Posted on May 14th, 2014

Mahinda Weerasinghe

The work “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution” by Biologist Richard Dawkins, has received a positive review by, Anjana Ahuja in ‘The Times‘. 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 ‘survival’! Indeed, it is such short comings of Darwinian deterministic theories, and slipshod logic of guys such as Dawkins, which has strengthened the Judeo-Christian sects’ beliefs in a “God” and “creation”.

If they are so convinced that the Darwinian Theory is a ‘scientific and factual’, 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 ‘fittest’ 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 ‘The Island'(In Sri Lanka) published the two features ‘The arrival of Prof. Richard Dawkins’ & ‘intelligent design and Richard Dawkins’ on the 25th October 2011, I responded to it with: THE BUDDHA’S SENSORY BECOMING PRINCIPLE (03.11.2011)

There I quoted from bona fide professors working with ‘Darwinian concept’ and some of them are Nobel laureates, and informed that;

“Surely Darwinists are not nursing a ridiculous notion that the human species is a ‘special creation’ by some sadistic ‘God’ and should be made the exception to that ‘tooth and claw’ rule of the ‘survival of the fittest’…

‘…In fact Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, present honest opinion, when, basing himself on the (Darwinian dictates) claims that, “more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless”. Darwinism teaches “that our lives are brief and inconsequential in the cosmic scheme of things” and that life has no ultimate purpose because there is no heaven, hell, or afterlife and “nothing we know about life requires the existence of a disembodied vital force or immaterial spirits, or a special creation of species”. Raymo, Chet. 1998. Skeptics and True Believers. 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, “Man is the result 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 “cold and clammy truths like descent from reptilian or amoebic ancestors”.  Simpson, George Gaylord. 1970. The Meaning of Evolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (Page 345)…

Indeed ‘Dawkins’ is totally in agreement and I quoted his notions;

‘…Dawkins the ‘bull dog’ of Darwinism insist that evolution “has shown higher purpose to be an illusion” and that the Universe consists of “selfish genes;” consequently, “some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason for it”.  “A Scientist’s Case against God,”

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 ‘God, Darwin or The Buddha’ that got this ‘becoming’ process in its proper prospective!

One can view this information in the Internet as:


(In two parts)

Part I;



Part II



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 ‘mechanistic’ hokum based on the Darwinian “dogma”. 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 ‘mechanistic’ Darwinist theories are no better than, the Judeo-Christian ‘God loves me and I love God’ hallucinations.

‘The Buddha’ was the bona fide discoverer of the most vital law of science 2600 years ago: Buddhist calls it “the law of Impermanence.”

The Darwinists’ 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 ‘sensory becoming principle’ of species while at the same time linking it to a ‘pleasure and pain principle’ while rejecting a “soul” essence to a “being”. 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 “fictional” 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 it’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 “invention” 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.

“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, indeed any and all compounds)

“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?”

“No, Lord”

“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.”

In fact when Darwinists’ invoke such mechanistic hyperbole they have lost sight of the broader picture. As they have hitched their wagon to the Darwinian ‘natural selection’ they are bound to arrive at this ‘rational analysis of’; aimlessness and meaninglessness’ 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 it’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 what’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 Darwin’s version for this transmutation (evolution) of species would and should remain a “theory” 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 ‘The Law of Impermanence’. Indeed Buddha’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.

Buddha’s explanation is so subtle so complex and at the same time, more than modern, that it was way over Darwinians’ 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 ‘Survival of the fittest’; forget ‘natural selection’ but what is the very core of Darwin’s dogma: Individuals of a species should adapt and become fit. Fit for what? Fit to ‘survive’ the competition ‘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 ‘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 ‘hollow’ theory, sex is nothing but an instrument of procreation.

For heaven’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 gorilla’s?

The questions posted above were the simple ones but such basic questions have been unanswered since ‘evolution of species’ was published 150 years ago.

What comes across if going by Buddha’s explanation is humans are the ultimate hedonistic machines. Buddha’s ‘sensory becoming’ explanation is so subtle, comprehensive, intricate, and inclusive of real life elements, that Darwin’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 people’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 ‘two pence’ to live ‘unto eternity’ with a loving God, hence needed to be dispatched to where they belong; ‘into hell’. And that’s what they have being doing all along!

Sadly if going by the two deterministic versions of life, (One fatalistic such as Judeo Christian sects’ 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? That’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: “Origin of Species According to the Buddha”

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 ‘The Times’ found it without merit to publish it!

