Yes, after the latest controversy comment attack on Darwin, I am also convinced that Darwin was wrong, indeed!
After all, not all Apes evolved into humans!! And they are proudly flaunting their tails!
It may be worth mentioning that about 35 years ago, Giyani Jail Singh, the then president of India, went even further than the recent critic, by saying something like "Look at the red beak and the beautiful green feathers of a parrot, have they come from the monkeys? All nonsense!"
It is so depressing to observe that most of our so called elite, educated & influential people actually know nothing about Darwin's theory. of course everyone can't read those huge books (BTW it is freely available over net), but what about the essence of it? Why can't we grasp it? Why can't we show some respect to it at all?
I am not going to lecture on Darwinism, but rather briefly discuss certain points that this recent 'controversy' brings forward.
1st of all, Darwin never uttered such a dumb cliche like "men came from apes".
The essence of his findings was that, the species that we see today were all related and evolved over time from similar origin, if not from singular origin - just like how a sapling evolves into huge tree with branches & leaves! That way we all are distant cousins. So what about apes? Well, we humans are close cousins of the broad family of apes. That's it!
Actually, our education system does not clearly tell us about the scientific methodology, how science works, and what are the tools in science's arsenal. In fact it teaches science like any other subject, or worse, like a religion. No arguing, no questioning - just follow the textbook. Even the drawings must be identical to as in your textbook!
It also tells us that science is an optional thing, and not a way of life. One can become 'educated' and live a respected life even without knowing basics of gravity, or that the Sun keeps moving in space. As parents they teach their kids to accept anything - be it a TV commercial or religion! They also held key positions in society like philosophers, journalists, writers, bureaucrats, politicians, educationalists, and scientific correctness becomes last priority in our society.
So, most people won't know the difference between proof & theory, law and hypothesis, or what is meant by a scientific study, scientific research. People still imagine scientists as some absent minded creatures with uncut, untidy hair doing funny business in a lab - with no concern about outside world. Worse, even science students do not know exactly what 'science' or 'scientific' means!
But this does not prevent them from being loudmouth to speak things like "Come on, who saw it? What's it the proof?" or, making the ultimate assault : "Science can not explain everything!!!"
Funny thing is that, 'seeing' or 'eye-witness' is hardly a prerequisite for science. And 'proof' is not the foundation of science, but just a pillar. To the contrary, science relies heavily on clever, refined guessworks!
Before mocking Darwin's work, one should understand what is it. A hypothesis is an attempt to explain something. It may or may not hold good in the long run. Now, if it lasts without any major challenges, then it is promoted as a 'theory'. Theories play rather important role in science. Major part of astronomy is full of theories such as black-hole, big-bang, time-warp etc. But then, why no wise-guys were challenging those (and trying to stop space missions)? I think because its beyond the comprehension of those wise-guys, and more importantly, it is not in conflict with their ego, sentiment or Interest.
Darwin's revolutionary work was challenged violently by the christian priests because it hurt their sentiment and interest. It was such a radical work that it shook the whole world - not only the science but art & philosophy alike. One may not even care whether Earth or the Sun is moving, but this was something that challenged one's belief system that he had grown up with, and questions one's own identity. This made the whole paradise to shake and crash on Earth, and God had to struggle to find a ground under his feet!
Its not hard to understand why so many attempts on Darwin's life was made by the 'believers'.
The very foundation of all religious beliefs were contradicted by this theory, but religion did not become extinct. Yes, its glory, its control over mankind was reduced but it was amusing how it learnt to co-exist with science after that!
It is not easy being scientific. You can be a science-fan by watching sci-fi movies or buying some fancy techno gadgets. But to be scientific is about being unbiased, very honest & open-minded.
Most people live & die for their ego, sentiment and belief system. But science is very uncultured, very ruthless. It does not give you anything to believe, nor anything to worship!
