DARWINIAN VERSION OF â€˜EVOLUTIONâ€™ STILL HOLDS SWAY, INGRAINED AS IT IS, IN THE WESTERN MIND SET!
Posted on May 14th, 2014
The work â€œThe Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolutionâ€Â byÂ BiologistÂ Richard Dawkins, has received a positive review by,Â Anjana Ahuja in â€˜The Timesâ€™. She describes Dawkins’s account of the evidence for evolution as “fine, lucid and convincing”. It may perhaps be so to Anjana Ahuja, but then she is not informed and ignorant of an alternative to such a hollow, mechanistic Theory of â€˜survivalâ€™! Indeed, it is such short comings of Darwinian deterministic theories, and slipshod logic of guys such as Dawkins, which has strengthened the Judeo-Christian sectsâ€™ beliefs in a â€œGodâ€ and â€œcreationâ€.
If they are so convinced that the Darwinian Theory is a â€˜scientific and factualâ€™, then, they should lobby to get it accepted as a universal principle that covers the affairs of men and the universe. In other words, they should insist that UN should stop interfering and meddling in the tribal wars of annihilation and genocide. Surely the â€˜fittestâ€™ after such elimination processes will produce the victors who should go on to procreate and send their types further in time and space.
We find it was the Buddha who was first to broadcast to the world at large, over 2600 years ago that, there is no status quo to be found in individuals and their associated species, though it has fallen on deaf ears.
In fact when â€˜The Islandâ€™(In Sri Lanka) published the two featuresÂ â€˜The arrival of Prof. Richard Dawkinsâ€™Â &Â â€˜intelligent design and Richard Dawkinsâ€™Â on the 25th October 2011, I responded to it with: THE BUDDHAâ€™S SENSORY BECOMING PRINCIPLEÂ (03.11.2011)
There I quoted from bona fide professors working with â€˜Darwinian conceptâ€™ and some of them are Nobel laureates, and informed that;
â€œSurely Darwinists are not nursing a ridiculous notion that the human species is a â€˜special creationâ€™ by some sadistic â€˜Godâ€™ and should be made the exception to that â€˜tooth and clawâ€™ rule of the â€˜survival of the fittestâ€™…
â€˜â€¦In fact Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, present honest opinion, when, basing himself on the (Darwinian dictates) claims that, â€œmore the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointlessâ€. Darwinism teaches â€œthat our lives are brief and inconsequential in the cosmic scheme of thingsâ€ and that life has no ultimate purpose because there is no heaven, hell, or afterlife and â€œnothing we know about life requires the existence of a disembodied vital force or immaterial spirits, or a special creation of speciesâ€. Raymo, Chet. 1998.Â Skeptics and True Believers.Â New York, NY: Walker (Page 110)
That eminent evolutionary, Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, is in total agreement with this opinion, for it seems that, â€œMan is theÂ resultÂ of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. Indeed, since Darwinism has demolished the belief that the universe and human beings have an ultimate purpose, our educational system must inculcate young people in â€œcold and clammy truths like descent from reptilian or amoebic ancestorsâ€. Â Simpson, George Gaylord. 1970.Â The Meaning of Evolution.Â New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityÂ Press. (Page 345)â€¦
Indeed â€˜Dawkinsâ€™ is totally in agreement and I quoted his notions;
â€˜â€¦Dawkins the â€˜bull dogâ€™ of Darwinism insist that evolution â€œhas shown higher purpose to be an illusionâ€ and that the Universe consists of â€œselfish genes;â€ consequently, â€œsome people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you wonâ€™tÂ findÂ any rhyme or reason for itâ€. Â â€œA Scientistâ€™s Case against God,â€
In fact I had dispatched such findings of mine to Scientific American, Discovery and the other so called reputable and renowned scientific magazines! I implored them to publish my findings and offer all and sundry the opportunity to mull over whether it is â€˜God, Darwin or The Buddhaâ€™ that got this â€˜becomingâ€™ process in its proper prospective!
