| Chapter
04 - Natural Selection Contra Sensory Becoming
Subsequent to the launching of the first edition
of this work, I felt that it fell short of providing a fitting comparative
analysis of the Darwinian version of evolution contra that of Sensory
Becoming. Indeed this newly added chapter is an attempt to provide
the uncompromising advocates of Darwinism, with the irrefutable
facts of “The Sensory Becoming” concept. It also offers
the general reader an opportunity to compare the central concepts
of both, in a balanced rational manner.
Accordingly, in this new Chapter, I am only dealing
with the perceptible physical aspects of the transformational process
of species, for which Darwinians offer their “natural selection”
explanation, labeling it “scientific”.
Before stepping on to the issues at hand, I wish
to amplify a few words, phrases and ideas, which I have used in
the earlier chapters, to convey the essence of The Sensory Becoming
principle. I have, generously used words and expressions such as
sensory gratification, sensory mechanism, sensory equipment, sensory
extension etc, earlier, in order to establish the veracity of this
inimitable theory. Yet somehow I sense that I have not done enough
to transmit its metaphorical scope, and its convoluted involvement
with the sensory becoming concept.
We all know what sense- perception is. Our senses,
namely, sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch – enable us
to obtain an extraordinarily detailed, multifaceted view of the
world in which we live. Sans our senses, we will not be living but
simply existing.
It is with the aid of our sense faculties that
we react to external stimuli and experience the external world,
which process in turn offers us the much sought after sensory gratifications.
This in turn makes our life luxurious, invigorating, exciting and
livable. If a single sensory function collapses, it will shut out
an entire world of gratification potentials. Indeed it is through
this copious permutations and combinations of mixtures and blending
of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch that the magical world
of sensory delights are relayed to us. If some one is deaf or blind
he certainly can live, procreate and function in the Darwinian sense,
but yet we tend to pity him due to the world of stimulations and
pleasures he is deprived of.
Each species has its own assemblage of senses and
what’s more, each species is quite content with their sensory
status. These will not only aid them in survival, but would also
help bring home what lies beyond, i.e.. sensory gratification. Naturally
such gratifications are experienced within the parameters of their
conditioned mind-body mechanism.
Presently we are inundated with information about
the diverse species sensory gamut and their scope. These range from
thermal ‘vision’ and ultrasonic ‘hearing’
to distant ‘touch’ and ripple fingerprinting. Every
day we are notified of a new finding of the world of perception.
It seems that ultraviolet is visible as an exotic extra colour,
which makes the fiery glow of body heat instantly perceptible, where
animals are sensed by the vibration fingerprints they leave behind
in water, or betrayed by the minute electrical signals coursing
through their nervous systems. We are informed that there are lizards
that squirt blood from their eyes at enemies; where catfishes predict
earthquakes, foxes practice hypnotism, sea bottom stargazers generate
their own electricity, whales harness the earth’s magnetic
field for navigation, and worms dance by the light of the moon.
Wired with the assemblage of senses, members of
each species enjoy their conditioned gratifications while utilizing
them for survival. Though some species have acquired some extraordinarily
versatile and marvelously sensitive sensory make up, none can compete
with the hominids for their balanced, sophisticated and super sensory
paraphernalia, which provide them with every imaginable blend of
stimulations, while allowing them a margin of control of their destiny.
In short we are simply pleasure consuming machines.
Switch on the TV and we are bombarded practically
with every product and service, aimed at tickling our sensory tackle.
Lipsticks, mascaras powders, shampoos, body lotions, hair removers,
perfumes etc. to mollycoddle and pamper to our body hygiene. Various
musical creations to sooth and excite our auditory sense. All varieties
of tablets, tobacco, alcohol, drugs, etc, etc, to cater to our desires.
Mouth watering food products and the methods of their preparation,
even erotic images to fire our sex urge, products and by-products
of every commercial venture are targeted at stimulating our cravings.
We can speak of each “sense” in isolation
or in its various combinations and assess all the pleasures these
provide without once exhausting the subject. But I wish to cite
a particular example, which will expose the nature and the ramification
of sensory vigour and its scope overwhelmingly, and thus demonstrate
how fundamental its impact is, on each one of us.
That men have a penis is a biological fact: how
they consider it and what triggers its erection is a complete enigma.
“The Demon’s rod” or “The Devil’s
penis” of the Catholic Church was an item every inquisitor
was obsessed with. In fact it was supposed to have a mind of its
own. One does not have to fondle it, or even remember that it’s
in its place, but an external sensory simulation will
suddenly trigger it to erection. One will offer one’s own
account why, a particular woman had this sort of effect on him.
The way she swings her hips, the way she smiles, the complexion
of her skin, her attractive breast, the form of her mouth or lips,
her body smell, her manner of speech and expression, or a blend
of two or more of these sensory factors, would arouse this
lust for such a particular woman.
Indeed there was no reproductive motivation behind
this incitement. If one meditatively scrutinises one’s own
sensory lust, which is in a conditioned state, and is directly related
to habits and associations, he will be able to discover such hidden
sensory propensities, which we willingly try to keep under wraps.
Regretfully science has not offered any rational explanation as
to how the mechanism of erotic stimuli fires our “Demon’s
Rod”.
For the first time in the history of thought, Buddha
specified and identified species by their innate sensory paraphernalia
and sooner or later the scientific world will be compelled to recognise
that the “sensory paraphernalia specifies the species”.
So in the “sensory becoming sense” a speciation is said
to have occurred when a species extended (changed, modified) it’s
sensory equipment. In other words it has stretched its body-mind
mechanism, and thus reformed the way it reacts to its surroundings
and bring home its gratificational needs. Indeed this upgraded sensory
upholstery, will enhance its gratification potential to new heights,
of course within the constraints of its newly reformed conditioned
mind–body mechanism.
Whether this change is progressive or regressive
is irrelevant. What is crucial for the newly reformed species is
that such change enhanced its sensory potential, which will provide
its subjects with the possibility of reaping extended sensory rewards,
while maintaining a sense of security and a feeling of a status
quo. Whether this sensory improvement helps avert extinction, is
of secondary importance to the species concerned, as long as it
brings home immediate sensory returns.
In other words such transformations (becoming or
evolution) of the mind and the body should not be judged as progressive
or regressive, as the species under question have not been targeting
at some sort of “abstract” excellence. What they have
been aiming at in fact was, widening and extending its sensory gratificational
limits. Volumes can be written on this topic without once exhausting
its source. I will leave the reader to contemplate his own sensory
needs and urges; an exercise which would be a good gauge, since
you will be compelled to compare the rest of the animate world’s
sensory drive against your own.
Before going on to deal with the main Darwinian
dogmas I must underline that, I have purposefully skipped over,
at this stage, specific important moments from the sensory becoming
theory, when the two are assessed comparatively, due to the following
manifest reasons:
1. An action theory. (Not considered in Darwinism)
2. An ethical theory. (Darwinian concepts
being purely of a mechanistic nature do not give any consideration
to ethics as having relevance to the “struggle to survive”.)
3. Conditioning process or conditional genesis
of creatures. (A core Buddhist concept, and have momentous consequence
when understanding the sensory becoming process. This element is
totally unknown among the Darwinians).
4. Pleasure and pain principle, which is the
core-stimulating factor for directional change, is not incorporated
in the Darwinian evolution though crucial to the sensory becoming
process.
5. The phenomenon of ‘Cause and effect’
is of profound and paramount significance when considering the mechanisms
of evolution according to sensory becoming. (This is purely
a Buddhist metaphysical notion, and an indispensable parameter when
analysing the sensory becoming process. To Darwinians it is merely
tantamount to superstition and hence an irrational notion at that).
Further, in order to help the reader identify readily
the arguments of the two contending theories I will outline the
main Darwinian arguments in regular script and the vital points
in the Sensory Becoming, in italics. And in order to highlight the
salient pros of each, I will put these down in bold letters and
use different shades. I will begin with the basics, so as to
lay a proper theoretical foundation for its development.