Best regards

Mahinda Weerasinghe (9th of May 2014)




  1. Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha Says:

    I disagree with the principles stated in this article by Mahinde Weerasinghe. Here in the US the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin and the theory of creation as stated in the Bible has become a political and cultural cauldron of differing opinions. Those who believe in the Bible ridicule the notion that man somehow or rather evolved from apes. Instead they are die hard believers that as stated in Genesis man was created by God in his image (woman on the other hand was the by product of Adam). The earth is not 4 Billion years old as claimed by geologists but six thousand years old when God created Adam in the garden of Eden.

    Coming from Sri Lanka where the religious and culture is a heady mix of Asian philosophies and faiths. I see no difference between those who believe in evolution and those who believe in creation. According to the Bible God created the Universe and man in six days and on the seventh he rested. But the Bible never defined how long is a day for God..that is if God created the Universe.

    According to Hindus a day could mean a billion years in the eyes of Vishnu or even longer. Since the time of Darwin the current evidence shows a gradual process of evolution where the modern man’s greatest development is his brain and not his brawn. In the article Mahinda comes to the conclusion that since it is the “survival of the fittest” any act of barbarism should in fact be allowed to happen and the “fittest” then will survive. I disagree with that conclusion since modern man’s evolutionary trait is his brain that allowed him to think, reason, and come to logical choices instead of killing his fellow man to prove who is the fittest.

    Due to this single evolution, the brain by size to our bodies is extraordinarily large. Due to this development civilizations were born and out of them the realization of the “self” and the concept of “God” was also born. Man is the only creature of earth that has broken free from her confines to reach to other bodies in space. I find this in total agreement with the Buddha’s teachings. His teachings put emphasis on man’s ability to reason, to think and act correctly and rightfully. If one was a Jain who believes that the earth itself is “alive” then “she” created a being to have the capacity to reach for the stars.

    Since the age of Genetics Science has proven that there is only a 1% difference in the genetic makeup of man to that of a Chimpanzee. But that 1% was sufficient for man to create such wonders and make such progress as to create instruments that would take him to Mars and to see to the far distant expanse of our Universe. In Buddhism the Buddha also sees a connection between man and other life forms. To be a noble ruler is to give equal importance to both man, animal and forest. The “universality” of Buddhist teachings go along with the new age of Genetics that see all life interconnected. Many call this Creation through Evolution. Who created is a question. But if the birth of a star to the birth of a child is an act of “creation” then it does not necessarily need God.

    One final issue and this is on the topic of Physics. Normally it is understood that out of order will come chaos. But when one looks at the beginnings of this universe (through the study of particle accelerators) to watching a galaxy or a star form out of a vast cloud of chaos, it turns upside down the theory that out of order comes chaos. The Universe is full of mysteries and nothing can be more mysterious than the simple atom.

    The atom which is really made up of an energy field (and not even a “skin” of sorts) has within it a nucleus made up of Protons, Neutrons, Electrons, and Quarks (I will call them “elements). Between the energy field that makes the atom and the nucleus is a vast space. Within the nucleus is also a vast space between these elements which allow them to spin about. It is said that if one compares the nucleus of an atom to a baseball then the atom is the baseball field. That is how vast is the empty space, yet the densest substance be it a dwarf star where a teaspoon of that material could weigh many tons to the hardest metal such as Titanium is made up of atoms with a lot of empty space.

    I state this because the teachings of the Buddha and Science do not have to be contradictory to one another, but compliment each other. The Buddha spent his life on how man should behave and not on atoms, Gods, or evolution. But the Buddha’s teachings were universal and Science is proving that his teachings are the most “scientific” spiritual doctrine man has yet developed. Interestingly the Buddha concentrated on the very organ that separates man from the rest of life and that is man’s brain. To think, to meditate, to reason are all the results of man’s brain. .

  2. Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha Says:

    Second Comment:
    The evolution of man cannot be simply seen through genetics as once expounded by Darwin but through a whole plethora of scientific fields. Cities dd not simply become modern skyscrapers, one can see the evolution from cave dwellings to ancient cities to the modern city.

    Same can be said of language. Modern language did not simply spring up fully formed but any Linguist will show an evolutionary creation of language from the rudimentary Hierogliphics of ancient civilizations to the computer with its zeros and ones able to construct speech and communications to solving the most difficult mathematical formulations.

