Sunday, November 29, 2009

Scientist meets the evolution

Let us look at creationists and evolutionists.

Creationists' dogma:

"All humans are created equal."

If this dogma is practiced then it will bring a fairly egalitarian society. But easier said than done. More often than not they don't and society in general does not. So we live in the mess that we quite often do, including wars.

Evolutionist's dogma:

"Screw you it is the survival of the fittest."

This dogma is troublesome to start with. Put in practice it brings disasterous results. Bush and Cheney wanted to show Iraq and Afghanistan that they are the fittest. They don't necessarily admit to being evolutionist but monkey is what monkey does – the origin of species.

Is it possible that the West was jealous; that all the prophets are from the Middle East – Abraham, Moses, Christ and Mohammed? Buddha, who did not claim to be a prophet or son of God (I don't think Christ did either but that is the way the story was developed at a later date). However, Buddha did present an extraordinarily good philosophy to live by. You can check out his philosophy yourself. Try Internet. So the West said bye bye prophets we have one of our own and his name is Charles Darwin. He knows all about creation. It is all monkey business and nothing more.

Here is a quote from Buddha:

"Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true." - Buddha

Besides being a holy man Buddha sounds like a bit of scientist. But I like his teachings.
Update:To evolutionists and to other know-it-alls
read this carefully.
Science has come a long way but it is still in its infancy. If it is any consolation to you I equally question the creationists. I question all fanatics equally.
Also lighten up and have some sense of humour.

Recommend this post


  1. Why I comment on this drivel I don't know but "survival of the fittest" is not "survival of the strongest" but "survival of the best suited to the environment it lives in".

  2. Why don't you do what Bhudda says? Do a little testing, read some books. Please try to learn something.

    And, yes, Jesus did speak of God as his father. Think back to what it is claimed he said while on the cross.

    And, no, the Bush/Cheney fiasco in Iraq had nothing to do with Darwinism. "Might is right" and natural selection have nothing to do with each other.

    LD you seem to be getting some real kick out of this stuff but you're embarrassing yourself. Let it go.

  3. I rarely talk about myself because I don’t want to. I attended an international conference on environment. There were dignitaries and scientists there from almost every continent. These folks were advising their respective governments such as: Switzerland, Britain, Australia, Canada, US and many others. They were at the top of their career. They all had one thing in common. They were all very humble. May be MoS you can learn something from it instead of being so cocksure and same goes for you rww.

  4. By the way Christ talked about Father in the sense that we are all children of God - at least that is the belief.

  5. It's got nothing to do with being "cocksure" or "humble", LeDaro. Besides, the ad hominems don't make your position seem any stronger.

    The basic problem with everything I've seen you write on evolution is you really don't understand the theory. And you're developing a nasty habit of blaming people who endorse evolution for things they don't believe and have never said. For example, belief in evolutionary theory is entirely consistent with egalitarianism; in fact, it might support it, as it suggests no human is naturally better than any other human -- and humans aren't naturally better than any other creature.

    You're making yourself look like an idiot. I don't think you actually are an idiot, though. So, you really need to try to be just a little self-critical and repair the impression you're creating. Starting by learning what evolutionary theory is really all about. You could start with Darwin, but he can be tough reading. Head over to PZ Myers' place and look up his list of good introductory books on evolution. Read at least two of them. Make sure you really grasp what evolution actually is. You may also want to read up on some of the basic books of moral philosophy, as your understanding of what does and does not support a given ethical position (such as egalitarianism) is lacking as well.

    The alternative, of course, is that my initial impression is wrong and you really are an idiot -- it's just finally come to the fore.

    Which is it? Are you really stupid? Or are you just uninformed? The latter can be fixed, but you have to do it.

  6. Mr. Rawlings,
    When you have no strong argument then start calling people names. If that is not ignorance then how you define ignorance.

    You evolutionists are bent out of shape to convince the world that you fully understand the riddle of life. You have done nothing more but collected a few pebbles on a beach and claim to understand the whole ocean. Our earth is nothing but a a minute spec in the universe and few individuals like you claim that you understand the whole universe and origin of life. All I am saying is that after reading this so-called evolution theory I still don’t understand the riddle of life. Good for you if you think that evolution is the final answer. You have not even finished the school yet. That really gives a lot of credibility to Charles Darwin who of all other things was not fanatic like you. Now you are basically telling me that I have no right to my opinion. And you consider yourself progressive and informed. NDP of all the political movements. Bad news for NDP.

    You cannot even begin to understand the point I am making about the complexity of life. It was the intolerance of certain self-proclaimed scientist which got me going at the first place. You just proved yourself being dogmatic and an idiot not any different than Jehovah’s Witness or born again Christian type. Finish your school first and your Ph.D and then you may have some iota of understanding. In my book you’re nothing more than a wide-eyed kid in a zoo who just saw a few monkeys first time . Being so intolerant does not make you superior or more knowledgeable. Nuff said

  7. Ledaro, with all due respect, I agree with everything ADHR said in the first three paragraphs of his comment.

    You are most certainly NOT an idiot. I think that much is clear.

    It's a shame that some bloggers cannot make their point without denigrating those who disagree with them, but my friend, I am afraid that you have also taken that route with this string of posts.

    Whether or not, you were first the victim of abusive conduct makes your poor choice of language somewhat more understandable, but not excusable (though in fairness, I must confess that I have fallen into that same trap myself once or twice).

    You cannot refer to other bloggers as "fanatics", "tea baggers", "extremist", etc. just because they disagree with you and expect an impartial reader to respect your message (I am not just speaking to Ledaro here!)

    Even if someone is a fanatic, it is still improper to attack them personally (once again, I am not just speaking to Ledaro!).

    I think I get the ultimate point you're trying to make about not knowing everything there is to know about the universe. After all, scientific doctrine does change as new discoveries are made. In fact, I don't actually remember seeing you write anywhere that you didn't believe in the theory of evolution... perhaps you did write it and I just didn't notice it.

    You are of course free to write just about anything you want on your blog, but I suggest you follow Mound's advice and drop this subject.

  8. Fish, let me tell you that I never initiated derogatory remarks. Only responded in frustration. Yes evolution has shed some light and Darwin was not the first one who did that. Some 100 years before him scholars and scientists said the same thing. His own grandfather advanced similar theory and Darwin tried to disparage his contributions. So like all other humans he wanted to take all the credit. All I am saying is that science is making a lot of contribution but it is not perfect yet.

    Just like you I went to few universities. Studied human behaviour, cultural anthropology and studied even law as a part of a degree. Got some degrees to my credit and did some teaching at a university. Provided advice in my own humble way, in certain capacity, at local, provincial and federal level including dealing with government agencies of neighbours south of the border.

    At the same time I studied mysticism - eastern mystics and some western mystics, on my own time. Not your usual religious stuff.

    I came to realize that there is more to life than what our eyes can see, what we can hear, smell taste and touch. As someone aptly said:
    “The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.”
    I will leave you with two quotes to ponder over.

    Zen Buddhism
    A University Professor went to see Nan-in, a Zen Master, to find out more about Zen. As their meeting continued Nan-in was pouring Tea and continued to pour even though the cup was overflowing. The Professor cried. "Enough! No more will go in!" Nan-in replied "Like this cup you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

    Albert Einstein: "The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, and the solution comes to you, and you don't know how or why."

  9. I should point out that cultural anthropology could be described as Darwinian cultural evolution.