THE IDEA OF DETERMINISM
Most people haven’t
even an inkling as to what determinism means, and are not bothered,
not only about the word itself, but even the idea behind it. Yet
the concept of DETERMINISM deals with the most fundamental issues
of human nature, namely, whether the behaviour, thinking, actions
and feelings of any being, are driven by something called Free Will.
Disagreement exists about
the proper formulation of determinism, as the idea is abstract,
elusive and hard to pin down. In fact it goes to the heart of all
religions, psychologies and definitely the Darwinistic notion of
evolution itself. Are we machines pre-programmed, encoded, preordained
and fated by external forces, and hence unable to navigate towards
our own destiny?
According to the loose idea,
Determinism is the theory that all human action is caused entirely
by preceding events, and not by the exercise of Free Will.
Indeed creationist in order
to slip over the theological dilemma that it possesses alludes to
an “original sin” committed by our mythical ancestors
“Adam and Eve”. And for that single sin (action, crime),
all humanity has been put under interdict by God.
For by then indeed the venue
for the individual is already “locked in and fixed”.
Actually by then the newborn member’s “body and mind”
has been wired and he is a “finished product” and ergo
his being is a fait accompli.
In fact Creationists and
Darwinians try to explain Determinism after the birth event has
taken effect, hence imply a non-deterministic justification. We
can concede this if taken conditionally as birth being the starting
point. But this is an incorrect point of origin of the psycho-physical
mechanism, for the inquiry to be initiated.
Simply said, at inception
and on arriving at the birth situation, the individual has already
inherited the following preconditions:
a.) A body and mind
(Psychophysical situation)
b.) A socio-economic
situation (ecological)
Hence the individual is pre-programmed
and encoded according to these two preconditions. How! Indeed we
simply did not create ourselves.
And the actor has to act
within the constraints of his body and mind, which have been either
awarded (by a God, creationist view) at creation, or emerged through
a series of accidental changes (Darwinian version) at the inception.
Which would say that if he is a lunatic, a mad man or a mongoloid,
he is compelled to think and perform like a lunatic, a mad man or
a mongoloid appropriately, as his actions are focused by the instrumentality
of his body-mind mechanism inherited and pre-programmed at conception
or creation in the first instant. How then can he be answerable
for his actions, is an abiding wonder!
Under the circumstances and
going by the two types of accepted theories, our fate is either
fatalistically or mechanistically determined. For an individual
there remains no other recourse than to act according to, and depending
on, his inherited and conditioned mind, body and circumstances.
Hence in my opinion both these theories subscribe to determinism,
indisputably.
Belief about the roles of
free will and determinism of human nature is critical to a society’s
organization of relationships and the well being of its members.
According to that logic, we all are hooked to a deterministic perspective
of human nature, and if we were to go by the above ideas then all
creatures would be totally innocent and should not be called to
account for their actions, in the sense that, they did not create
or fashion themselves and had no control over their mind and body
when they were first conceived. So while we insist that the actor
should be responsible and accountable for his actions, yet responsibility
and personal accountability cannot be placed at the door step of
the actor, as his urges and thinking are controlled by his inherited
mind-body mechanism in the first instance.
IN OTHER WORDS, ACCORDING
TO THE TWO RULING THEORIES OF LIFE, IT IS EXTERNAL FORCES THAT HAVE
FASHIONED THE DESTINY OF INDIVIDUALS, SO THAT FREE WILL AND FREEDOM
OF CHOICE BECOME MERE HOLLOW AND MEANINGLESS NOTIONS. INDEED IF
GOING BY THEIR LOGIC, OUR FATE IS TOTALLY PREORDAINED OR MECHANISTICALLY
DETERMINED.
Buddhism in no way subscribes
to determinism. In this sense Buddhism is the only non-deterministic
explanation in existence, and I will return to grapple with its
extremely subtle ideas in the next chapter.
THEORIES OF THE HISTORY
OF LIFE
The world recognizes the
following theories of “History of Life”: -
A. Genesis
B. Separate creation
C. Transformism
D. Evolution (The Darwinian
version)
E. Sensory Becoming (The
most ancient one. Indeed over two and a half millenniums
old, yet un-discovered by
the evolutionary luminaries.)
I will only touch upon each
of a.), b.) c.) briefly in passing here, as there is enough literature
available on these schools of thought.
A. Genesis – This
is embraced and promoted by the believers who postulate! That God
has created man as man, pig as pig and so on, and the whole innovative
process was accomplished some 6000 years ago, notwithstanding the
fact that the earth has existed 3.5 million years according to geological
evidence. But to the true believers geological hard facts can be
a pain in the neck. I have dwelled upon it during the development
of the first chapter and associated it with “soul” theories.
Indeed the most vital aspect of this theory is the “soul”
concept. As shown, according to its believers its creator would
redeem this “soul” of individuals at a certain unknown
date. Obviously no “soul” to an individual would mean
“nothing to be redeemed” and anonymity forever.
B. Separate Creation
- Charles Lyell held this theory. Separate creation is different
from the Biblical alternative to evolution. This states that species
do not mutate and that there are as many origins of species as there
are species. The main arguments against Genesis holds true for this
one too.
The above two premises have
been categorized by me as “Fatalistic Deterministic theories”
Why so! Take Mr. X the individual. Mr.
X’s mind and body have been preordained by an external power
at the hour of creation. Mr. X was not consulted when his mind and
body were molded. Be he a lunatic, a pervert or a Hitler, his mind
and body being things preordained he was compelled to think and
act according to his inherited body-mind mechanism, and circumstances
offered. As he utilized what was fashioned for him by the universal
clockmaker, how could he then be held accountable for his actions?
It logically follows that all the blame for the individual’s
misdemeanour should be attributed to his architect; implicitly this
would mean that, his destiny is fatalistically “locked-in”
and preordained, hence the individual is deprived of choices. In
other words his destiny is fatalistically determined.
C. Transformism - This
assumes several origins of life but species do mutate. The
scientific establishment does not take this theory seriously.
D. Evolution –
Here it means the Darwinian version and the one accepted by the
scientific establishment
Indeed acceptance of D.)
above is due to three cardinal factors. The problem of the mechanism
of evolution is to find a theory that can explain evolution, that
can explain adaptation, and that fits the facts of heredity. The
one, which passes all these three tests according to the scientific
establishment, is “natural selection” by Charles Darwin
In other words they latched
on to a theory, as they found none other, viable enough to meet
the above-specified criteria. Scientists insist that scientific
method is exact and science arrives at any theory after a period
of prolonged testing and experimentation. But in fact “natural
selection” is only a working hypothesis and an assumption;
it cannot be measured like electricity or a pound of butter. We
can explicitly state that the strength of a column can be measured,
by the amount of pressure it can withstand by loading it, till it
collapses. This is not the case with “natural selection”.
It is but a theory. And I will prove that “natural selection”
in fact did not explain most important mechanisms.
In time “natural selection”
became the “explain all” of the biologist. It is as
if a piece of fabric to a tailor, for it can be “tailored
to fit the man”. In other words “natural selection”
is so pliable; it can be beaten out into any form to suit most of
their sub theories.
So what is the verdict on
c) and d)?
Indeed these can be termed
“mechanistically deterministic” theories.
Why so? For here too whether
Mr. X was born an Einstein or a Darwin, an imbecile, a pervert or
even a Hitler, such occurrence was attributed to a whole series
of chance accidents. The individual’s presence here was
by pure potluck. Indeed it was not “survival of the fittest”
but “survival by chance”. He needed to be “at
the right time at the right place,” sort of chance in order
to survive. Indeed one’s presence here is through the unfolding
of blind impersonal forces, or by a draw of a genetic lotto, and
ergo, externally, mechanistically and accidentally transpired. Hence
here too the individual has not expressly requested to be fashioned,
but indeed his presence is explained off as being the outcome of
a whole series of “chance” events. Hence his destiny
was mechanistically and accidentally determined.
We will now get into the
nuts and bolts of the Darwinian concept, as an idea, as a philosophy,
one to live by, while also touching upon its historical and the
metaphysical impact on the individual and collective ego.
DARWINISM
Since “On The Origin
of Species” was published in 1859, it tended to confuse the
public. The word “Darwinism” has a different meaning
for a theologian, a Lamarckian, a Mendelian, or a post synthesis
evolutionary biologist.
Burian (1989) calls the “synthetic
theory of evolution” “the current variant of Darwin’s
theory.” Obviously, Darwin’s theories were in opposition
to a number of ideologies such as essentialism, physicalism, natural
theology, and finalism. It seems as if, for the supporters
of one or the other of these ideologies, the word “Darwinism”
stood for ones, directly opposite to their own beliefs.
So what exactly is Darwinism?
According to modern formulation
of the evolutionary synthesis the term “Darwinism” unanimously
meant “adaptive evolutionary change under the influence of
natural selection, and variational instead of transformational evolution”. The
modern Darwinian insists that any other specification of “Darwinism”
is bound to be misleading. Indeed they will insist that evolution
means directional change, though not aimed at some sort of perfection.
But at the same time they
will teach us that evolution, (basically mutation) occurs as a result
of a copying error of the cell.
So how can it be directional
and at the same time is a “copying” error of the cell? If
it’s an error how can it have only a positive direction? It
is impossible to have it both ways. Either evolutionary means directional
change or it should be as a result of a blundering cell!
Then how are we to characterize
this change? Indeed we are made to understand that every step in
evolution, generation after generation, is due to a steady improvement.
Why so!
Every evolutionary change
is dictated by the need to cope with current temporary changes of
physical and biotic environment.
But then they turn back again
and add that, they in fact reject any notion of “universal
progress” to evolution of species.
In fact Darwinians and scientists
in general do not provide a consistent answer to this query and
we are confused; if evolution is not moving towards some sort of
progress then what is this directional change aimed at? When it
comes to that, what is this compelling urge for the species to change
at all except to survive, in order to leave behind its pro types?
But Darwin himself noticed in Galapagos Islands that, each isolated
bunch of tortoises was changing and taking its own peculiar direction.
Strangely they did not have a threat for their “survival.”
So the change is purely in order to adapt they would say.
But if we analyse it more
conscientiously we will find that each isolated group took their
own subtle directional turn, motivated purely by sensory gratification
opportunities.
They offer a hazy answer
that it targeted more towards adaptation in a changing situation
than anything else. In fact if going by this conclusion, the human
animal is nothing special but just the sum total of accidents that
have taken place during the strivings for adaptation of our ancestors
combined with a blundering process of cell division.
In other words we are a result
of a whole series of unimaginable blunders, which were oriented
towards adaptation. The sensory becoming theory provides more precise
answers to such queries.
Species while coping with
and adapting to a changing situation is extending its sensory potential,
though for the most, this is an un-conscientious effort, not a premeditated
one. Indeed changes are conditionally directional, since they enhance
sensory gratification skills as a concomitant necessity. Given a
set of environmental circumstances and owning a conditioned state
of “body and mind,” species do strain to experience
the best sensory feedback. Man the ultimate product of this “enhancement”
process of the sensory apparatus, depicts by his sophisticated and
balanced sensory paraphernalia, that he has been “sensorily
fine tuned” in order to enjoy the maximum gratificational
feedback.
IN A STATE OF FLUX
Scientists in general and
the evolutionist in particular, starting in the dawn of the 18th century
came to the conclusion that everything on this Earth is in an incessant
flux.
Indeed above is the Central
Buddhist Law.
Buddha declared ca. 530 BC
that all compounds are impermanent and liable to change, and accordingly,
mind and matter is in a state of dynamic flux. In fact this is the
corner stone of the Buddhist dogma and it is known among the Buddhist
as: - The law of impermanence.
The Idea of Becoming (evolution
to the Darwinian) for the first time in history.
The idea that species are
transforming first emerged in the west starting in the seventeenth
century. Prior to which the Biblical version of Genesis was dominating
their intellectual outlook. Then in 1859 with Darwin's “The
Origin of Species” the western scientific community’s
thinking began to focus on a natural explanation for why species
transform. They glossed over the unique law of impermanence, discovered
by The Buddha 2500 years earlier.
Even if the scientific community
find it grueling to swallow the fact that, a concrete theory of
sensory becoming (evolution to Darwinians) was first mooted two
and a half millenniums before, and even if they refuse to acknowledge
that Buddha had a clear concept why species transform, still it
will be impossible to dismiss the fact, that “The Law of Impermanence”
applied to the species too. The fallout from the same Law informs
that species were in a dynamic process of transforming and this
was penned down 100 years BC. Records are available for any interested
party to inspect, in spite of their studied disregard. In order
to make its existence crystal clear, I submit the following three
irrefutable proofs from the scriptures, which when pieced together,
would be devastating to the Darwinians:
a.) Law of impermanence.
This states that all compounds are in a process of becoming (changing,
transforming). Translated, all individuals and species have no status
quo situation, but are in a dynamic process of changing.
b.) Buddha recognizes
the hierarchical nature of classification of species. We read such
a classification in the Sutta-Nipata, Vasettha Sutta. This quote
may not be up to the standard of a modern scientific paper, but
is a miracle that it has entered the Pali canon and survived up
to the modern age. Whether it was included as part of the scriptures
at all is still incredible, as the editors did not connect it with
the main body of his philosophy. I have made mention of it in the
first chapter.
c.) Finally the physical
evolution, not only of species but even the allegorical idea as
to the emergence of a new habitable world and how life begins anew
in it, is clearly presented in the cannon. Exhilaratingly there
was nothing magical or Godly attributed to the process. A coldly
rational explanation of a physical process was offered. This I quoted
in chapter II (Digha Nikaya, Agganna Suttanta, (D.iii.84), Translated
from Pali as Dialogue of the Buddha, part III, (Book of Genesis)
by T.W. and A.F.Rhys Davids.). Incidentally this quote implies that
we all must have had a single ancestor.
CORE CONCEPTS OF DARWINISM
Professor Ernst Mayr (An
authority and modern day Guru on the evolutionary theory) outlines
in his book “What Evolution is”, that Darwin’s
theory in fact consists of the following five important components:
-
1. The non-constancy
of species (the basic theory of evolution)
2. The descent of all
organisms from common ancestors (branching evolution)
3. The gradualness of
evolution (no saltation, no discontinuities)
4. The multiplication
of species (the origin of diversity)
5. Natural selection
The last item according to
Darwinians could be crucial if one is desirous of grasping the mechanisms
of evolution. It is broken down into the following elements:
a. A population would
increase exponentially if not constrained.
b. The size of populations
remains stable over time.
c. Resources available
to every species are limited.
d. No two individuals
are the same in a species. (Unique)
e. As a rule the differences
are heritable. (Transmissible from parents to offspring.)
Above factors obviously will
fire competition, friction and a struggle for survival not only
between species but also between individuals of a species. The resultant
outcome is that the “fittest” and the best are selected
for the continuation of its proto-types.
To the basic question “what
is this struggle in aid of?” Or “why should there be
a need for this evolutionary change at all?” is answered in
the following manner. In order to survive so that the continuation
of its proto-types is assured. We are not provided with a qualified
answer as to why the continuation of its proto- types was such a
vital driving urge!
The availability of variation
is the indispensable prerequisite of evolution. Hence Darwin postulated
that the inexhaustible genetic variation of a population together
with selection (elimination) is the key to evolutionary success.
BASIC BUDDHIST CONCEPT VIS-À-VIS
SENSORY BECOMING
Before continuing I must
introduce some of the core Buddhist concepts dealing with the mechanisms
of evolution (becoming).
1. Survival we find
is only a preamble to what lies beyond it. Indeed the urge
for survival is fired by “Sensory greed” and the indulgence
in these needs is what makes an individual tick.
2. Hence an individual’s
“struggle for survival” is triggered by sensory lust.
3. Individuals and groups
(species) are in conflict as an outcome of this egoistic, self-centred
sensory interest.
4. Sensory greed needs
satiation, which offers gratification and pleasure.
5. In order to bring
about satisfaction individuals need to commit actions (positive
or negative according to necessity and circumstances).
6. But gratification
and pleasure again depends squarely on:
a.) The conditioned
state of mind and body. (Conditioning is purely a Buddhistic notion
in this context.)
b.) Actions, which are
controlled, constrained and proportionate to evolutionary status
(of species) of the conditioned body-mind mechanism.
c.) Ecological circumstances
(resources) current.
7. Through efforts of
the mind-body mechanism, striving to cater to such sensory needs
(actions), individual’s sensory apparatus is strained,
stretched and tested.
8. Result of such repeated
stress and strain activity will eventually lead to sensory extension
(change, reform or becoming) of individuals, and in turn, species
itself will be reformed (renewed). In other words a reformed species
will emerge.
9. The resulting process
was named evolution by Darwin and as sensory becoming by the Buddha,
a decisive difference in terminology. Note also that sensory greed
is not directed towards some sort of an un-targeted progress but
fired by immediate self-cantered sensory gratification.
Now if now we compare the
two types of arguments and match them carefully, then we are in
for a major shock. All of the components of Darwin’s theory
as outlined earlier are compatible and can be replaced by those
of the sensory becoming theory and it will fit in like a glove.
1. The non-constancy
of species (Logical according to the law of impermanence).
2. The descent of all
organisms from a common ancestor. (Though there is no direct scriptural statement,
this is implicitly expressed in the Digha Nikaya (See Chapter II)
and falls under the law of impermanence.
3. The gradualness of
evolution or even punctuated equilibria. (Again not only logical
but should occur according to the law of impermanence and change).
Note: Different circumstances will trigger different becoming
responses.
4. The multiplication
of species (the sensory greed and its extension and also by geographical
isolation of populations should naturally result in the
multiplication of species)
5. Natural selection.
(By itself this is an obscure statement and without meaning even
in a Darwinian sense.)
We would breakdown 5.) as
below: -
a.) A population would
increase exponentially if not constrained. (Self centred sensory
individuals would reproduce unhindered and egoistically if not contained
by natural and ecological causes, or due to causes and effects)
b.) The size of populations
remains stable over time. (Depends on the time, the specific location,
and self interest of the species.)
c.) Resources available
to every species are limited. (A natural situation and we don’t
need Darwinians to explain this)
d.) No two individuals
are similar. (Absolutely core Buddhist concept, indeed not only
two individuals are not identical but indeed an individual himself
is also in a dynamic process of transforming according to The Buddha,)
e.) As a rule the differences
are heritable. (Sensory theory concurs.)
As seen every important dictate
of the Darwinian concepts can be replaced by the “sensory
becoming” theory and it becomes compatible and naturally explainable,
and more comprehensively too. But the reverse is not true. It shows
how general the Darwinian statements are. But unlike the sensory
becoming principle, Darwin’s theory has major fissures and
in order seals them; they reach back and attach “chance”
as a part of the equation. On the other hand sensory becoming goes
further and deals with the real world “creature qualities.”
So let us get a closer look
at the nuts and bolts of their explanations.
DEFINITION OF SPECIES
So how do Darwinians define
A SPECIES?
Strange as it seems, scientists
are not agreed on this fundamental issue, which is the very foundation
upon which the rest of their evolutionary theory was built. I am
speaking about finding a viable, universal definition for “species,”
by the scientific community!
Though “On The Origin
of Species” ascended to the biblical status in the course
of time, Darwin’s writing on species and speciation clearly
indicates that he was rather befuddled about the topic and hence
frequently contradicted himself. This is not a personal opinion
of mine but one nursed by most biologists. The reason for his
confusion, they point out, can be traced back to his disorientation
over the origin of genetic variation.
It has taken almost 125 years
to get some sort of statement about the mechanisms of speciation,
and in fact we had to wait for the development of genetics to get
them to agree on the definition of a species.
Each species has different
biological characteristics, and the analysis and comparison of these
differences are a prerequisite for all other research in ecology,
behavioural biology, comparative morphology, physiology, molecular
biology, and indeed all branches of biology.
Over the years they found
species differences not that clear-cut and obvious. Taxonomists
use all sorts of differences, viz, morphological, behavioral, and
genetic, to identify species. Occasionally they have serious
problems in deciding how much a group must differ to be classified
as a separate species. Sometimes the discriminating traits
between two species partially overlap each other. Just to assess
different opinions nursed by specialists on diverse disciplines
would take volumes.
Presently we see the Molecular
biologists had their own constricted definition if going by their
“molecular clock” concept. If going by that we would
need to revise the whole “species” definition. I will
return to this later.
If they are unable to find
a tenable definition of their subject matter, how can we trust them
to explain evolution logically?
In fact what characteristics
do species have in common? Though the species is a natural unit,
not just an arbitrary invention of biologists who need a classification
system to communicate about the organisms they study; they have
found it hard to express what constitute a species!
In time we find the most
influential “biological” species concept was first advanced
by Dobzhansky (I 937) and propagated by Mayr.
Biology recognizes two main
meanings, which can be called the reductive and the morphological
(or phenetic) species concepts. Thus, biological definition
of the species is attributed to Ernst Mayr, who defines species
as ‘groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural
populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups’.
(Mayr 1963).
Buddha was not specifically
lecturing or offering definitions, but was only promptly answering
to an immediate query raised by an enquirer. Hence I could not find
a definition in the Buddhist scripture for a species per se.
Hence I have attempted to formulate a definition based on his uttering
on the sensory becoming. Accordingly, the following definition is
proposed.
A species can be defined
by the uniqueness of its sensory makeup.
Thus, it is the sensory makeup
which differentiates one species from another. This definition is
tenable. Today with our advanced technology we can make this definition
stick.
MUTATION
xxxxxxxxxxx
SPECIATION
xxxxxxxxxxx
ADAPTATION
xxxxxxxxxx
POPULATION
Population thinking is vital
if the Darwinian mould of evolution is to be explained. We concede
that as a rule species occur in clusters as groups or populations. Darwinists
offer their own interpretation why this is so.
It seems that as members
of a collective they have unequal survival and reproductive success.
If then what was the necessity
for parents to acquire membership in such cruel collectives? They
rationalize that, it is in the continuing variational gene turnover
in a population, that the selective process of the fittest is enacted.
This is as a result of the functioning of two mechanisms, namely,
chance and natural selection.
Finally Neo-Darwinians have
come to the conclusion that it is the individual and not the group
(species), which is being selected. Under the circumstances insight
as to why species cluster in populations, is vital if we are to
understand the evolutionary process of species itself.
Every species produces immensely
more offspring than that can survive, from generation to generation. All
the individuals of a population are genetically unique hence there
is variation. But these individuals are exposed to a harsh
competitive environment, hence the greater percentage of these offspring
perish. On the average it is only two percent that survive and reproduce,
according to the findings. So the statistics of a population hold
some sort of a status quo.
The most vital point in all
this, Darwinians claim, is that, those who go on further are not
“an arbitrary sample” of the population, but are those
that were the fittest as they had inherited the most favourable
attributes.
While explaining this, they
seem to be overlooking an obvious fact. Why should the individual
contribute to a gene pool and expose his progeny to unnecessarily
harsh competition and selection? Specially if going by their own
arguments that “unequal survival and reproductive opportunities”
exist in a collective, and the selective process is most severe
in a collective. Why indeed should they expose their proto types
to such a setting when, they can truly avoid it? Why not isolate
themselves at delivery and protect and rear their offspring in relatively
isolated conditions and secure surroundings, and join a collective
only for sexual selection? Surely then a greater percentage will
get the chance of survival. Isn’t that the whole point why
species struggle, is to send the utmost of its prototypes further
in time and space?
Even the statements concerning
species clustering in populations we find is not strictly true.
Though most species live in clusters, there are numerous exceptions
to the rule.
Most spider species are loners,
avoiding contact with other spiders except for mating, after which
the female if given the chance may eat her mate. Cannibalism is
common in the spider world, and that surely discourages the development
of a spider society. Out of the 38,000 or so of known species of
spiders, less than 40 species show any indication of social behaviour
at all. So why aren’t the spiders keen to pool their gene
resources and get their fittest selected?