One can view this information in the Internet as:
HOW JUDEO-CHRISTIAN SECTS TOGETHER WITH DARWINISM ASPHYXIATED THE GLOBAL CIVILISATION
(In two parts)
FATALISTIC AND MECHANISTIC THEORIES OF LIFE
BUDDHIST â€œSENSORY BECOMING PRINCIPLEâ€ CONTRA DARWINâ€™S â€œNATURAL SILECTIONâ€
It was a vain exercise on my part I must admit. Yet, the truth like oil will take its own time to surface but eventually it will!
In fact, such journals and News papers have been promoting â€˜mechanisticâ€™ hokum based on the Darwinian â€œdogmaâ€. For if truth be told, these mechanists will be unable to sell their magazines, or sell their books; in short sell, and rake in the money by hoodwinking and misinforming the public.
Sadly I find these â€˜mechanisticâ€™ Darwinist theories are no better than, the Judeo-Christian â€˜God loves me and I love Godâ€™ hallucinations.
â€˜The Buddhaâ€™ was the bona fide discoverer of the most vital law of science 2600 years ago: Buddhist calls it â€œtheÂ law of Impermanence.â€
The Darwinistsâ€™ had not grasped the subtle implication of this basic fundamental law. Indeed this Law applies to all compounds. In the quote below, the Buddha connects the â€˜sensory becoming principleâ€™ of species while at the same time linking it to a â€˜pleasure and pain principleâ€™ while rejecting a â€œsoulâ€ essence to a â€œbeingâ€. It simply mind-bogging considering the historical moment of this proclamation.
This view of Buddha went on to challenge, every creed known to man, then and ever since. No wonder Buddhists through history was hounded as anti-God, anti-creation, and anti-Soul, heathens by believers of a â€œfictionalâ€ God. Indeed if earlier there were hundred percent Buddhists along the Silk Road now there were none. For an example at 300 BC Afghanistan was a Buddhist center where tolerance and good living was the rule, today since itâ€™s murderous occupation by this Judeo Christians sect, it has converged into a hell hole.
I challenge Darwinist to question any professor on Buddhism of what I quoted below, and satisfy them whether it is an â€œinventionâ€ of mine.
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. And such discussions are not unique but are spread all over the Pali scripts.
â€œWhat do you think about this, monks: Is material shape permanent or impermanent?â€
(Here material shape should be taken as individual sensory mechanisms and their collectives, being species, indeed any and all compounds)
â€œBut is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?â€ â€œPainful, Lord:â€
â€œBut 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 â€œThis is mine, this am I, this is myself?â€
â€œWhat do you think about this, monks: Is feeling â€¦ perception â€¦are the habitual tendencies permanent or impermanent?â€
â€œWhat do you think about this, monks: Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?â€
â€œIs that which is impermanent painful or pleasant?â€ â€œPainful, Lord.â€
â€œBut is it fitting to regard that which is impermanent, painful, and liable to change as, `This is mine, this am I, this is myself? â€œ
â€œWherefore, 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 â€¦ 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.â€
In fact when Darwinistsâ€™ invoke such mechanistic hyperbole they have lost sight of the broader picture. As they have hitched their wagon to the Darwinian â€˜natural selectionâ€™ they are bound to arrive at this â€˜rational analysis ofâ€™; aimlessness and meaninglessnessâ€™ of existence, is but a logical one!
If I were to own such an outlook of life i.e., being aimless, hopeless, purposeless; then I would naturally consider whether itâ€™s worth to keep breathing on. In fact I would terminate my existence forthwith. For in spite of all ones efforts, one will receive the same ignorable end, and whatâ€™s the point of striving struggling and suffering!
But these pundits who are predicting such nihilistic ends have not given up on life themselves. On the contrary, they are enjoying life and clinging to their dear life at all cost. Under the circumstance promotion of emptiness, by such great thinkers, is bizarre to say the least.
