Most of us would have seen the movie '3 Idiots'. In a certain scene in that movie, the professor proudly explains how the 'astronaut pen' was invented by spending millions of dollars for writing in space. Everybody listening him is fascinated by that story. But the hero sincerely asks a so called ‘dumb’ question, "Why do we need a ball point pen to write in space? Why not use pencils?' This question may appear simple, but even that professor was not able to answer him that time.
Many of us are like that professor. We believe many things in life without even knowing why we believe it. But unless someone asks these ‘dumb’ questions and challenges the basic assumptions behind some of our most dearly cherished thoughts then they will never be examined in detail. And unless we take the time to examine these beliefs in detail we will never know if they are facts or just fanciful ideas. This brief article attempts to question the thoughts and assumptions between one such common belief that has, for many people, become a fundamental assumption.
We all are familiar with Darwin’s theory of evolution of species. Most of the atheists (people who say that there is no God) believe in evolution. But almost majority of people are in a dilemma whether evolution is true or false. Some or to be more frank, most of them are in a state of agnostic nature i.e. evolution may be true or false, we don't know. Truth is subjective. Evolution can be true or false. We cannot know what truth is. To these agnostic people, we ask a question. How did you come to the conclusion 'we can’t find truth about evolution' in first place? If you think that truth (about evolution or anything else) is subjective and it cannot be known, then how did you conclude that ‘we cannot find truth’ with full confidence? How can these words ‘we cannot find truth’ be true to those whom you are preaching and not for your belief on evolution? You are not practicing what you are preaching. This is contradiction. We all know that contradiction means asserting a proposition to be true and false at the same time. Now this is what you are doing. If you strictly practice what you are preaching, first of all you shouldn’t have believed in agnosticism. So agnosticism is false. Agnostic belief is just a superstition created by you for your own whims and pleasures.
So either a person has to believe evolution is true or evolution is false. There is no position between the two.
Most of the time, evolutionists will demand proofs for the existence of God. They think they have enough evidence to refute the existence of God. They know only to ask questions to people who believe in God. So for a change, we are asking a simple question to these ones who believe in evolution. How did you know that evolution is true?????????? To answer this question, many who support evolution will empathetically answer, "Evolution is scientifically proven". Then we will ask another question. Do you think science will prove anything? Can science say whether evolution is true or false???????? You might be thinking, why these guys are asking such an idiotic question. Everyone knows the advancement of science. Because of science we are doing stem cell transplant to space travel. We are living in the age of triumph of science. How can people living in this era ask such a stupid question?
Can science prove evolution? First of all let's see whether science can really prove anything. Then we'll see whether evolution can be proved or not….
Evolution – A myth by ‘clever’ scientists:
Before we move any further we have to define what exactly we are writing about. The word evolution can be used in different ways. Sometimes it is used to refer to ‘micro-evolution’-small developments within one species, so that we see flies or mosquitoes becoming immune to insecticides, or humans growing taller, or different colors and varieties of roses being developed. Innumerable examples of such ‘micro evolution’ are evident today, and no one denies that they exist[1]
But this is not the sense in which we are using the word. We are using the word evolution to refer to macro-evolution or ‘general evolution’ or the view that ‘non living substance gave rise to the first living material, which subsequently reproduced and diversified to produce all the extinct and extant organisms’[2]
I think all the readers are familiar with the theory of evolution which was developed in 19th Century during Enlightment era, most importantly by Charles Darwin in his book ‘Origin of Species’. Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations. The entire evolutionary theory is based on scientific observation. These observation include fossil records, comparative anatomy and in the field of molecular biology.
