Refined Creationism

In the course of my debates on evolution, I have discovered that creationism is not a monolithic theory. Of course, I strongly feel creationism is not a theory in the first place in the scientific sense of the term. However, creationism isn’t just about a hypothetical supernatural creator dropping Adam and Eve down from the garden of Eden.

A more refined form of creationism that I have encountered seeks to achieve a marriage of sorts between creationism and evolution. Though the details are quite nebulous and vague, the gist of the theory is that while humans and all other organisms have indeed evolved from single-celled ancestors, those single-celled ancestors had been created by a Creator. Another version of the theory, which is called “theistic evolution”, says that evolution was ‘helped’ along the way by a Creator.

"Refined", here means just that the theory is a more nuanced version of creationism, an attempt to bring it in tune with actual science. However, something that is founded on shaky ground can never be a profound idea.

As an agnostic atheist, I am naturally wary of both the above theories. However, it would be unscientific to let my personal prejudices influence a sane evaluation of the two theories. I shall try to stick to the logical problems that the above two theories create.

The problem with both the above theories is that they invoke a god (repackaged as a “creator”). But the trouble is, the existence of god has never been proven. Also, the question arises why god is required at all to explain evolution.

Theistic evolution actually goes against the very essentials of evolution. Evolution, in a nutshell, involves genes which mutate randomly. Some genes have a positive effect on survival and reproductive chances; some have a negative impact and some have no impact. Natural selection simply is the process by which the mutations which help an animal survive and reproduce better, get propagated more to future generations. Mutations that have a detrimental impact reduce in frequency because their “carriers”, the organisms, survive and/or reproduce less.

Now if you bring in an invisible hand “guiding” evolution, the question arises: how exactly does it guide evolution? Mutations are by definition random, which is why some of them are harmful and some of them useless. Clearly, if the hand is guiding mutations, then mutations should have been only beneficial and the component of natural selection would not be needed at all. On the other hand, making the hand guide natural selection is even more absurd.

Natural selection is not a guided process any more than gravitation is. How absurd would it be to claim that an invisible hand “guides” an apple to fall to the earth?

Incidentally, this part has been parodied well by Uncyclopedia here. It’s of course not a serious site, but it shows the problems with the Intelligent Design and creationism theory quite well. The same parody can be applied to theistic evolution too.

Also, we would question the necessity of the invisible hand to guide gravity. The theory of gravity explains everything quite well without the assumption of a god; bringing god into the theory would require an explanation of why he is required in the theory. The situation in evolution is pretty similar - it can be equally well explained without god; god certainly adds nothing to our understanding of the process.

Theistic evolution, thus is essentially an attempt to force god into something that never really requires the presence of any supernatural entity. A very special explanation is required to justify bringing god into the picture here, and that justification is not forthcoming.

Coming to the other form of refined creationism, the one which says god created the first life, and then allowed it to evolve. I call this “creation + evolution”.

The more you think about it, the more you realize that “creation + evolution” is pretty well covered-up non-theistic evolution. It must be a very lazy god who created the first single-celled organism and left it to its devices ever since. The question naturally arises, what has he been doing ever since?

And of course, the same question of the need for god in this theory, arises. Why at all do we need god to create the first life? Research is progressing in the field of abiogenesis, which seeks to explain the emergence of life from non-living substances. Miller and Urey demonstrated that complex organic molecules could have come about from simpler chemicals, which means that the possibility of life originating from non-living substances is quite real.

Of course, the probability of abiogenesis is quite low. But consider this: there are an estimated 100 billion billion planets in universe¹. Even if the probability of abiogenesis were one in a billion billion, we could still expect 100 planets in the universe to have had life.

Of course, on earth itself, life is thought to have originated between 4.4 billion years ago to 2.7 billion years ago, which means that we may actually consider abiognesis to have much lower probability than even one in a billion billion. In fact, as Richard Dawkins explains in The Blind Watchmaker, we should be concerned if the probability was not extremely low, because then it would be unusual that the whole universe wasn’t teeming with life.

Evolution has been proved and requires the presence of no creator at all. Of course, one may introduce a creator. But bringing in a creator is neither required, nor does it enhance our understanding of the theory in any way whatsoever. Abiogenesis offers an interesting possibility of life arising without a god’s intervention, as a purely random process.