Then there are the Leopards
who are extremely solitary creatures, who depend solely on themselves
for their survival. They are not affectionate and can become quite
aggressive. They will react violently to any sort of collectivisation,
a bizarre behaviour indeed.
Solitary bees make up the
largest group - of all the bee species it seems. Indeed over 90%
are solitary bees. Leafcutter bees, digger bees, and carpenter bees
are all examples of solitary bees. As the name suggests, solitary
bees are loners by choice. After mating, a female solitary bee constructs
her own nest. Her nest has several cells (chambers or rooms) in
which she stocks up pollen and nectar. When she has accumulated
enough food for her offspring, she then lays one egg in each chamber,
seals all the cells, and flies away.
Even orangutans are not sticking
to the set Darwinian behaviour pattern. Unlike many other species
of apes, they tend to be loners.
What is relevant is that
no species acts as regimented stereotypes. There is no pursuit of
World Government or world colonisation through procreation, of an
undifferentiated species, or clustering in a population to get their
genes selected.
Whether creatures cluster
and differentiate by herd, pride, and troop or by other smaller
family structure, or as loners mating for a longer or shorter period
so that their genes may go further, we find species as a rule tend
to pool their genes. Yet individuals tend to cluster, and parents
tend to fight and shield their progeny from the other members of
the collective. Though Darwinians in order to give credence to their
natural selection principle have us believe that, species cluster
and pool their genes, which in some mystical way will provide the
loophole through which its chance “mechanistic” selection
process would activate.
In fact there are other mechanisms
in operation why species seek a collective.
Even the other argument that
those survivors who go further are not a random sample of the population,
but the fittest, as they possessed specific attributes that made
them so, is highly questionable.
But at least they should
have carried this argument a little bit further and admitted that
those who had these fitting attributes have also inherited such
attributes by pure luck. Helplessly Darwinians concede “chance”
as part of the equation though they hate to admit what percentage
that is. In fact the whole process if going by their theory is aimless,
purposeless and depend more on luck and chance rather than selection
of the fittest. Analogously in a human state, is it the best person
who becomes a Prime Minister or its leader? Indeed we find the best
could be a whole lot of chance incidences, such as the family, money,
and in fact, right time at the right place.
Though Darwinians had taken
a “round about” route to establish that it is the individual
who is being selected and not the species, Buddha insisted that
the individual is at the centre of this drama. If going by the sensory
becoming theory, population is vital to the individuals of a collective,
for a decisive reason. Indeed it is here in a population he will
find untold opportunities for gaining a whole range of sensory advantages.
The human species makes this glaringly obvious. The excitement and
the madness of the crowd can’t be stressed enough. It is in
a cluster that the dynamics of stimulation and gratification can
be worked out. Here, he finds love, hate, disputes, envy, squabbles,
and a whole multitude of sensory stimulations. Indeed the very individuals
who hate a crowd would dive into the nearest collective as they
find that, that’s where the action is. Sensory becoming theory
indicates that, the use or disuse of a population depended on the
conditioned egoistic needs of individuals.
I will return to deal with
this subject more broadly in chapter V.
INHERITANCE OF ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck suggested
that species transformed into more complex ones through the inheritance
of acquired characteristics, which in a hazy sense meant that evolution
is directional.
The Inheritance of Acquired
Characteristics is a doctrine of heredity that states that offspring
inherit the modifications acquired by parents during their lifetime.
Lamarckian Evolution is older
than Darwinian Evolution. Central to the theory is the idea that
life adapts and reacts to its environment, as opposed to the weak
being culled by selection.
Lamarck meant that behaviour
is an important factor for evolutionary change. Changes in
organisms due to activity would be transmitted to future generations
through the parents who would bequeath to their offspring, their
acquired characteristics. Historically Darwinians rejected this
notion out of hand. But currently they are of a different opinion,
and admit perhaps, that behaviour can be an important ingredient
in evolution, but they are uncertain as to how.
Indeed acquired characteristics
are of paramount importance in order to explain the sensory becoming
concept too. Not for what Lamarck had in mind, but for very dissimilar
and more cogent reasons. It goes to the heart of the question: what
gives rise to a new life?
It is premature to take this
up here but would return to it in the next chapter.
SOCIAL DARWINISM
If nothing else, “Social
Darwinism” undermined Darwinian Theory since its very inception.
All its contradictions, inconsistencies, flaws, shortcomings and
errors are glaringly exposed in this discourse. Once “Darwinism”
is invoked it could justify any dubious sub theory.
As the name implies, Social
Darwinism is the application of Darwinian Theory to human society.
It was frequently used as
justification for political, economic, and social elitism. The theory
tactically exploited single nation states, to validate internal
inequalities between citizens, and across the globe to justify global
inequalities between groups of people.
History documents how “Social
Darwinism” came to encourage and promote egoism in individuals
and groups. Its impact on the human psyche was so insidious that
most people were conditioned by its pre-conceived notions without
even realising them.
Darwinism granted nations,
groups and individuals a “survival of the fittest” mandate,
which effectively justified the suspension of their ethical disposition.
It sponsored selfishness, as a prerequisite for survival. With ghastly
consequences for the global society.
In fact Social Darwinism’s
chequered history can be traced back to the master himself. Charles
Darwin’s work, “On The Origin of the Species by means
of natural selection, (subtitled and note) The Preservation of Favoured
Races in the Struggle for Life” laid the foundation for the
questionable theories that were to follow in its wake
Arthur J. de Gobineau’s
manifesto, “The Inequality of the Races,” and the Communist
Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, were pure Darwinian
spin offs. In fact it naturally follows that; “Survival of
the fittest” should trigger “race struggles” and
“class struggles” in societies.
Unwittingly Darwin had applied
his biological selection process to the historical social process.
What soon emerged was “Eugenics.” Eugenics can be defined
as applied Darwinism, the forerunner of “Social Darwinism”.
The founder of it is Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin, and the
author of several highly influential works on heredity. Especially
“National Inheritance” (1889). Shortly after Galton
published this work, a group of so-called “racial scientists”
became active in Germany.
This in time catalysed and
validated Hitler’s scientific “biomedical vision”.
Indeed educated historians
easily deciphered the concoction: Darwinian biology and evolutionary
theory; Social Darwinism, the evangelistic dissemination of Darwinism;
and indeed a pseudo-science called “Eugenics. All of these
built a solid “scientific” edifice for “racial
prejudice”, “racial discrimination” and “racism”.
Such vague, unscientific and polydimensional conceptions justified
elitism, hate, racism, tribalism, war, holocaust, colonisation,
and a mystical economic destiny of the favoured nations.
Genocidal crusades are not
something new. They occurred before the holocaust; and they are
occurring even at this moment. What differentiated Nazi “race
purification” program from other genocidal campaigns was that,
it was built on solid “scientific” (Darwinistic) findings.
Even today the selfish nature
of all creatures is promoted by Darwinians as being scientifically
tenable. Through his works, “The Extended Phenotype”
and “The Selfish Genes,” Richard Dawkins clearly promotes
the selfish, deterministic nature directing the destiny of individuals
in a species.
In the chapter called ‘Genetic
Determinism’ he hammers out his central message; “We
are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve
the selfish molecules known as genes.”
Looks like no slipping away
from our genetically inherited destiny.
We are not motivated individuals
with self interest firing our needs, planning inventing and directing
our affairs. We are helpless, ignorant and self-deceiving, and hitting
our head (equal to our energies of self interest) against a “stone
wall” of fate, and not trying to live within the reality of
our “locked in” legacy. Indeed all-human effort
is futile, for we are but pawns in the grip of such elusive chance
forces.
Notwithstanding such sombre
prophecies, concerning our mechanistically determined unavoidable
providence, Dawkins is happy to offer us with some helpful advice;
“Let us understand
what our selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have
a chance to upset their designs. We have the power to defy the selfish
genes of our birth…We can even discuss ways of deliberately
cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism, something
that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before
in the whole history of the world.”
