The Gods vs. Stupidity

Hmmm, I need to take a chill pill.

I overreact to statements like the following
"the theorey (sic) of evolution just remains a theorey (sic) after hundreds of years and has been rejected by so many scientists that its not even worth discussing."

I would have no issues with the writer saying that he rejects evolution or that his faith/religion does not accept evolution, but please don't use the term "scientists" to imply this has anything to do with science.

I know that there are bodies of science that are accepted as the authorities in those fields. I wish the writer can inform us as to which body of science has rejected evolution. Unless he is coming from a point where he is not a believer in science and must state that. Or that he subscribes to some other "science" and "scientists" that we are not familiar with.

The Royal Society says that evolution is "recognised as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species."
http://royalsociety.org/

The American Association for Advancement of Science says “evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science.”
http://www.aaas.org/

The following are not my words, but describe very elegantly what a scientific theory is, and a bit about the theory of evolution

In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q02

The Rough Road to the Truth

Part 1. The Man from Galilei

Galileo Galilei is probably the father of modern science, at least thats what Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawkins thought. Born in the sixteenth century in Italy, he came from a learned family. Contemplated becoming a priest, then went to medical school, didn't finish and instead studied mathematics. He heard about the telescope that was invented in Amsterdam, and decided to make one of his own. He started by making a terrestrial telescope that he sold to merchants who would be on the lookout for their ships, and then decided to look upwards at the heavens.

What he saw in the sky was totally against everything that he had been taught. Ever since Aristotle, it was widely believed that we lived in a geocentric universe. This was a view shared and endorsed by the church because the scriptures said the same. The improvement in the telescope allowed Galileo to track the movements of the planets, which did not make sense if everything revolved around the earth. So he used Copernicus' mathematical model, which was tested against empirical evidence, movement of the planets i.e. and found to be correct.

Guess what happened when the church found out, they declared him a heretic and made him recant his theory on the pain of death. He was put under house arrest and spent his last years imprisoned. Long live the Inquisition!

As a man of science, Galileo formulated theories that have withstood the test of time. He used quantitative methods to prove his theories, is credited with the modern telescope, discovered the moons of Jupiter, improved the compass, among a long list of things. He was persecuted by the church for his heliocentric vision of our solar system, and in recent years the Vatican has apologized for being ignorant morons.

Part 2. The Man from Shrewsbury

Charles Darwin was born in the nineteenth century in England. From a family of wealthy parents, Darwin went to university to study medicine like his father. Medicine and surgery didn't hold his interest for long, and he started to spend his time studying natural history. Darwin Senior realized this and had Charles sent to Cambridge where he hoped young Charles would study theology and become an Anglican priest, a good way of earning a decent living. But it was not to be, Charles had more interest in collecting beetles and botany, and shooting and riding.

Darwin passed his exams, doing well in Theology, standing tenth in a class of 178. But did not take the vows of clergy and instead decided to accept an unpaid position of a naturalist aboard HMS Beagle which was to leave for a two year journey to South America to chart its coastline.

Over the next five years, Darwin observed and catalogued geological features, fossils, marine life and plants. He published "The Voyage of the Beagle" as a summary of the journals he wrote for his family, with his theories on anthropology, sociology and politics based on his interaction with the different people he saw and interacted with.

Darwin had become a noted naturalist by the time he arrived back in England. His meticulous documentation had earned him a reputation of a thoroughly methodical and rational naturalist. So after observations and studying and experimentation, Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" in 1859.

No points for anyone who guesses what happened then. All hell broke loose. Man was supposed to have been created in his present form as described in the Scriptures. People with little or no understanding of what Mr. Darwin was saying, were told that his theory was that apes changed into man. Since the Anglican Church was threatened by this naturalist, no effort was spared to discredit him. How could the white man accept that he might be related to the black man of Africa?

And so it remains today. Evolutionary biology has found more evidence to support natural selection and evolution than anything else. Fossils have been found which confirm this theory. Yes there are missing links, but science accepts this theory until the time someone else can come up with a better one.

There may be a few people out there, who are only interested in rubbishing evolution because it goes against their deeply held beliefs. As a rule, evolution is a fact of life. The idiots in America who are preaching creationism have only one aim, how to safeguard their religious belief. Its not science and nothing to do with the scientific method.

I hope that I am not the only one who sees the parallels in the story of these two men. Both observed and noted empirical evidence, formulated a hypothesis, tested it against observable events, and put forth a theory. They were both saying things that went against the commonly held truths about the universe and our origins. The apologists in Christianity and Islam have tried to retrofit evolution into their stories of genesis. Most people still have no clue as to what evolution is, they are so insecure in their humanity, that the chance that they might be related to other mammals is beyond their puny little brains.