    Same can be said of art. Man did not immediately create the Mona Lisa but took time and effort with many mistakes along the line. From the cave paintings to the sophisticated paintings, carvings, architecture, Horticulture, etc.

    Same can be said of the history of clothing. Man did not simply create the finest silk but there is an evolution from the days of wearing nothing to wearing animal fur to the evolution of the spinning wheel, to creating the most subtle materials such as Silk, Satin, Chiffon, to Cotton.

    Same can be said of food. Man did not immediately invent curry or a French Cuisine. He started off with raw meat, then he discovered fire and the use of it, He used the fire to roast the meat. Eventually as time went by man diet evolved to such sophistication that we now control the food that feeds us. We went from hunters and gatherers to taming the grain and cultivating it.

    I can cover a number of other “evolutionary fields” of man to define the evolution of man. But I believe I have made my point. Evolution of man as interpreted in the 21st century goes well beyond genetics.

  3. douglas Says:

    “THE LIFE”, in its living and active form, is an awesome miracle and in a sense a “phenomenon” that the most intelligent beings, called “Humans” who only have the capacity of “reasoning”, have tried for centuries to examine and arrive at a conclusion to determine what it is like. But, yet it has not become possible to arrive a conclusive decision. However the process continues.

    In this process of evaluating and examining “Life”, from various angles, the most prominent categories of people are the so called “Philosophers” and “Scientists” mostly the “Biologists”. As observed, the way the body developed from conception and the way it could move under its own “power” was attributed to something called the “Vital Force” and it was natural for some “Philosophers” to dictate the “Breath of Life is GOD Given” and they deduced that the physical body could not move (meaning “animation”,) by itself but came from the “Soul”. This concept of “Soul” gave rise to the popular and perhaps religious belief that it was produced by a “Supernatural Force – meaning GOD”.

    But after centuries of “reasoning” capabilities of the the human beings, this theory of mystical “Vital Force by a Supernatural” was rejected and the Scientists, taking the lead discovered that it is entirely “NATURAL” and that could very well be explained by the known laws of chemistry and physics. As a result in the 1800 “Vitalism” faded.

    Then came the “CELL THEORY” of which the most eminent proponents were two Germans, botanist Matthias Schleiden and zoologist Theodor Schwann. Today it is established that the basic units of life are “Microscopic Cells”, each of which is a “Unit of Life”. In their assessment, Life is in actual fact an “Aggregation of Cells” into a larger organism and actually a “colony” and not an “Individual”. This theory has been proved by scientist who have discovered several species of a peculiar organisms called “Slime Molds”.

    On the other hand Charles Darwin was a naturalist and his theory of “Natural Selection” combined several ideas, such as (1) Random Variation (2) The struggle for Survival (3) The Survival of the Fittest. This in a way, well fitted in with the scientific theories that have been developed during the 1800s . Charles Darwin too based his theories on “fruitful observation and theory” like any other scientists before publishing his “ORIGIN” in 1859.

    So we have the “Philosophy based” (Religious) concepts and “Science based, Scientific Theories in the explanation of LIFE. On the “Religious” side, we have the “Omnipotent Creator” who gave that “vital Force” of “Animation -(movement) and “Naturalist” theory of “generating its own power” of the “cells”.

    Conversely and comparatively, in Buddhism, this “Phenomena”(Origin of Life) I believe, is explained on a theory called “CAUSE AND EFFECT” (‘PATTICCASAMUPADA”) OR plainly called “Dependent Origination”. Yet it is said in this that the “cycle of life” is in the form of a circle – (wheel of life Bavachakra)- in that it is impossible to point in the first cause, because, the “Cause” could be the “Effect” of another “cause”. So it is left to each of us to examine which of these two thoughts the best to explain the “Miracle of Life”.

    However in examining the Darwin’s theory, it would be interesting to read what he said in the last edition of “ORIGIN” in the year 1872 i.e. after 13 years from the first edition.

    “Species have been modified, during a long course of decent….. chiefly through the natural succession of successive, slight, favourable variations; added in an important manner by the inherited effects of the use and disuse of parts; and in an unimportant manner, that is in relation to adaptive structures, whether past or present, byu the direction action of external conditions and by variations which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously. It appears that I formerly underrated the frequency and value of these latter forms of variation, as leading permanent modifications of structure independently of natural selection”.

    Perhaps, we could compare the above concepts with the teachings in Buddhism comparatively rather than conversely.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2024 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress