31 May 2012
The brilliant Robert Newman has advanced the case of the creationists at many a fora. However, he has been successfully challenged by men like Richard Dawkins. Indeed, it has been shown that Newmanomics has often got evolution wrong. Check this extract from a Wikipedia article:
"Dawkins's "weasel program" has been the subject of much debate. Intelligent Design proponent William A. Dembski has criticized its assumption that the intermittent stages of such a progression will be selected by evolutionary principles, and asserts that many genes that are useful in tandem would not have arisen independently. It is often suggested that the program works by "locking" a correct letter when it is found.
Robert C. Newman, for example, misunderstands the basic algorithm: For Dawkins, once the computer gets a particular character right, it never allows mutation to work on that character again. (Mere Creation, p 437)
This misunderstanding has been frequently repeated in the creationist and ID community.[original research?] Creation Ministries claims that "Once a letter falls into place, Dawkin's program ensures it won't mutate away". While this is not strictly correct, as the 8th iteration of the sample run to the right shows, the conservation of overall similarity to a target of a kind that Dawkins himself acknowledges is foreign to the evolutionary process seems to be a valid caution against accepting the model as a proof, rather than an interesting demonstration of the way characters could be preserved from generation to generation given an appropriate selection mechanism." To continue to read click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program
During my adolescent days I used to find books and articles screaming "Evolution A\against Quran, Unislamic". Now I find more articles and blogs screaming "Evolution Foreseen in Quran", "Quran Supports Evolution".
All I can see in this is the impact of science on religion.
Intelligent Design is neither here nor there. If I must, I would rather believe blindly in the arbitrary act of instant creation, a la "Kun - Fayakoon" [Be, and behold! It became!]
After all faith needs no reason
Will they fall by the wayside of their own accord? Or do we have to push them aside? If the latter is the logical approach, we MUST act. And reason appears to be the effective weapon to do so. I also dare add that "a couple of hundred years" do matter. 7th century wisdom and values are not at par with the 20th century reservoir of knowledge. A torch held at night can't be justified by the day. As times change so does the scale. Someone's 15th century barbarism can't be equated with someone else's 20th century barbarism. The latter is more reprehensible. Hasn't civilization advanced in five centuries?
A good example is furnished by this: Developed countries discharged a lot of hot gases and left carbon footprints a plenty. So should the developing countries now match them by equal quantities? Developing wisdom warrants changed behaviour and can't be justified by reference to past.
Post a Comment