The church apologized for persecuting Galileo, but I don't think anyone will apologize to humanity for keeping them stupid. Ibn Al Haytham said that the road to truth is rough, and so it will be.

If wishes were horses...

I wish I was as eloquent as some people that I have read and heard, but that would be the second step. The first would be to have the knowledge and the ideas, that in turn require articulation skills that allow for those ideas to be communicated to others.

Having said that, I would still like to try and say what I think. Hoping that it makes some sense to people, and in turn understand what they are trying to say.

At best, I am a pseudo-intellectual, lacking the necessary depth of knowledge in almost everything. So I try not to delve into things that I don't know everything about and keep my arguments simple, following the logic and rationale of a philosophical argument. I am a believer in Occam's Razor, the idea that "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

I am also a follower of the "Scientific Method", something which was very elegantly described by Ibn Al Haytham in the tenth century who said that "Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough."

In its simplest form, the scientific method consists of the following

1. Observation
2. Formulation of a hypothesis
3. Testing of the hypothesis
4. Confirmation or rejection of the hypothesis based on 3

The scientific method has served humanity well for the last thousand years. It does not necessarily find the ultimate truth, because with time and knowledge acquired using the scientific method, the complexity of our hypotheses and our testing capabilities grow. And today we might be talking about quantum physics rather than planetary orbits, because we can look inside an atom.

We have sent probes to Neptune, eradicated small pox, created so much pollution that it threatens to destroy our ecology, and it has all been done using science. Even for the things that aren't so great, the solution is still found using science.

Imagine my frustration when some other pseudo-intellectual like myself starts telling me that they know the ultimate truth, when there is none to be found. These are the same people who are reaping the benefits of the scientific method, their kids are vaccinated against diseases that were a scourge only a few centuries ago, their quality of life and expectancy improved greatly, again because of science and they have the audacity to pervert and equate science into some baseless superstition. I am sorry, but I will not sit back and let this happen without raising my voice against it.

The opposite of the scientific method is to take dogma as the truth, and try and fit empirical evidence into supporting their already arrived at theory. I have the following to say for my fellow pseudo-intellectuals who are on this shabby path, "Bugger Off" and keep your superstition to yourself. You are most welcome to live in your lala-land, stop getting vaccinated against evolving bacteria and viruses, since its just a theory, right? May the pox be on you!

The Continuing Chief Justice Saga

I am going to stick to facts here, no speculation, no assumptions and no additions from my side.

Mr. Chaudhry was appointed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on May 7, 2005. On March 9, 2007, Mr. Chaudhry was suspended by the President of Pakistan and a reference was filed against him. The suspension was later converted into leave, when it was discovered that the constitution did not allow it. On July 20, 2007, Mr. Chaudhry was reinstated by the Supreme Court.

On November 3, 2007, the Chief of Army Staff (who also happened to be the President) declared a State of Emergency, suspending the constitution. During this state of emergency, the (now defunct) judiciary was replaced by Judges who were willing to take the oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order. Some refused and others were not invited to do so. Mr. Chaudhry was part of the latter group. So we had a new and improved (by virtue of the fresh oath) judges in the courts.

The emergency order was rescinded and the constitution restored on December 25, 2007, but all the deposed judges were still under house arrest. They were all removed from the Supreme Court by troops when the emergency was declared. That is the current status. With the exception of one Judge, the rest are all under house arrest.

Just before restoring the constitution, the COAS gave the President the powers to rescind the emergency. Meanwhile, the state of emergency meant that no government servant could be held accountable for what they did. Another interesting thing that was done was that it became legal to court martial a civilian. The significance of this has already been mentioned in another post.

The President then reinstated the constitution, the parliament endorsed the actions of the COAS making it legal after the fact. In an interesting move, the PPP, which was the opposition at the time, stayed away from the voting. So everything cleaned up, and a fresh start for everyone concerned.

Everyone except the former CJ and other Justices. They are still under house arrest, this is denied vehemently by the government everytime they are asked. So although they are not being detained by the government, they can't go anywhere. I don't know what else to call it.

Here are the options, charge them with some crime, take them to the courts, let justice prevail. All the judges are freshly oath-ed. I don't think it will take much to find all the deposed judges guilty of something or the other. The President has already mentioned that the morals of the erstwhile CJ were questionable. I am pretty sure, similar things can be discovered about all the rest too. But how can they be kept under detention without being charged?

So FL, don't get too upset when other people think of us as a banana republic. There is no law here, every law, every constitution can be amended to cater to personal taste. FL claims that the only illegal thing he has ever done is impose emergency, thank you very much, last time I checked, there weren't two strikes or one in this case, before you are declared out.

Ashes and Snow

Ashes and Snow by Gregory Colbert

Add to My Profile | More Videos

I saw this a while back and it blew me away. I am trying to get a hold of the original dvd. Enjoy