Empty sentiments such as
these, can be confusing. Such ideas contradict every logic and common
sense of any reasonable man. Indeed I wonder whether Dawkins himself
is able to unravel the meaning of his statements.
If we take his views seriously,
that we are “nothing but genetically powered machines,”
the advice given seems as infantile as “inviting a chess-machine
to play leap-frog.”
So how can one “jump
off” from such a “catch 22” type of fate?
The individual’s destiny
is uncompromisingly “locked in” going by Dawkins, hence
devoid of choices. Indeed he is caught up in a “vicious circle”
without an escape hatchet. As a “survival machine,”
he has an inbuilt “selfishness,” and even altruism is
nothing but selfishness in disguise. All of these, he has inherited
with his birth, hence lacks a margin for any premeditated action,
as all actions are controlled and dictated by his selfish genes.
Therefore the question, why indeed should this robot “with
his inherited egoistic behaviour patterns” be accountable
for his actions, goes studiously unanswered.
So, are individuals devoid
of any ethics? Should they be answerable for their actions? If individuals
and their collectives lacked any ethics, they are surely courting
disaster. As pure egoism would mean “free for all” or
“open season”; so how are people going to trust and
depend on each other, in order to make the collective function driven
as it is by pure individualistic egoism?
“Selfish”, is
the key theme of “The Selfish Gene,” and receives a
poetic celebration in socio-biological writings.
When we juxtapose “selfish”
with “survival of the fittest” and compound them with
the “unfolding of blind, aimless impersonal forces, grinding
its relentless way” we have a sure recipe for an impending
kismet.
Indeed it imploded Hitler
and his “racist” third Reich, as did many a racist dictator.
For we know for a fact that, there is suffering, and people pine
and grieve for their beloved, when they pass away. Life is laced
with pleasure and pain. There are people who sacrifice their lives
for the welfare of others. And indeed suicide bombers are in vogue
these days. These murderers sacrifice their life for a hazy objective
termed self determination of their tribe, translated would mean
they are offering their lives to murder innocent people, in order
to gain a piece of real estate for their racist tribe.
There are the members of
the Salvation Army, collecting money to feed and care for the dropouts
of society. The last thing directing these people was selfishness,
or even altruism. They may perhaps never meet again or receive any
help in return from these lost “souls,” who are unable
even to help themselves. What motivated them, we find, was pain
and suffering of fellow beings. Indeed pain and suffering which
they have experienced themselves in the past, and thereby moved
ethically to help, without expecting anything in return. It’s
only just a feeling of having done something positive to alleviate
the suffering of fellow humans. What have the “selfish genes”
got to do with this sort of sacrifice, especially as the genes of
the suicide bombers were coming to a full stop?
Darwinian Theory, when applied
to the real world, brought on whole array of misfortunes and disasters
to nations. Human collectives and nations were colonised by the
white superior Aryans under the guise that they were the chosen
and the “fittest” ones, and considered themselves to
be at the top of the heap and the cream of the human species.
On the other side we see
Judo-Christian sects were urging people to kneel down and pray so
that any “short comings” in this life, will be rectified
at some unknown destination called heaven. These also encourage
egoism in individuals and their collectives in the most insidious
manner. Boosting and inflating their egos with: God loved them;
they are with soul; created in his image; heaven is reserved for
the faithful due to his love for them; they are the chosen lot;
have convinced them that they are unique, special, chosen and loved.
Indeed if God loved them so much, why weren’t they cast directly
in heaven, so they can skip this round of suffering, after all God
can do anything he wanted, even turn water to wine.
But social Darwinism was
subtler by far. This vindicated why some ended as superior beings
or as the cream of men, as leaders or chosen ones, and the rest
as a bunch of nincompoops. Indeed the whole process has taken place
in a vacuum, through a whole series of hapless, disingenuous, accidents
and chance events. So these nincompoops must learn to accept their
fate and live with their lot. Through in real life no one was willing
to follow such Darwinian dictates.
Indeed what we see around
are the products of the mill of life, grinding its relentless way,
and the reader should be happy under the circumstances, that he
ended the way he did, and indeed he is able to read and enjoy this
book, being privileged in having a mind-body mechanism to absorb
and enjoy it.
Yet in reality if going by
Darwinism, it is not “Survival of the fittest” but “survival
of the richest and the luckiest” that is at the top of the
heap as chance has provided that opportunity. In the end both these
deterministic theories feed us with the same defeatist gibberish.
Buddha had a clearer view
of the whole scenario, and he did not invoke chance, fate or God’s
will, to explain them away. There were causes and effects to this
process, there were actions and repercussions to such actions; above
all he pointed to the egoistic sensory greed of individuals and
their collectives that were fashioning their destinies.
I would return to analyse
these issues in depth, in the coming chapters.
TOWARDS PERFECTION?
In the nineteenth and early
twentieth century the non-Darwinians ideology was finalism, the
belief that the living world had the propensity to move on forward
to “greater perfection”. Darwinians rejected this. They
said categorically it is the population that is the most crucial
site of evolution, and insisted that evolution should be understood
as the genetic turnover of the individuals of every population from
generation to generation.
Darwinians explain that the
progenitors of the next generation are those individuals who survived,
owing to their being “fit” or having characteristics
that made them well adapted to the prevailing environmental conditions.
And on the question who is it that was “selected” there
had been long debates among biologists. Eventually a reasonable
unanimity was reached that it was the individual who was the protagonist
in the play of natural selection.
Alas, as far as the Sensory
Becoming principle is concerned, this very same fact of life was
discovered by the Buddha ca two and a half millenniums ago.
Naturally the question “Does
this selective process lead on TO PROGRESS AND ULTIMATELY TO PERFECTION?”
was raised in time among the biologists. For indeed up to the
eighteenth century it was widely held by the Judeo-Christian sects
that the world was perfectly designed by a loving God.
Lamarck’s theory of
evolution, specifically postulated a steady assent toward perfection.
But obviously modern evolutionists
reject this notion that evolution is creeping towards some sort
of excellence. The argument has been used often, particularly
with reference to the perfect man as the end product working its
way through a series of blunders! Or else, how can such seemingly
progressive changes be explained off? Darwinians have inherited
a bona fide dilemma. What was the enigma behind these changes, as
it seems to be groping its way towards some elusive target, which
looks as if having, directional and progressive improvements?
There exists a huge discord
on this question, not only among the true believers but also among
the followers of Darwin’s version of evolution. Indeed they
found, that the meaning of this “progress,” was elusive
and hard to define. Darwin is supposed to have rejected the
notion that some sort of mystical causation powered it and modern
Darwinians tend to agree. They inform that no genetic mechanism
was ever discovered that indicate such an impulse.
To be entangled with this
sort of question by Darwinians show the limitation and flaws of
their concepts. Indeed their theory was explicitly related to the
word “evolution”. Historically this term meant what
it was supposed to mean. Species that were transforming had some
sort of directional objective and hence a sense of progressive improvements,
which would mean “evolution”.
In fact the loose elusive
nature of their theory has got them foxed. With its elements of
“chanciness”, and a hazy idea of an evolution without
“an evolution”, generated a foggy idea that species
were stumbling their way through series of aimless, purposeless
and blundering changes, and yet not crawling towards some idyllic
end product.
The sensory becoming concept
was neither ensnared nor enfeebled by such ambiguity. Gratifying
sensory needs was the primary concern of all species. They were
not aiming towards some sort of abstract excellence. They were keen
to harvest their immediate gratifications, and these within relative
security. That is why Buddha expressly used the term “becoming”
as it emphasized the sensory extension principle. And this worked
in either direction, for as far as the species were concerned, its
striving was fired by immediate sensory gratification.
Obviously all these tenets
fall under the universal Law of Impermanence. There was no stability,
no status quo, no peace for individuals, only a “self cantered”
struggle, fired by sensory greed. Indeed while working its way through
that process they were stressing and straining their sensory apparatus.
As a result, such equipment of a species will eventually be reformed
(transformed, renewed). So the question that this process is progressively
directed towards some sort of ultimate distinction does not arise.