For example, many evolutionists will say that the embryo of man is similar to embryo of fish in the early stages. So they have come to conclusion that humans evolved from fish. Now let us check whether the above 'fact' is a 'proof' for evolution. Let us see how an evolutionist supports his theory. First, these people make an observation that embryo of, both fish and man, look similar. With that observation, he makes a hypothesis that humans evolved from fish. But it is to be remembered that it is possible to make infinite hypotheses from the above 'observation'. For example, in this above observation, we can also postulate a hypothesis that fishes and man are created by God with a similar morphological feature during embryonic time. This is also logically consistent with the above observation. Likewise we can make infinite hypotheses. But only one hypothesis among the infinite hypotheses framed can be true for any observation to be logically consistent. More than one true hypothesis cannot exist. To help you understand better, we will give you another example. We are making an observation that aeroplanes and bullock carts are having wheels as a common feature. So we can conclude that ‘Aeroplanes evolved from bullock cart through a long process of natural changes and chaos which took place some millions of years in this earth'. This hypothesis is logically valid. But is that true? But naturalists also argue in the same way to support their theory. How can they be sure that their argument is true?
You may point the fossils of intermediate forms of human beings that are discovered same as how the fossil of the extinct bird, Archaeopteryx (which naturalist claim to be an intermediate form between reptiles and birds). But how do you know that those fossils represent the 'intermediate form'? You may be saying that if I am having more number of evidence, I can be more confident of my conclusion. But how many similar kind of fossils you have discovered? 10 or 100. Even if you have discovered 100000 or more of similar fossils, how do you conclude that all those fossils are an exact replica of the one first discovered? If there are variations between the fossils which have been discovered later, how can you be so sure that they all represent the same ‘intermediate form'. They can be different right? Some more questions. How can you be so sure that they all came from evolution? Why can’t they be different species of some animals, which could have been created by God? Or they can even be the skeleton of normal human beings which have been destroyed by the forces of nature? How do you answer the above questions with your observation of 'fossils'? They can also be true. How are you accepting only one hypothesis which supports evolution and reject the other hypotheses which can also be true? Your method of conclusion is totally biased.
As we have said in the beginning, we can derive infinite number of hypotheses for a particular 'scientific observation'. Among the infinite observation, there should be only one hypothesis which will be true. Other hypotheses should be false, since there cannot be more than one true hypothesis for a same 'scientific observation'. For example, in the above instance of bullock cart and aeroplane, there is only one true hypothesis that they both are made by human with a similar part between the two, the wheel. If this is the only true hypothesis for the 'scientific observation' of wheels, the other hypotheses should be false.
Now you can ask another question? There can be a probability of getting a true hypothesis out of other hypotheses from a 'scientific observation'. But remember probability is defined as 'ratio of favourable events to total no of events'. In this case, the no of favourable event is one i.e. the true conclusion of the 'scientific observation' and the total no event is infinity i.e. total no of hypotheses which are possible for the same 'scientific observation'. So by high school mathematics, one divided by infinity is zero. So the probability of getting true conclusion from any 'scientific observation' is zero. There is no way of knowing the truth by scientific observation. Knowledge of truth is not possible by science.
How does a person really know about something or make a 'scientific observation'? All naturalists will say, through sensory root of vision, touch, smell, taste etc. We'll show you one instance. Suppose that you are travelling in a bus, on a hot day afternoon. Suddenly you are seeing some water lying on the road from the distance. You think that some water tank has leaked on the road. But only on reaching that spot you are finding that it is just a mirage. This is how you make all the observations in any field of science. At a distance, you cannot conclude whether it is water or a mirage. By your sense observation through visual pathway, you should have also considered the first option to be true. This is how all scientific observations are. So you cannot be sure of scientific observation at all in the first place. If you are not sure of scientific observation, then how can you derive conclusions for your hypothesis?
Now you might come to argue with us saying, what about atom bombs, computers, and space-crafts? They are all based on science. How will you explain that? Well, first we should differentiate on what science can discover and what science can do. Science can help us in doing things. But truth cannot be discovered by science. Since, evolution rests completely on infallibility of science and we have established that science cannot discover truth, evolution is not true. It is a myth.
Does my belief in evolution matter?