On the contrary if we are to go by a natural selection and survival of the fittest principle then the Darwinâ€™s version for this transmutation (evolution) of species would and should remain a â€œtheoryâ€ for it being purely a mechanistically deterministic explanation of the process and does not explain nature realistically.
Transmutation of species is a fact of life if we go by â€˜The Law of Impermanenceâ€™. Indeed Buddhaâ€™s four truths are underpinned by this very law and the sensory becoming process of creatures becomes an observable and undeniable fact of life. And hence logically not a theory.
Buddhaâ€™s explanation is so subtle so complex and at the same time, more than modern, that it was way over Darwiniansâ€™ head. But Darwin may be excused for the time and place that he was living in, but not reviewers owning Internet the possibility of investigating for alternatives today!
In fact, forget â€˜Survival of the fittestâ€™; forget â€˜natural selectionâ€™ but what is the very core of Darwinâ€™s dogma: Individuals of a species should adapt and become fit. Fit for what? Fit to â€˜surviveâ€™ the competition â€˜within the species and between the species. Then we get to hear of the most vital and the central issue of his doctrine. What is the necessity for this over-whelming motivation for â€˜survival at all? And we grasp the crux of his arguments! Survive, in order to procreate and send their types further in time and space. So what is the whole point sending their proto types in time and space simply beats me?
So going by this â€˜hollowâ€™ theory, sex is nothing but an instrument of procreation.
For heavenâ€™s sake, in which case is; how that is the human female animal is capable of having intercourse 365 days a year, but conceive only a few days after each menstruation. Where is the procreation in that?
Indeed what is the whole point of homosexuality of the human animal, when no procreation is taking place with such meaningless efforts?
Or that meaningless but very profitable occupation called prostitution by females? So much money and time is wasted in vain, with men are humping away incidental women of the street. These were purely futile and wasted effort, as no resulting procreation.
The above goes to show that Darwinian version of life does not explain real life events at all. No wonder it will remain a theory and an absurd one at that.
Why is that human male organ the biggest one among the primates, as a rule much bigger than a gorillaâ€™s?
The questions posted above were the simple ones but such basic questions have been unanswered since â€˜evolution of speciesâ€™ was published 150 years ago.
What comes across if going by Buddhaâ€™s explanation is humans are the ultimate hedonistic machines. Buddhaâ€™s â€˜sensory becomingâ€™ explanation is so subtle, comprehensive, intricate, and inclusive of real life elements, that Darwinâ€™s theory sounds as if a tall tale to put kids to sleep.
Throughout history, the idol-worshiping Buddhist was at the receiving end of this God-loving peopleâ€™s wrath. For these ideal worshippers did not believe in a God, a Soul, a heaven or hell, or a magical creation indeed, and care â€˜two penceâ€™ to live â€˜unto eternityâ€™ with a loving God, hence needed to be dispatched to where they belong; â€˜into hellâ€™. And thatâ€™s what they have being doing all along!
Sadly if going by the two deterministic versions of life, (One fatalistic such as Judeo Christian sectsâ€™ creation myths, and other fatalistic such as Darwinian ones) we have to assume that we are like machines, pre-programmed, encoded, preordained and fated by external forces? In other words; we are like pieces of corks bobbing along a swiftly flowing river, and at the mercy of chance currents and tides, which are nudging us towards an ignorable exit? Thatâ€™s what these two schools of thought ask us to put our faith in.
The future looks bleak. Thanks to such illogical, intolerant and locked in, dogmas. Surely The Times would not wish to be part of that!
By Mahinda Weerasinghe ((08.05.2014)
Author of: â€œOrigin of Species According to the Buddhaâ€
PS: – Dear Editor, It would be great if ideas as presented herein are relayed to the world by you. And I fervently hope that such a marvel will happen.
Anyhow I would wait three day for you to respond prior to placing this report on the web so The Buddhists around the world will be aware, that the above information has been relayed to you. But â€˜The Timesâ€™ found it without merit to publish it!
Mahinda Weerasinghe (9th of May 2014)