If one contemplates on the
following quote, one would perceive that it implicitly touches the
subtle points under discussion.
In Majjhima-Nikaya (translated
as The middle Length Sayings by I.B.Horner) Alagaddupamasutta I.138-139,
we hear Buddha carefully explaining;
“What do you think
about this, monks: Is material shape permanent or impermanent?
(Here material shape should
be taken as individual sensory mechanisms and their collectives
and species)
“Impermanent, Lord.”
“But is what is impermanent
painful or pleasant
“Painful, Lord.”
“But is it fitting
to regard that which is impermanent, painful, liable to change,
(change here means becoming and not evolution, as its direction
is conditional and tied to sensory opportunity) as ‘This is
mine, this am I, this is my self”.
No, Lord.”
“What do you think
about this, monks: Is feeling ... perception ...are the habitual
tendencies permanent or impermanent?
“Impermanent, Lord.”
What do you think about this,
monks: Is consciousness permanent or impermanent? “
“Impermanent, Lord.”
“Is that which is impermanent
painful or pleasant?
“Painful, Lord.”
“But is it fitting
to regard that which is impermanent, painful, liable to change as,
‘This is mine, this am I, this is my self ‘?
“No Lord”
“Wherefore, monks,
whatever is of material shape, past, future, present, subjective
or objective, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, whether it is
far or near-all material shape should be seen thus by perfect intuitive
wisdom as it really is: This is not mine, this am I not, this is
not my self. Whatever is feeling whatever is perception ...
whatever are the habitual tendencies (through conditioning) whatever
is consciousness, past, future, present, subjective or objective,
gross or subtle, mean or excellent, whether it is far or near-all
consciousness should be seen thus by perfect intuitive wisdom as
it really is: This is not mine, this am I not, this is not myself.
HISTORY
Samual Butler was the first
historical critic of Darwin’s Machine theory.
When the Origin of Species
appeared, Butler was on his way to New Zealand to earn a living
raising sheep. Upon reading the “Origin ...” he
became an instant convert to the idea of evolution. Samuel, in fact
was the grandson of Darwin’s old headmaster at Shrewsbury.
But by and by he came to realize that Darwinism in reality did not
explain most of the important mechanisms of evolution. In time he
came to contest Darwin’s theory on all planes of thought;
biological, social, metaphysical, and religious until his death
in 1907.
Perhaps his own occupation
with machines gave him the clue to the weaknesses of Darwinism.
He ultimately came to coin ‘the Deadlock in Darwinism”
in order to relay its essence. Translated, deadlock would mean:
How could machines, that have no purpose of their own, evolve? Since
according to the Darwinian ideology animals and plants were equated
to aimless and purposeless machines, hence evolution as Darwin portrayed,
was impossibility.
Butler wrote at that time,
“To me it seems that the ‘Origin of Variations,’
whatever it is, is the only true ‘Origin of Species.”
After careful examination
of Darwin’s text, Butler found that small random variations
were taken for granted or occasionally ascribed to a metaphysical
agent called Variation, so as to grant “Natural Selection”
a platform to operate on. He also found Darwin relying upon use
and disuse, and he traced this hypothesis back to Lamarck, whose
name and work Darwin openly discredited.
This led Butler in turn to
Buffon, Goethe, and Erasmus Darwin, making him the first incisive
historian of the evolutionary movement.
Indeed, once “selection”
was invoked, no course was left open other than personifying nature
and making her “watch and seize unerringly” those of
her children who deserved survival. In fact “fittest”
he found means “those who survive,” and that the sickly
coddled child of wealth who lives and procreates is fitter than
the robust laborer who dies of overwork and bad food. So that, there
was not only an element of “chance” but also a huge
element of “luck.”
What riled the two contending
ideological camps was that, Butler seemed to be striking out on
a course of his own choosing. Unlike any normal person he did not
pick one out of theology or materialistic science. He was neither
subscribing to a magical creation theory nor embracing a machine
theory.
For himself, he wholly disclaimed
any scientific warrant or even originality. Butler found both
theology and Darwinism inadequate, and mechanical evolution for
him was far worse than a supernatural creation.
Indeed instead of receiving
any appreciation or intelligent criticism for his efforts, he was
assailed by both Darwinians and magical creationists as “lacking
in authority.” For the followers of the two creeds it
was an infringement of monopoly. It was of no use to being
pointed out by Butler that he took the very facts what the scientists
provided, and showed its huge flaws, and that no one had yet detected
him in any factual error. On the whole his arguments were not given
a serious hearing.
What Butler, in fact, was
questing for, was a non-deterministic explanation for evolution.
Unfortunately he was not
acquainted with The Buddha’s sensory becoming theory. Hence
in spite of Butler’s intelligent critique, he could not offer
any rational alternative to counter the two prevailing deterministic
“locked in” dogmas. This is not strange considering
the date and the place and his conditioned values. Indeed even the
Buddhists are unaware, that The Buddha had a rational and a realistic
explanation why individuals and species transform.
CHANCE OR NECESSITY?
For years there has been
a rather heated controversy among the scientists over, whether,
chance (contingency) or necessity (adaptation) was the dominant
factor in evolution.
Surprisingly, some evolutionists
deny that evolution demands that all life came into being by chance;
that is if they are going by the Darwinian Theory. Evolutionary
scientist Jacques Monad, who was a leading evolutionary biochemist
and a Nobel Prize winner, speaking about mutations and evolution
informs:
“We call these events
[mutations] accidental; we say that they are random occurrences.
And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications
in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism’s
hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone
is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere.”
He adds: “Pure chance,
absolutely free but blind chance, at the very root of the stupendous
edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology [evolution]
is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses”.
Sadly Dr. Monad was unaware
that there exists a non-deterministic Buddhist theory, which explains
evolution, without employing “chance” to get over its
conceptual dilemmas.
Indeed none other than leading
evolutionist Stephen J.Gould confirms: “If the history of
life teaches us any lesson, it is that human beings arose as a kind
of glorious accident . . . surely the kind of glorious cosmic accident
resulting from the catenation (linking) of thousands of improbable
events”.
Even if Darwinians did not
admit that their theory must rely on chance, yet strict logic demands
this conclusion. Indeed if one rules out design and a designer,
all that remains is ‘chance’ according to them. Indeed
our existence is explained off ultimately as an event occurring
either by design or by chance. There does not seem to exist, a third
origin or source.
According to Buddha “chance”
had nothing to do with the becoming (evolutionary to Darwinians)
process. There are “causes and their effects”, “action
and reaction”, and “sensory greed” which fire
all activity, and hence the becoming process is directional, and
not oriented towards some sort of “abstract” perfection
but towards solving immediate sensory gratificational needs. The
result is sensory extension (ultimately spilling over to a new species
form). These crucial questions will be taken up again in the
coming chapters.
SWAPPING DARWIN’S
THEORY WITH THAT OF SENSORY BECOMING
I have now identified the
cardinal props of the Darwinian concept and pitted them against
those of the Sensory Becoming theory. But it is up to each reader
to dive into all aspects and details of Darwinism and compare them
with the Sensory Becoming theory. Especially so when one applies
one's life experiences.
Definitely if you substitute
the Darwinian concept with that of Sensory Becoming, a smoother
consistent mechanism of evolution, immediately opens up. Undeniably
if the elements of sensory becoming, (such as Sensory extension,
sensory gratification, sensory greed etc.) are employed as pivots,
it will offer logical and rational reasons, why species extended
their body and mind and transform. In effect if you replace the
Darwinian notions, by sensory becoming ones, you will receive a
smooth natural “true to life” explanation why this relentless
process of transformation in species is persisting. What’s
more, they are logical, rational, realistic and comprehensive. To
be sure it provides sweeping answers to queries Darwinians dodged.
And most important, the explanations are “true to life”,
and not “mechanistic”.