God, thus, remains an unnecessary, redundant and superfluous explanation forced upon perfectly natural theories that are no poorer without the imposition of the supernatural.

1. The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins.

Sitting on a powder keg?

The recent Gujjar protests in Rajasthan, which have now spread to Delhi, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh, are assuming alarming proportions. It began with Gujjars (who are officially designated as OBCs in the state) demanding that they be included under the Scheduled Tribes category. This would entitle them to a better quota in jobs and education.

This was opposed by the Meenas, who are the only Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan at present. Granting the ST status to the Gujjars will, but obviously, eat into the Meenas' share. While earlier they would have to compete only against fellow Meenas, they will need to compete with Gujjars too for the same opportunities. As a result, the Meenas have opposed this demand and there have been violent clashes. There is also hectic political lobbying by both sides.

I will not go into whether or not the Rajasthan government bungled, or whether the demand by the Gujjars is justified or not. The question here is about the explosive scenario we seem to be moving towards.

However you look at it, it seems difficult for any govt to please both factions - the Meenas and the Gujjars. If the Govt of Rajasthan rejects the Gujjars demands, it will precipitate a further caste war between the Meenas, who will be seen as the saboteurs, and the Gujjars. There is bound to be a lot of bad blood there.

But it would be far worse if the government were to accede to the demands of the Gujjars. Consider for a moment the implications of such a move. It would signal that violence pays. Armtwisting the government through rioting is a feasible way to get your demands met. It will also send the message that all a caste needs to do to get into an SC/ST bracket would be to indulge in violent protests.

While the Gujjars and the Meenas may have a lot of antagonism for each other as a result of this issue, they would both unite if a third caste were to agitate for the granting of ST status to it. We would see bigger caste clashes.

There may be possible workarounds like giving the ST status to Gujjars, but making the Meenas a special sub-category of STs, like a quota within a quota. I'm not sure of the constitutional validity of this, but such a workaround too is bound to fail, since it will soon be questioned why Meenas are given this special treatment, and worse, other castes will demand the same "special" treatment.

It is becoming clear now that there is unlikely to be any easy, mutually acceptable solution. A solution that pleases the Gujjars will anger the Meenas and vice versa.

It is not inconceivable or even improbable, that soon other castes with adequate muscle power will protest for an SC/ST status, even if they really are not backward in any sense. With each demand, it will become increasingly harder to justify one caste having reservations, while the other doesnt. And when the stick, the gun and fire are the preferred means of negotiation, justifications, whether they make sense or not, are bound to go unheard. We seem to be now sitting on a powder keg which may blast at any given moment. What the anti-reservationists have been crying themselves hoarse over, about the divisive power of reservations, seems to ring true.

"I told you so" is sometimes called the most painful sentence in English. But it seems the most apt in this scenario - tragically so.

The Trouble with the Domestic Violence Act

The Domestic Violence Act which was passed last year has received a lot of bouquets and brickbats from the expected quarters. The act is deeply controversial due its insistence that firstly, the person who commits domestic violence is always a male, and secondly, that on being accused, the onus is on the man to prove his innocence.

The second point is what I shall focus on more here. When the onus is on the accused to prove his innocence, it means that he is automatically considered a criminal on being charged. The person doing the charging is not obliged to first prove the guilt. In short, guilty unless proven innocent. The problem is obvious: a woman can blackmail her husband with the Damocles Sword of the DVA, since it is his headache to get the proof that he did not indulge in DV.

Many feminists support this law, not realising, perhaps, that it is eerily similar to Pakistan's Hudood Ordinance which puts similar guilt by default on women.

Let me make my stand clear on Domestic Violence first, before someone misunderstands. Domestic Violence on women is a crime, committed by weak, witless so-called men who bring a bad name to all men. A real man does not hit a woman¹, whatever provocation may exist. Thus, I fully support a law against domestic violence. However, that does not mean I support the law that has been passed.

That is not a contradictory stance. I do support laws against murder, but I would not support a law which demands no evidence to prove that the accused has committed the murder.