It was also said that 'Darwin was scientifically wrong' and 'No old books (Vedas?) didn't mention anything like that'. Clearly the person does not have any idea how slow evolution is, and how old these ancient books were. Evolution is not like transformation of caterpillar to butterfly. 5000 years of civilisation is nothing for it.
It is worth mentioning that many people really believe that just few centuries ago also we were much bigger & taller (probably based on large utensils or shoes, swords etc. which they saw in museums).
Fine, but isn't it too much to blame Darwin as 'scientifically wrong'? One does not 'fight' science with muscle power or VIP status. You must 'fight' science with science only. For that one must do research, frame up a better theory or find out the drawbacks in Darwin's theory on the basis of this new research and publish this in front of the scientific forum. After merciless scrutiny by scientists & scholars in that field, if it was finally accepted, then surely Darwin shall bow down to the new generation scientist!
So the question is, is science perfect? No. In fact, a very interesting quality of science which keeps it apart from religion or fables is that, it never claims to be perfect or omniscient. Popular assault upon science is that, if it fails to explain something or makes any refinements to itself, then its void!
What is the big deal about science then? Science is the most systematic & pure form of human knowledge about anything & everything. Pure, but not perfect. It might have some errors at any point of time, but that is the best knowledge we could have at that moment. And best things is that, science admits these imperfections frankly and works forward to improve itself. Because an indispensable characteristic of science is that it challenges itself and corrects its course. Scientists (ideally) are the most humble persons on Earth (unlike priests or preachers). They can be argued upon and challenged.
But shall we let those imperfections or gaps ruin the credibility of science? No, because we do not have alternatives. This is the best knowledge we have at any point of time.
But you will still hear people commenting like "Can science do this? Can science do that? Can science revive a dead person?" - as if it was a crime committed by science, and as if they know some other way to revive a dead person!
History tells us how Galileo was forced to withdraw his findings and state that Earth is stationery. In the last four years, there is enough indication that, India is going to repeat such history very soon. Because for some, scientific & rational thinking is like a loose cannon. It often clashes with ego, sentiment and interest of some people.
After all, not all Apes evolved into humans!! And they are proudly flaunting their tails!
It may be worth mentioning that about 35 years ago, Giyani Jail Singh, the then president of India, went even further than the recent critic, by saying something like "Look at the red beak and the beautiful green feathers of a parrot, have they come from the monkeys? All nonsense!"
It is so depressing to observe that most of our so called elite, educated & influential people actually know nothing about Darwin's theory. of course everyone can't read those huge books (BTW it is freely available over net), but what about the essence of it? Why can't we grasp it? Why can't we show some respect to it at all?
I am not going to lecture on Darwinism, but rather briefly discuss certain points that this recent 'controversy' brings forward.
The essence of his findings was that, the species that we see today were all related and evolved over time from similar origin, if not from singular origin - just like how a sapling evolves into huge tree with branches & leaves! That way we all are distant cousins. So what about apes? Well, we humans are close cousins of the broad family of apes. That's it!
Actually, our education system does not clearly tell us about the scientific methodology, how science works, and what are the tools in science's arsenal. In fact it teaches science like any other subject, or worse, like a religion. No arguing, no questioning - just follow the textbook. Even the drawings must be identical to as in your textbook!
It also tells us that science is an optional thing, and not a way of life. One can become 'educated' and live a respected life even without knowing basics of gravity, or that the Sun keeps moving in space. As parents they teach their kids to accept anything - be it a TV commercial or religion! They also held key positions in society like philosophers, journalists, writers, bureaucrats, politicians, educationalists, and scientific correctness becomes last priority in our society.
So, most people won't know the difference between proof & theory, law and hypothesis, or what is meant by a scientific study, scientific research. People still imagine scientists as some absent minded creatures with uncut, untidy hair doing funny business in a lab - with no concern about outside world. Worse, even science students do not know exactly what 'science' or 'scientific' means!
