|Agonia.Net | Policy | Mission||Contact | Participate|
|Article Communities Contest Essay Multimedia Personals Poetry Press Prose _QUOTE Screenplay Special|
￭ The only thing
- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2008-03-08 | |
As dictated by the philosophersâ€™ common sense, some comments written by some of my most distinguished readers, compelled me for the writing of an apology according to its classical, -as formal justification or defense-, Greek meaning.
Not that I must proceed with it, but because I should, to the hopeful enlightenment of my readers.
Itâ€™s been long since it was given unto me (hmmâ€¦ sweet old-fashion Englishâ€¦), the acknowledgement of one of modern (pseudo)scienceâ€™s most misunderstood features, which is the obvious dichotomy of fact versus theory. As one of my hopefully learned readers pointed it out,
â€śa "theory" is based on a vast body of observation and testing that confirms a hypothesis so strongly that it might as well be considered fact. It means it will prove true on almost all possible observations.â€ť
Now this is certainly pure evolution, as some years ago, a brave biology student of a Hungarian university said to my utter amazement, that â€śit is true that evolutionism is a theory only, but the theory of evolution is factâ€ť. Or, I should rectify by saying that my opponent is utterly wrong when stating that the theory of evolution has anything to do with testing and observation? Because even one of evolutionismâ€™s star-proponentâ€™s have said something like â€śevolutionism is happening, just it hasnâ€™t been seen yetâ€¦â€ť. I dare say this because a secular encyclopaedia like Encarta has been forced by the existing evidence to conclude in a quite schizophrenic manner for the â€śStratigraphical Columnâ€ť graph, that:
â€śFossils preserved in rock strata provide scientists with clues to evolutionary history. This stratigraphical column is based on paleontological evidence and shows the order in which organisms appeared in the fossil-rich Paleozoic era. Each layer represents a particular time frame and shows a representative organism which flourished during that time. ALTHOUGH FOSSILS ARE RARELY FOUND IN THE IDEALIZED AND LOCALIZED FASHION SHOWN HERE, THEY ARE OFTEN IN MORE OR LESS CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER (caps added).â€ť Microsoft Illustration
The above quote is emphatic of the fact that when it comes to evolutionism, the lack of data seem to freely justify scientific romanticism, which doesnâ€™t need observations in order to draw dogmatic conclusions.
As for the observation on Noahâ€™s Ark, why should I go on wasting precious time by explaining that viruses and bacteria where not mentioned because they were plenty of them in and out every animal, humans, food, wood, etc?
In respect of what has been written about creationism being mentioned in one Bible book only, I should recommend reading not only its first book, but all the rest as well, swarming of quotes about the Creator and His Creation. And please, be it allowed unto me to say that since the Bible hasnâ€™t been written primarily as a â€śscienceâ€ť book in its modern acceptance of terminology, the simple observation of the fact that the sun and the moon apparently perform a movement from east to west, does not mean that from a celestial mechanic point of view, the Bible or anyone should advocate physical geocentricism.
Time has come to ask the following question: when my opponent mentions that:
â€śanybody should be free to believe whatever they want, but this has nothing to do with what we should teach children in schoolsâ€ť,
who does he thinks of when saying â€śtheyâ€ť and â€śweâ€ť? And why doesnâ€™t he mention whose children in whose schools are to be taught evolutionism only? Are creationists entitled to a â€śweâ€ť identity, to be kept in schools belonging through their public status not only to the evolutionists â€śweâ€ť? Because otherwise my opponent has just reiterated what Orwell has been writing about, i. e. the nation-detached state, dictatorially deciding who are the â€śusâ€ť and who the â€śthemâ€ť.
Viewed from a strict social angle, creationism and evolutionism are both philosophies advocated by segments of a democratic society, better to be kept away from becoming anything in between the inquisition and comu/nazism. And if observation should be conclusive for the legistic enactment of a philosophy into a law, nothing would prove more destructive for evolutionism than the very fact that purposeless, uninitiated, chaotic â€śprocessesâ€ť never self-construct into ordered structures, which is the basis of all physical and metaphysical laws. I wonder how such a brilliant mind like Noam Chomskyâ€™s would still believe in evolution after issuing the theory of generative grammar, with its universally pre-existent language-grammar infra-structure of the brain, clearly suggesting of somehow being put there, obviously by someone? Or should I mention Nobel laureate Sir Francis Crickâ€™s UFO advocating â€śpan-spermiaâ€ť theory of how life could have started?
I should seize the momentum in order to address two more issues, of which the first must consider Blair/Orwellâ€™s political views. Because it would be utterly simplistic to categorise him as a â€śfree-thinking socialistâ€ť, when he himself seem to have never arrived to a clear political stand. Amidst the turmoil characteristic of not only himself but of his age as well, I guess the best political suit would be the one he made for himself, the â€śtory anarchistâ€ť, socialist enough to participate in Spainâ€™s civil war, but tory enough to ask to not be cremated, but buried near the closest church.
Having said that, it would prove a very poor reading of my previous essay to say that the one quote from Orwellâ€™s â€ś1984â€ť, which in my reading is an interesting statement to be open-mindedly pondered by the advocates of creationism, has anything to do with Orwellâ€™s personal religious views.
As for what my distinguished, but failed fellow theologian, Charles Darwin has written in his â€śOrigin of Speciesâ€ť, one thing must be boldly stated: that he himself admitted for the fact that the weakest point of his theory were exactly the fossils, which refuse(d) to support from their strata a theory whichâ€™s logic would be rock-solid should it be built upon a valid presumption of how it all begunâ€¦
Or wasnâ€™t this exactly what Orwell wrote?
|Home of Literature, Poetry and Culture. Write and enjoy articles, essays, prose, classic poetry and contests.|