I have discussed this issue with some feminists and have come across with arguments which I shall try to counter here. I do not believe the feminist friends I have spoken to support the DVA out of any misandry, but because they sincerely believe the act is good, and see the problems mentioned as minor loopholes. With all due respect to them, I believe that the act is neither good, nor are the problems loopholes and nor are they minor.


But first, a few of the most common arguments made by the feminists in their justifications for the law.


1. "Yes, the law will be misused by unscruplous women, but this will be a minority"
This is the most common assertion made to support DVA. I call this "the numerical argument". It says that there will be unscruplous women, but very few. The numerical argument is also invoked to explain why the law does not hold that men can also be victims of DV. Because there are very few men who will actually be victims of DV.

Firstly, this is a very major assumption they are making, which in turn is based on the greater assumption that women are somehow more truthful than men and hence will not misuse the law much. Clearly a sexist assumption. Had it been asserted instead that men are more trustworthy, feminists would have opposed it, and rightly so. But this is still the lesser problem with the numerical argument.

The numerical argument sounds reasonable when you first hear it. But then the more you think about it, the more you realise that it doesnt make any sense at all. Even if we do assume that the cases of DV on men are lesser, it does not mean they do not deserve justice.

Similarly, just because the misuse will be lesser (another assumption) it does not mean that the misuse is tolerable, nor that it should be ignored. This relates to my response to their second argument.

To turn the question around to feminists, would Domestic Violence be any less heinous if the crimes on women were much lesser than they are right now?


2. "Which law is not misused?"
This argument rests on the premise that a lot of laws are misused. And that is true. Due to our poor law enforcement and corrupt society, it is possible to fabricate evidence, or bribe your way out, and that does undermine the system a lot.

Hence this statement is true. But it also makes for a very lazy argument.

While it is true that laws are misused, that does not mean that laws should be misused, or that we should make provisions in the law that increase the chances of its misuse. Nor that we should make it easier and more lucrative to misuse the law.

Instead, we should be trying to reduce the chances of misuse here, eliminating those provisions that may throw innocents into prison. And the first requisite for that is proof of guilt. The accuser should be required to provide evidence of the guilt of the accused. This is not something extraordinary; it happens in all criminal cases.

Consider how the DVA can become a tool of terror. It defines even shouting as a form of DV. (It is completely ignored that even women can shout at their husbands, thus constituting DV, but lets leave that for now)

Say a woman accuses her husband of shouting at her in private. Remember the onus is on him to prove his innocence. Is there any earthly way for him to prove he did not shout at her? Surely not.

Consider another situation: a wife shouts at her husband, and it is not DV. Getting angry when being shouted at is a common human tendency. In his anger, if he shouts back, it becomes DV. Now he has no recourse to the law and is instead considered a criminal for doing no more than what his wife had done.

Of course, in both these cases, the man can try to manufacture evidence, to cook up something. However, as Shiv Khera once remarked "a corrupt system is something that forces an honest person to do something dishonest to achieve an honest objective." That is precisely the problem here.


3. "It is difficult to get evidence for DV"
This argument is most easily countered. Referring to my first example about the shouting situation, the accused too has no way of getting evidence for his innocence. How can a system that holds a person guilty by default, and then gives him no way to prove his innocence, how can such a system be termed "just"?

Besides, just because getting evidence is tough, does not mean we can forego the need for evidence. Evidence may hard to come by even in a murder case. The judge would not respond to that by waiving the requirement for evidence.


4. "Evidence can be manufactured"
This is again true. But then, evidence can be manufactured in cases of murder too. That never stopped us from requiring evidence for murder in the first place, did it?


5. "But a law is needed"
I agree that a law is needed to counter DV. DV is a crime, as I said, committed by inferior men (I have no regrets for using that word - it describes them most aptly). I fully support a law against it. However, I contend that this particular law is not the law for it. If the law were to state that the wife must first provide incontrovertible evidence for the DV, I would support it.



The emancipation of women is not going to come about by labelling men as villains and proclaiming a law for it. If you are a feminist reading this, bear in mind that we are in a democracy and you need the support of people for emancipation of women. In this regard, image counts for a lot. And blatantly one-sided laws like the DVA only spoil that image by making it look like feminists dont really want equality, but want to turn the tables on men. It doesnt help, either, when feminists go on to oppose the Hudood, which puts on women the very same "guilty-by-default" burden that DVA puts on men.