But this does not prevent them from being loudmouth to speak things like "Come on, who saw it? What's it the proof?" or, making the ultimate assault : "Science can not explain everything!!!"
Funny thing is that, 'seeing' or 'eye-witness' is hardly a prerequisite for science. And 'proof' is not the foundation of science, but just a pillar. To the contrary, science relies heavily on clever, refined guessworks!
Before mocking Darwin's work, one should understand what is it. A hypothesis is an attempt to explain something. It may or may not hold good in the long run. Now, if it lasts without any major challenges, then it is promoted as a 'theory'. Theories play rather important role in science. Major part of astronomy is full of theories such as black-hole, big-bang, time-warp etc. But then, why no wise-guys were challenging those (and trying to stop space missions)? I think because its beyond the comprehension of those wise-guys, and more importantly, it is not in conflict with their ego, sentiment or Interest.
Darwin's revolutionary work was challenged violently by the christian priests because it hurt their sentiment and interest. It was such a radical work that it shook the whole world - not only the science but art & philosophy alike. One may not even care whether Earth or the Sun is moving, but this was something that challenged one's belief system that he had grown up with, and questions one's own identity. This made the whole paradise to shake and crash on Earth, and God had to struggle to find a ground under his feet!
Its not hard to understand why so many attempts on Darwin's life was made by the 'believers'.
The very foundation of all religious beliefs were contradicted by this theory, but religion did not become extinct. Yes, its glory, its control over mankind was reduced but it was amusing how it learnt to co-exist with science after that!
It is not easy being scientific. You can be a science-fan by watching sci-fi movies or buying some fancy techno gadgets. But to be scientific is about being unbiased, very honest & open-minded.
Most people live & die for their ego, sentiment and belief system. But science is very uncultured, very ruthless. It does not give you anything to believe, nor anything to worship!
It was also said that 'Darwin was scientifically wrong' and 'No old books (Vedas?) didn't mention anything like that'. Clearly the person does not have any idea how slow evolution is, and how old these ancient books were. Evolution is not like transformation of caterpillar to butterfly. 5000 years of civilisation is nothing for it.
It is worth mentioning that many people really believe that just few centuries ago also we were much bigger & taller (probably based on large utensils or shoes, swords etc. which they saw in museums).
Fine, but isn't it too much to blame Darwin as 'scientifically wrong'? One does not 'fight' science with muscle power or VIP status. You must 'fight' science with science only. For that one must do research, frame up a better theory or find out the drawbacks in Darwin's theory on the basis of this new research and publish this in front of the scientific forum. After merciless scrutiny by scientists & scholars in that field, if it was finally accepted, then surely Darwin shall bow down to the new generation scientist!
So the question is, is science perfect? No. In fact, a very interesting quality of science which keeps it apart from religion or fables is that, it never claims to be perfect or omniscient. Popular assault upon science is that, if it fails to explain something or makes any refinements to itself, then its void!
What is the big deal about science then? Science is the most systematic & pure form of human knowledge about anything & everything. Pure, but not perfect. It might have some errors at any point of time, but that is the best knowledge we could have at that moment. And best things is that, science admits these imperfections frankly and works forward to improve itself. Because an indispensable characteristic of science is that it challenges itself and corrects its course. Scientists (ideally) are the most humble persons on Earth (unlike priests or preachers). They can be argued upon and challenged.
But shall we let those imperfections or gaps ruin the credibility of science? No, because we do not have alternatives. This is the best knowledge we have at any point of time.
But you will still hear people commenting like "Can science do this? Can science do that? Can science revive a dead person?" - as if it was a crime committed by science, and as if they know some other way to revive a dead person!
History tells us how Galileo was forced to withdraw his findings and state that Earth is stationery. In the last four years, there is enough indication that, India is going to repeat such history very soon. Because for some, scientific & rational thinking is like a loose cannon. It often clashes with ego, sentiment and interest of some people.
No comments:
Post a Comment