 |
 |
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Re: evolution, species and missing link. Dr. Mainul Ahsan In response to : Who will be the ultimate winner in this ongoing cyclical debate between HC and Mr. Huxley? I guess the one who will survive as the fittest person to post the last message in this thread. That's how a tabloid reader might judge the outcome of a debate, but cannot be expected of people in a rationalist forum like this one. The amount and quality of scientific reasoning that HC has provided could fill a few episodes of one of my favourite TV programs of the last decade called "Hard Copy" (abbr. HC). But HC's arguments fail to appeal to me mainly because of the use of a technique called "philibustering". Why does one have to resort to arguments like "putting one's job on the line", or "swearing on something" to prove one's allegiance to the theory of evolution? Admittedly a creationist has to pledge strong allegiance to creationism in order to gain entry into the local residence of his/her Creator. But scientists or engineers do not observe any such rules to enter their labs or places of work. Use of these silly arguments in an otherwise serious and enjoyable discussion only weakens HC's ground. However, HC's recent posting indicates that some progress has indeed been made - HC now thinks that the existence of a Creator is also a scientific theory, as opposed to a fact, that deserves serious consideration by the scientific community. Let us examine the one "scientific" data that HC has presented in favour of this theory - the "harmony" of life on earth, the "harmony" of the stars of the sky, the "harmony" in almost anything that looks "pretty" to one's eye. I cannot buy HC's data because there was no attempt made to define this quantity called "harmony" in a scientific manner. What is the unit of measurement of harmony? Will several observers in the same frame of reference measure the same or different amount of harmony present in an object? I think not. Harmony, as HC presented, is more like the word "beauty" which is of course in the eye of the beholder. Harmony in the animal kingdom depends on where in the food chain an animal is placed. Harmony in human society depends on whether your belly is full after a savoury meal or whether you are living in a cardboard house and going through trash cans in search of discarded food. Harmony of the stars depends on how close you are to a star. (Try living in the palnet Mercury for a couple of days and talk about harmony). Therefore, harmony is a subjective thing which may be suitable for composing hymns and ballads but useless in a scientific context to advance the theory of creationism. Or may be there is no need for validating creationism using scientific methods! Most serious theologians of today do not try to interpret the tales of Genesis literally any more. Unlike the creationists, these noble theologians do not moan and groan childishly for being ignored by the peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have their own journals of theology where creationists will be more than welcome to publish their opinions, including the "theory of harmony". The Vatican has apologised for the wrongs done to Galeileo 500 years after his death. Quite possibly the Vatican will apologise to Darwin 350 years from today. I once had a very religious friend who had no problem accepting the theory of evolution. According to him, God unfurled his package of all scientific laws and theories, including the theory of evolution, just a few moments before the creation of the universe (big bang?). The theories He set in motion then are still at work, creating and extinguishing matter and energy, creating and making extinct countless species of plants and animals in accordance with the theory of evolution. In my opinion, this brand of creationists are less likely to be ever discredited than their literalist Bible-thumper counterparts. I often wonder why the creationists have to drag their beloved Creator through scientific mud just to validate their pet theory. It has been observed time and again that any attempt to mix science and religion leads to mockery of both. But do we ever learn from well established theories? Mainul Ahsan
Published at Mukto-mona |
|
|
 |
|
 |
||
|
||||