In truth when we assess that
general Darwinian statement, “natural selection”, we
find it has to be peppered and complemented with several other statements
in order to get any logical meaning out of it. In spite of the Darwinian
insistence that “natural selection” is a fact of life,
we find it and the whole set of connected ideas are nothing but
hypotheses. Impossible to measure it, like a pound of butter or
a litre of milk. The end product that has survived certainly has
to be some sort of selection, and it could be a naturally selected
outcome through a struggle or by shear pot luck, or through the
aid of a friend or relation or indeed because the entity just happened
to be at the right time at the right place.
Darwinian assumptions promote
nothing but chance accidental events, as they blatantly disregard
purposes, aims, aspirations, greed, pleasure, pain, self centeredness,
cause and effect etc., etc., of individual agents.
On the other hand sensory
extension and sensory greed, though also a hypothesis can be directly
observed and measured. Species with ascending orders of sensory
complexity makes this glaringly evident of their sensory extension,
sophistication and greed. Indeed if we take the trouble, such sensory
extensions can be assessed and evaluated concretely. In short, the
fact that, the X species has transformed to the Y species can be
concretely established by classifying their divergence of sensory
make up. Whereas Darwinians can only provide an explanation why
the X species evolved into the Y species, The Buddha underpinned
this phenomenon with the Law of Impermanence.
Evolutionary pundits will
soon realise that this is an undisputable fact. Undeniably we have
to pay homage to its discoverer that super genius, The Buddha, who
assigned the proper status to all creatures, while dismantling our
self- centred deterministic hallucinations.
DEVIL’S ADVOCATE
At this stage I will assume
the role of a devil’s advocate, in order to bring to surface
some decisive thoughts.
Hypothetically let’s
suppose that the sensory becoming process of beings is irrational,
illogical, unrealistic and unsubstantiated. In which case we have
no alternative but to fall back on to the one or the other, of the
two remaining deterministic dogmas, viz, Creationism or Evolution.
For the mere sake of argument,
let’s accept that:
1 . A loving God is
the architect of this fathomless “creation”.
Or
2. Darwin’s theory
of Evolution explains why creatures struggle to breathe and stay
alive, in spite of every set back and suffering.
Judeo-Christian creeds insist
that out of millions of species, God has singled out this naked
ape as his beloved. They offer no clarification about this odd behaviour
of “their” God. Indeed he has fashioned this creature
in his own image, infused a “soul” in him, and promised
everlasting life to this “soul” in some heaven or a
hell depending on his whims. We are asked to swallow all this without
any proof or substantiation.
Though the ground situation
is somewhat contrary, it glaringly depicts the sadistic tendencies
of the creator and demonstrates his confusion.
The true believers are called
upon to pray to him, if they desire to receive the rewards of his
bountiful love. The purpose of this, eludes me. Does he need some
praying to get his ego boosted? Is he so juvenile that he needs
assurance again and again from his special creation that he is their
God? In that case being an almighty, why didn’t he program
some robots, which would do him obeisance round the clock? Indeed
does this God take pleasure in famine, war, catastrophes, slaughter
of children, AIDS cancer etc., etc., and does he feel ecstatic when
species and tribes are at each other’s throat? As a matter
of fact is he watching us like we watch TV, and enjoy cruel sadistic
pleasure in all the sufferings in the world?
Individuals are compelled
to act according to their inherited “mind and body”,
“psycho-physical status”, “socio-economical and
geographical” circumstances. What else is open to them? If
one or several of these items are flawed, or rendered negative or
un-complimentary, then appropriately his freedom of choice would
recede proportionately. Or to put it in a Darwinian sense, his chances
of selection are fast approaching zero.
Ideas such as God, love,
soul and Creation are devoid of any logic to any sensible person,
especially, as it totally abolished his freedom of choice, while
forcing him to embrace his inevitable fate. These sort of fatalistic
arguments are fine to boost the ego of some self-cantered believers,
but they will guide them into, dead end alleys of desolation.
Believers of the alternative
mechanistic view of life, nurses an opinion that their account is
totally rational. But in fact what they possess is a slanted view
of life. While they notify that other species abide by a natural
dictate termed, “survival of the fittest” the humans
are expressly discouraged to follow their calling. While Darwinians
are asking us to accept the fact that the weak will be eliminated,
the United Nations was promoting protection of the individual and
defending his “human rights”. Darwinian “tooth
and claw” life style was good enough for other species, but
somehow not worthy for the human species to emulate.
The freedom of choice if
going by this theory is certainly a freedom open for an exclusive
few. Somehow one gets the feeling that we have treaded this path
before. Indeed it has all the ingredients of what the true believers
were promoting.
How is that? Well if one
is born with good health, having resources, belonging to a powerful
clan, member of an elite nation, having the correct hue of the skin,
having the facility of acquiring a sound education, with powerful
parents and relations propping him up, enjoying a cozy job in a
flourishing organization, then the world can be his oyster. Obviously
there are such chosen ones, who have inherited all such lucrative
conditions, but bad luck for the rest of the mortals, for we have
to avail ourselves of the cards dealt out to us by chance, in order
to play this game of life.
On the other hand, if one
is unlucky to be born among a destitute African tribe, isolated,
resourceless, with AIDS raging around, without any communication
with the civilized world, lacking the means of education, and even
having to walk miles for a glass of water to drink, what’s
more conditioned and psychologically burdened by a fatalistic and
an intolerant creed, then fate certainly will have him by the neck,
as an “un-chosen” one. In that case he has a few restricted
choices left open. One among them is, surrendering to his “God,”
and praying and waiting for a creeping death.
As Darwinism was deficient
of an ethical principle, to embrace its version of determinism,
is to kneel down and await the outcome of unfolding of blind impersonal
material forces. Individuals under those circumstances are compelled
to bow down to a philosophy, which notifies “now you are here,
now you are not”. While Darwinians advocate “survival
of the fittest” what we notice about those who are surviving
is, that they are the “luckiest.
Currently, a certain Judeo-Christian
sect is bent on conquering the world through procreation and terror.
For this, they naturally have been following the good old Darwinian
dictates. The lunatic fringe of this creed is using militancy in
order to fulfil “their” God’s will. While the
opponents of these fanatics, have stamped them “terrorist”,
and are hunting them down, with extreme prejudice.
In reality, this unique Judeo-Christian
sect is doing nothing extraordinarily un-Darwinistic. As a human
sub - species they are multiplying their prototype so that their
kindred with their “locked-in, intolerant beliefs” can
go on further in time and space, and take control of the human progeny.
Indeed if by chance they survive such un-ethical methods, and be
successful in their objectives, then they will certainly end up
as truly the “fittest”? If we go along with such “hair
brained” Darwinistic logic, then we would naturally end up
in blind alleys of extinction.
Yet in fact the world is
not sitting by, and waiting for the Darwinian “survival of
the fittest” to unfold. They have got choices and, defending
themselves is one of them.
If we carefully scrutinize,
the impact the two deterministic versions had on man, we recognize
how these elbowed the world into the present brink of despair. The
future looks bleak. Thanks to such illogical, locked in, dogmas.
Historically we can easily
perceive the fatalistic “creationist” views of the Judeo-Christian
sect’s intolerant activity: Holy wars, holy inquisitions intolerance
to pluralism of ideas or opposition to any progressive ones and
now Holy terror.
On the other side of the
divide, is the mechanistic explanation of Darwinians, which
projected aimless and purposeless material processes trudging their
way which in turn, abolished man’s self determination and
undermined his ethical nature, and pushed him to embrace a robotic
view of “take what you can while the going is good”.
Worse, currently we find
these two “locked-in” life theories are converging in
a most ominous fashion. How can we blame such murderous groups such
as Al Quida if we go by them? After all they are obliged to fulfil
their holy protocols, proclaimed by their “God”. They
have indeed received a mandate from their ‘creator’,
and as true believers, they have to implement their conditioned
beliefs.
If terror galvanized a favourable
outcome, and transformed the global society’s multicultural
lifestyle, and brought it round to a particular Taliban Afghanistani
model of behaviour, then they have fulfilled their God’s decrees
while also following the Darwinian “survival of the fittest”
dictates. For we have to concede, if these fanatics are successful
in their machinations, then indisputably they are the fittest. That
is how God and Darwin have merged to undermine the freedom of the
global society.
| 
