Image for post
Image for post

Increasingly, people are embracing evolution, which is just a theory supported by some body of evidence, but not fact, and characterizing those who continue to advance intellectual, evidence based (scientific, historical, archaeological) rationales for intelligent design as religious nuts.

We collectively continue to commit intellectual fraud in our educational systems teaching evolution as fact, as opposed to a competing theory for origins of life, yet expect the children we teach this balderdash (not the theory, the characterization of the theory as fact) to enter work forces and operate with compassion, empathy, and interest in welfare of others? What exactly do we think is foundation of the “Survival” show, a show which glorifies deception within context of team work?

If we commit intellectual fraud via teaching of evolution as fact, as opposed to a competing theory for origins of life, and if evolution is characterized as survival of the fittest, why should anyone care if an infant, a child, a teenager, women seeking employment in the movie industry vis-a-vis Weiner’s sexual advances, an entire family, entire town, entire city, or entire country gets left behind? Under evolutionary theory as fact, why should Islamic countries not attempt a philosophical and violence based invasion of America or the United Kindgom? After all, its survival of the fittest is it not? Within context of survival of the fittest, you get away with whatever society allows you get away with, hence increase in collective agreement that morality is subjective not objective, an agreement that has no basis in rational arguments. Increasingly, if you feel it is okay, it is okay. Well then if a man feels so, it is okay to rent a room in a hotel and mow down over 50 people with a machine gun. It is okay to mow down children in state of Connecticut because it felt subjectively good. In either case the people who inflicted this damage on society felt at peace with their actions, as such actions were justifiably subjectively moral. Would society agree? Well if such people are willing to pay the price of society’s disagreement, what others feel is right becomes irrelevant. Only the feeling, and willingness to pay the price for giving in to the feeling remains relevant for decision making. Why exactly do we think we are increasingly experiencing chaos in human interactions with people becoming lonelier and lonelier and more dependent on elixirs for tolerance of life? We are encouraging everyone to choose and live their own morality. So now everyone is more alone than ever in history of this planet. This reduction of decision making to feelings, and willingness to bear the cost of actions induced by feelings will destroy human civilization as we know it if we allow it fully take root in our societies.

The point of the foregoing?

Is evolution a possibility? Answer is yes. Is there concrete indisputable evidence for evolution? Answer is no. It is not wise then to teach evolution as fact and consign other competing theories to dustbin of religiosity.

There is scientific evidence for intelligent design. But given it now is trendy and sophisticated to appear to believe in evolution, even those who have no idea what they are talking about, who never have examined evidence for evolution — evidence that is circumstantial at the very best, are busy advocating evolution as origins of life.

We cannot adopt insensitivity towards welfare of others as philosophy of life and reap wisdom of care for others.

Written by

Educator and Researcher, Believer in Spirituality, Life is serious business, but we all are pilgrims so I write about important stuff with empathy and ethos

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store