And God Created Broadband…..
The twenty ninth day of October that passed silently would had been the ideal day for the government of the United Kingdom to announce solemnly its crucial digital policies such as universal broadband, the 50p broadband tax proposal and the anti-filesharing legislation proposals. Particularly for the day marked the completion of forty years of internet service in the world.
This day according to the broadband expert at Broadband Suppliers Chuck Doherty, should not be played down as just another of those days when one or many scientists come up with a historical accident that would be regarded in the future as a theory or something akin to that. For Doherty believes that he still has some kin of his languishing in the corridor of uncertainty between the path to reality and the gutter of darkness.
Doherty was obviously having a go at the media news that hit the Britons that were aspiring to travel to the digital era, nastily – that more than half of the United Kingdom population thought that creationism and intelligent design ought to be taught at schools alongside evolution. The news report was based on the findings of a research carried out by MORI and commissioned by the British Council. This survey had polled a thousand British adults among a total of twelve thousand adults in ten countries including Russia, the US and India.
Creationism refers to the concept that God created the earth as well as the mankind and Adam and Eve were the original biological parents of the human race. The study suggests that only one British adult out of five believed that teaching of evolution should be done to the exclusion of concepts such as intelligent design and creationism. It is also worth mentioning here that only an year has passed after the sacking of Professor Michael Reiss as the director of education at the Royal Society for arguing that intelligent design and creationism, if were raised by the pupils, should be addressed as a world concept.
“I really have my doubts that which creationism do they want to teach – Genesis (Bible), Koran’s or many other cults’? I thought every religion in the world owns one of the kind, which must be unique as well, and considering the fact that Britain is a Kaleidoscope including many of these”, commented Doherty. According to him it would also be acceptable for most of the kids for one reason that it is much easier to conceive that the universe was created in six days than what they are being taught currently.
“The problem with this proposal as far as I am concerned is not just the proposition of feeding the young ones with theories that lacked substantiation, but a more intimidating one that this would lead the upcoming generation increasingly dependant on one class that is considered by a good part of the world population today as dubious – the priesthood (clergy). Since they have taken the pain to travel to the turbulent South Asia to take their accounts, I would also wish to put here that I had found a great many in India during my last visit there that opined there would be no end to the bloodshed unless people were taken (dragged) out of the mires of the scripture”, said Doherty.
“I have always cherished the views upheld by a few elite people – that had both Islamic and Hindu roots – over there that the rebelling forces such as Taliban could only be tamed by the UN forces if they as well as the moderate proletariat of the region were educated on the comforts if not luxuries that existed outside their scripture, which obviously gave them the theories of a long lost generation. But this, well falls against the scripture as well as the priesthood that thrives on it….suggesting the cause for another bloody conflict. And take my word, hardcore concepts – no I did not use the term religions – take no prisoners” added Doherty.
However, there is reason for people like Doherty to rejoice today as the UK government seems to be making amendments for the miscalculations of half of the population by announcing compulsory lessons for the kids from age five, on sex and drugs. Under the freshly proposed curriculum pupils as young as 7 will learn about facts of life and puberty while 5 year old pupils will be educated on the effects of drugs on the body, body parts and relationships. The newly proposed curriculum is profounder as the kids when reach the secondary school would learn about pregnancy, various relations, contraception, and HIV and AIDS.
The broadband expert reacts to the development, “I would like to see my kid grow up the way of reasoning, I would like to see it grow logistic and avoid pitfalls such as the drug abuse intelligently and many thanks to the government to come up with something like that. At least I will not be thrown to the ignominy of hearing my young one say in the future ‘and then He created broadband…..’”









“I really have my doubts that which creationism do they want to teach – Genesis (Bible), Koran’s or many other cults’?”
Creationism is categorical belief, based on the teachings of the various monotheistic religions. Within its bounds reside scriptures mentioned above, as well as dogmatic beliefs, rituals and ordained doctrine. Thus, while creationism as a concept could be mentioned, it would never be taught in secular institutions.
Intelligent design on the other hand, is a viable alternative hypothesis regarding a tentative means of producing novelty and complexity within biologic systems. While once tied to religion, the current prevailing synthesis is merely one of interventionary input to the embryogenetic process, and that it may act in concert with known and observable adaptive evolutionary processes.
Some will extrapolate ID to ‘goddidit’, while others will deny ID as God’s methodology. Still others will deny its viability, or term it as merely a guise to promote religion. But whatever one’s personal position, ID is not only a viable hypothesis, but a more likely one than random chance (even though selected upon) to produce all bioforms.
Evolutionary theory is its current synthesis is short sighted, based on the known complexity contained within the data. While the evidence of phylogenetic progressions and related lineages is ‘overwhelming’ (to use a favored evolution defending term), and natural selection is well established as an adaptive means of fixing beneficial traits within a population, the means of acheiving novelty (innovative and new body plans), and complexity (synergistic and irreducible systems) is not.
In my opinion, the worst case of handwaving I’ve ever seen is not ‘goddidit’, but ‘mutantdidit’, and to accept that fatuous premise without question is sophistry beyond belief. In sum, the evidence of intelligent input into the processes is stronger today than in the past, and to shuffle it under the rug of science by stating that it doesn’t qualify as science, is quite simply a dated sophomoric viewpoint that needs to be relegated to antiquity. Both ID and natural causation need be considered, carefully weighed and evaluated objectively, to facilitate the furtherance of ‘objective’ science.