We all know what the word ‘belief means. The Oxford dictionary defines it as, ‘a feeling that something exists or is true’. One can have an irrational belief or a rational belief. The rationality or irrationality of one’s belief depends on the object of the belief. If the system or object that we believe in is rational and can indeed stand up to scrutiny then our belief becomes rational. Since we have proved that there is no rational support for evolution to be true, we are forced to conclude that evolution is irrational. It is a myth on equal footing with stories about unicorns and elves. Both those who propagate evolution and those who believe and support it are superstitious because they believe evolution is true without any rational basis. If you were one of them till now we hope this article has been eye opening and we sincerely hope you will take a second look at this superstition that you have so far assumed as fact.
Why bother about a stupid superstition? There are so many thousands of them in this world, so why bother trying to write an article about a superstition? Why intervene in other people’s personal ideas? These may be the questions which can arise in your minds.
The theory of evolution has even generated a system of ethics. A person can steal, murder and abuse others since those victims are 'not fit' to survive on this earth. All that is important is 'survival of the fittest' even if you have to steal or murder others to do so. Obviously those people will be more selfish not willing to help those who are in need, and they have the perfect justification for it. They want to become richer and more powerful so that they will be the 'fittest' and carry on this ‘evolutionary advantage’ to their children. Since there is no God, there is no need to give account of our actions to anyone. The epicurean saying 'eat, drink and be happy' would be most applicable. Enjoy your life, and do whatever it takes to survive and win, no matter what the cost. That's the ultimate end of a human being no matter how it comes.
Do you know why abortion is becoming more and more common? It is due to undue reliance of science by most of the people. They consider that zygote as 'just a cell'. They consider zygote as an 'it' not a 'him/her' since science considers zygote as 'a diploid cell formed by the fusion of sperm and ovum' not as a 'human being'. This is a 'licensed murder of human beings' in the name of advocating 'safer contraception methods' like 'Copper T', 'Combined pills'. How does one life matter in the long run? The survival of my species is most important anyway. All this is because of the ideology that science can answer all the questions of human life. But it cannot and will not do so. Do you know how many people perished in this century because of these 'legalized murders' by doctors in the name of ‘ethical medical practice’? Around 200 to 300 million. That is one-third of India’s whole population.
Let us have a look at history. We were advocating, conducting rallies, propagating peace between nations throughout last century. But do you think our last century peaceful? We don't think so. It faced two bloody world wars, numerous other wars between nations, many terrorist attacks and as a result of which another millions of lives lost. Why do you think this happened? Why peace became just a matter of talk and not found in practice? This is also due to underlying ideology of people. Most of them believe in evolution. One of the most publicized mass murders of the last century was the holocaust during the regime of Hitler. But he was just being truthful to the implications of his belief in evolution. He was preserving the purity of the ‘fitter’ Aryan race against the Jews. If we assume the ideology of ‘the survival of the fittest’ to be true then there is absolutely nothing wrong with what Hitler and the Nazi’s did. Can an evolutionist point fingers at Hitler and say he is wrong? On what basis can they prove that he was wrong? Some races think that they are superior because of their own superstition that their race has ‘evolved’ more than others. We don't have to say much about communist countries where they persecuted anyone who did not co-operate anyone who did not agree with the government, since many will know about it (About 18 million people were murdered in communist countries in last century). These communist people are those who say "Don't love God, love people". These statistics show their 'love' for people's blood. They all follow the ideology of evolution which says, "Evolution is more death than survival”.
This shows the importance of ideology. You readers might have thought why we are wasting our time refuting evolution and atheism. We are showing that evolution is a superstitious belief which was framed by some so called scientists who were (and are) not thinking rationally. The above said things, which have happened (some of which are still happening), is due to the underlying ideology of the people, evolution. This has governed the history and civilization. The idea of evolution by Charles Darwin and Atheism by Karl Marx, Leo Tolstoy became very famous in 19th century. The next century faced the consequence of these stupid ideas. IDEAS MOVED ARMIES. So do you still want to believe in the myth called evolution?
[2] Wayne Frair and Percival Davis, A Case for Creation ( Norcross, Ga: CRS Books, 1983) pg 25
If you have liked this article, you can also read Can Science discover Truth?
No comments:
Post a Comment