Betty Friedman, the famous feminist, once said, "It is better for a woman to compete impersonally in society, as men do, than to compete for dominance in her own home with her husband". Those supporting the DVA may take note and analyse whether the DVA is not really doing exactly that.


¹ obviously, this does not include hitting a woman in self-defence. Also, it applies both ways. A real woman would also not see any need to hit a man except in self-defence.

Mazhab Nahi Sikhaata Aapas Mein Bair Rakhna?

I came across a certain video a couple of months ago, and it was extremely horrifying in what it showed. However, when I tried to get it recently to embed in this blog, the video had been removed. But the video was available as a segment in another video, which I've embedded below.




The relevant part occurs somewhere in the middle, where it shows a little girl giving a short interview. Those of you who can see the video, please ignore the Islam-bashing in the first half. It is not the point of this post.

For those who cannot see the video due to bandwidth problems, I'll describe it in short. It features a 3-and-half year old girl - as innocent and cute as a child that age can be - giving an interview to a journalist. The journo, among other things, asks her for her opinion on Jews. To which the girl replies by saying that she does not like them and goes further to call them dogs.

The intent of this post is not to question Muslims alone, but indeed, all theists.

My first reaction to this post was, keep the kids away from your f***ing theocratic hatred shit!

Is it not disturbing that children are being pumped - and I mean pumped - with such hatred at such a young age? Is it not a given that this girl, when she grows up, may become yet another of those fanatics, or that she will impart the same "values" to her children, if she lives long enough to have them?


The line from one of our most famous patriotic songs goes, "mazhab nahi sikhaata, aapas mein bair rakhna", (religion does not teach you to fight)

But is that really true? I dont see any evidence of that in this video. All it is teaching to this girl is hatred. Chances are that she might not know what she is saying. It is unlikely she would ever have even met a Jew. And yet she has a hatred for them, because it has been drilled into her.

The most common apologistic answer is, "it is a misinterpretation. Religion does not teach hatred." And that is something that is even more intriguing. If religion does not teach hatred, why do so many theists not doubt for a moment, that their belief requires them to hate and kill people of other religions? Why do they believe that to preserve their religion they must burn shops, burn missionaries and their kids, and blow themselves up?

Why do so many theists, as part of their "religious instruction" of their children, teach them such hatred?

If we cut out the pussyfooting and sanctimonious defences, what will emerge, is that, "mazhab yahi sikhaata, aapas mein bair rakhna", (religion does teach you to fight)


That might appear extreme, but it unfortunately appears to be the truth. Dont religions say they are the only true path? Dont they say that all others are false?

Is this lack or respect for other religions not the root cause for religious conflicts anywhere in the world?

Come to think of it, Why should any religion or its followers concern themselves about whether the other religion is true or not?

It should be none of my business to prove that another religion is false. Yet that is what a lot of theists go around doing. This extends even to issues of basic human rights.

Which is why some Hindus vacillate over Gujarat and invoke Godhra each time the riots are mentioned

Which is why some Muslims cry themselves hoarse about Gujarat but remain silent over the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits

At the same time, theistic organisations and their sympathisers are extremely reluctant to criticise their religion

Sample this:
The Ulema have a lot to say on subjects like sex and the skirts of female tennis players, but nothing against Osama bin Laden.

The Pope has a lot to say about Harry Potter and Da Vinci Code but nothing much to say against George W Bush and paedophilia.

Shiv Sena has a lot to say on Valentine's Day, but nothing to say against Khairlanji (or nothing substantial)

So its natural if atheists question the apparently skewed priorities of theists. Theists (or religions) bother more about "decency" and stuff like that instead of basic survival issues.

Is there any wonder why religion is being seen by some as the Root of all Evil?

Unlike Richard Dawkins, I will not advocate an abolition of religion. It certainly has positives
and they should remain. But what needs to be expunged is the blind faith, and the feeling that "only my path is right, all others are false."

If theism wants to prove itself as humane (and it definitely needs to do so now) then it must undergo reform. I mean all religions.

If that does not happen, Samuel P Huntington's theory on the Clash of Civilizations will come true, sooner or later.