

IN OTHER WORDS, ACCORDING TO THE TWO RULING THEORIES OF LIFE, EXTERNAL FORCES HAVE FASHIONED OUR DESTINY. THIS MEANS THAT FREE WILL AND FREEDOM OF CHOICE ARE HOLLOW, MEANINGLESS AND EMPTY NOTIONS! INDEED IF GOING BY SUCH LOGIC, OUR FATE IS TOTALLY PREORDAINED BY A GOD OR MECHANISTICALLY DETERMINED ACCORDING TO DAWINƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢S THEORY. SO IF WE HAD NOT REQUESTED TO BE BORN OR CREATED, AND HAD NO SAY OF THE TYPE OF BODY AND MIND MECHANISM INHERITED, HOW CAN ANYONE BE ASKED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIER ACTIONS?

The whole point simply baffles me! By dropping a fatalistic God lunacy and embracing a mechanistic Darwinism, is as good as replacing a sadistic God delusion and exchanging it with manifest hopelessness and purposelessness of a mechanistic view of life?ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

So we need to dive a little bit deeper and try to grasp what this scientific ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”natural selectionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ really means ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”scientificallyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢?

Here we must consult a bona fide Professor and not a shallow character such as Dawkins to get a ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”scientificƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ answer.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Who is better than Professor Ernst Mayr (An authority on the evolutionary theory) and first to give a biological definition for species, mind not a universal definition!

He outlines in his exceptionally well written book, which any lay person will be able to grasp, What Evolution is.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ He states that Darwin’s theory in fact consists of the following five important components: –

1. The non-constancy of species (the basic theory of evolution)
2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors (branching evolution/claclogenesis)
3. The gradualness of evolution (no saltation, no discontinuities)
4. The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity)
5. Natural selection

The last item according to Darwinians could be crucial if one is desirous of grasping the mechanisms of evolution. It is broken down into the following elements:

1. A population would increase exponentially if not constrained.
2. The size of populations remains stable over time.
3. Resources available to every species are limited.
4. No two individuals are the same in a species. (Unique)
5. As a rule the differences are heritable. (Transmissible from parents to offspring.)

The stated factors, obviously will fire competition, friction and a struggle for survival, not only between species but also between individuals within a species. The resultant outcome is that the ‘fittest’ and the best adapted are selected for the continuation of its proto-types.

To the basic question “what is this struggle in aid of?” Or “why should there be a need for this evolutionary change at all?” is answered in the following manner, In order to survive so that the continuation of its proto-types is assured, We are not provided with a qualified answer as to why the continuation of its proto- types was such a vital driving urge or of any value species. After all most of us do not remember our great grand fatherƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s name?

The availability of variation is the indispensable prerequisite of evolution. Hence Darwin postulated that the inexhaustible genetic variation of a population together with selection (elimination) is the key to evolutionary success.

Major fissures to the theory appear when we join the above items 2.) and 3.). And unravel the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”missing linkƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ riddle! Or request for a universal Definition of a ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”SPECIESƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ or a clarification for that most vital conundrum! How is ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”speciationƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ fired in higher Taxa?

Strange as it seems, scientists are not agreed on these fundamental issues which are the very foundation upon which the whole of their evolutionary theory built.

Though On the Origin of Species ascended to the biblical status in the course of time, Darwin’s writing on species and speciation clearly indicates that he was rather befuddled about the topic and hence frequently contradicted himself. This is not my personal opinion but one shared by most biologists. The reason for his confusion, they point out; can be traced back to his disorientation over the origin of genetic variation.

Considering that each species has different biological characteristics and the analysis and comparison of these differences are a prerequisite for all other research in ecology, behavioral biology, comparative morphology, physiology, molecular biology, and indeed all branches of biology.

Over the years they found species differences not that clear-cut and obvious. Taxonomists use all sorts of differences, viz, morphological, behavioral, and genetic, to identify species. Occasionally they have serious problems in deciding how much a group must differ to be classified as a separate species. Sometimes the discriminating traits between two species partially overlap each other. Just to assess different opinions nursed by specialists on diverse disciplines would take volumes.

One would have thought that a viable, universal definition of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”speciesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ has been formulated by the scientific community by now, but not so!

Biology recognizes two principal meanings which can be called the reductive and the morphological (or phenetic) species concepts. Thus, biological definition of species is attributed to Ernst Mayr who defines species as “groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups”. (Mayr 1963).

Presently we see the molecular biologists had their own constricted definition if going by their ‘molecular clock’ concept. If going by that we would need to revise the whole ‘species’ definition.

If they are unable to find a tenable definition for their subject matter, how can we trust them to explain ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”natural selectionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ logically?

In fact what characteristics do species have in common? Though the species is a natural unit, not just an arbitrary invention of biologists who need a classification system to communicate about the organisms they study; they have found it hard to express what constitute a species!

If it was difficult to get a universal definition for species, then their inability to explain how ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”speciationƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ is fired shouldnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t come as a surprise to us.

SpeciationƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term. We know the term, but can they scientifically explain how an X species mutated and end up as Y species.

AƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ transitional fossilƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ is anyƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ fossilizedƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, (missing link) there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, transitional fossils cannot be assumed to be direct ancestors of more recent groups the scientists would explain.

In fact not only chimp to human cross over, but to connect any two species, how a species restructured it genetic code and ended up as a brand new species is difficult to establish going by DarwinƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s theory.

Let me be more concrete to get the essence of what I am speaking about.

Researchers have established that humans and chimpanzees share about 98 percent of the genes.

So a mutation should occur in the genetic code in chimp make a huge leap to get the last 2% before he ends up owning a human genetic code!

But a change in genetic code should start with a with a bungling coping error of the cell, but doctors will inform that a coping error of the cell would not end with a new genetic code but end that entityƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s life with Cancer?

Cancer happens when cells that have gone renegade. Normal body cells grow and divide and know to stop growing, where as cancer cells just continue to grow and divide out of control and don’t die when they’re supposed to.

So how can a genetic code of a chimp mutate and become an owner of human one, without that entity perishing through cancer? This is the crux of the problem which scientists avoid answering. There is no ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”natural selectionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ here, a miraculous jump from an x genetic code owned by a chimp to that of a reformed Y genetic code of human creature. In other words we find the chimp has pole-vaulted in spite of his renegade cancer cells, while avoiding cancer and transformed himself owning a genetic code of a human. An impossible task! Indeed if such thing transpired at all then this was no ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”natural selectionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ but caused by an ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”un-natural selectionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢?

Indeed we find that there was one personality in the history of thought who gave a viable explanation; whatƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s firing this ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”struggle for survivalƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢. And he was many centuries ahead of Darwin.

And he never used the word ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”evolutionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ but ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”becomingƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ to explain the intricate process. In fact it is more precisely sweeping and I will call it ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”sensory becomingƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢.

Western thinking in general and the evolutionist in particular, starting with the dawn of the 18th century, concluded that everything on this planet is in an incessant flux. This is the cardinal Buddhist Law. The Buddha declared ca. 530 BC that all compounds are impermanent and liable to change, hence in a state of dynamic flux. This is the corner stone of the BuddhaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s doctrine and underpins his four Nobel truths. Buddhist calls it ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-theƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ law of impermanence.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

So why do Darwinists promote Darwin as the discovery of this ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”non status quoƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ situation of species, and defined it as ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”evolutionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢. Then are we to assume, that when Buddha declared that all compounds are in a state of flux; did he meanƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”becoming process of speciesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ is the exception to that rule!

From theƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ SaƒÆ’‚¡ƒ”š‚¸ƒ”š‚·ƒÆ’-¾ƒ”š‚yatanavibhaƒÆ’‚¡ƒ”š‚¹ƒ¢¢”š¬‚¦gasuttaƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ of theƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Majjhima NikƒÆ’-¾ƒ”š‚ya, we hear the Buddha informing his follows in such a manner, translated asƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The Middle Length SayingsƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ III (217-218) by I.B. Horner:

ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-When one has known the impermanence of material shapes themselves, their alteration, disappearance and arrest, and thinks formerly as well as now all these material and shapes are impermanent, painful, and liable to alteration, from seeing this thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom, joy arises.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Goes to show that Darwin and their hangers on did not quite grasp these intricate processes of life, for becoming works in every direction, negatively or positively unlike ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”evolutionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢. Indeed according to DarwinƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s theory you modify, adopt and become fit or face extinction. In fact the theory spelled out a deterministic ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”chanceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ outcome. Briefly, how can creatures guess in what direction they should evolve, in order to culminate the process of being fit?

Now when Buddha was conveying his ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”sensory becoming principleƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ he had to use the existing vocabulary. When a query is raised by a listener he specifically replied to the question raised, also while keeping the answer to the listenerƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s level of understanding. Then we are in for a shock. For in a most subtle manner he has relayed information, embedded in that answer.

In spite of what Darwinists has been claimed, they still had not grasp the basic law of Impermanence, which applies to all compounds. In the below given quote the Buddha relays the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”sensory becoming principleƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ while at the same time connecting it to a ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”pleasure and pain principleƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ while informing his questioner as to lacking of soul essence to a being. I challenge Darwinist to question any professor on Buddhism what I quoted below is my own invention or quoted directly from the given scriptures. Indeed whether ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”evolution of speciesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ in this quote is only in my imagination.

In the following passage from the Alagadapama Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya (No 22) (I: 138-139) (MLS) (I: 177-178) the Buddha implicitly touches the subtle points under discussion.

“What do you think about this, monks: Is material shape permanent or impermanent?”

(Here material shape should be taken as individual sensory mechanisms and their collectives, being species)

“Impermanent, Lord:”

“But is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?” “Painful, Lord:”

“But is it fitting to regard that which is impermanent, painful, liable to change, (change here means becoming and not evolution as its direction is conditional and tied to sensory opportunity) as “This is mine, this am I, this is myself?”

ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-No, LordƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

“What do you think about this, monks: Is feeling … perception …are the habitual tendencies permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Lord.”

“What do you think about this, monks: Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Lord:’

“Is that which is impermanent painful or pleasant?” “Painful, Lord.”

“But is it fitting to regard that which is impermanent, painful, and liable to change as, `This is mine, this am I, this is myself? “

“No Lord”

“Wherefore, monks, whatever is of material shape, past, future, present, subjective or objective, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, whether it is far or near-all material shape should be seen thus by perfect intuitive wisdom as it really is: This is not mine, this am I not, this is not myself. Whatever is feeling whatever is perception … whatever are the habitual tendencies (through conditioning) whatever is consciousness, past, future, present, subjective or objective, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, whether it is far or near-all consciousness should be seen thus by perfect intuitive wisdom as it really is: This is not mine, this am I not, this is not myself.”

Indeed according to the Buddha all compounds are impermanent unstable they being in a state of

flux. In other words all compounds are in a process of becoming.

BuddhaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s explanation is so subtle so convoluted and at the same time, more than modern, that it was over DarwiniansƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ head.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Here I have only touched upon few basic elements of the Sensory becoming principle, but as we dig deeper an extraordinary advanced theory emerges; why creatures struggle to survive in spite of every set back, pain, suffering and immortality?

What comes across is, humans are the ultimate hedonistic machines. BuddhaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”sensory becomingƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ explanation is so subtle, comprehensive, intricate, and inclusive of real life elements, that DarwinƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s theory becomes like kindergarten stuff.

In part II, I will make an attempt to make a comparative analysis of DarwinƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s theory contra, sensory becoming principle, and present to you how this advanced ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”sensory becoming principleƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ was by passed to promote an absurd mechanistic explanation of life.

In fact such a ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”mechanisticƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ theory of life not only helped strengthen such ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”God loves me and I love GodƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ type of self centeredness, but also planted us on a highway of self obliteration.

Mahinda Weerasinghe

00.08.2012

The Author of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”The Origin of Species According To the BuddhaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