Forefathers of Uniom Minister Satyapal Singh and Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Posted by Vishwa Singh
January 25, 2018

NOTE: This post has been self-published by the author. Anyone can write on Youth Ki Awaaz.

Almost two-three days back Union minister Mr.  Satyapal Singh has raised the question on Darwin’s theory of evolution is scientifically wrong and it should not be taught in the schools, further, he added that nor our forefathers have seen the changes like this and neither they have written in books.
Now the Union Minister Satyapal Singh is facing too much criticism from the scientific community as well as from the public.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the widely held concept that all life is related and has descended from a common living thing: the crow and the bananas, the mouse and chimpanzee all are related. Darwin’s general theory consider the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic. Mean to say that every complex creature evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over the time. Simply we can say, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism’s genetic code, the advantegeous mutations are preserved because they aid survival, the process known as “natural selection.” These beneficial mutations are passed on to the successive generation.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – Natural Selection

Importantly, Darwin didn’t just said that organisms evolved. If Darwin’s would have given the only theory then he wouldn’t be in as many textbooks as he is today. Actually, the Darwin’s concept of no life to life was perceiving the Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander, Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply added a new thing to the old philosophy — a mechanism for evolution called “natural selection.” Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic changes. 

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a slow process. Darwin wrote, “…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.”  Thus, Darwin conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Such a complex organ would be known as an “irreducibly complex system”. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral.  Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called “the hammer,” a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex.
This is the brief of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
And there are many other theories which have opposed Darwin’s theory of evolution.
An anti-Darwinian theory of biological origins that was well received and widely accepted for years was creative evolution.
There is  major book Creative evolution,  this book deal with the biological theory given by Henry Bergson written in 1907. Bergson’s theory postulated that all life results, not from mechanical forces as Darwinism taught, but from a vital impulse that caused evolution (Fiero 1998). The “real facts of evolution were to be found, not in a mechanical elimination of the unfit, but in the creative surge of life, in an élan vital” (Edman 1944, xii). Bergson’s theory was actually a teleological view that appealed to this non-material élan vital (vital impetus) to guide evolution in a specific direction. This élan vital, Bergson concluded, is infused in all matter and is the source of an almost infinite variety of life forms. It was also the original impetus of the first life (Goudge 1967). The level of acceptance of this theory is that Henry Bergson was given Nobel prize for this in 1927.
In this advanced century of science now there has been too much research regarding this so there is proof of genetic similarities between the living things like the cow has 80% genetic similarities with human, the chimpanzee has 96% similarities with the human being and so on.
So whatever theories have been discussed above, tried to explain their opinion scientifically and successfully.
There may need more research to know about the relation of all living thing but still these theories are accepted widely and are successful.
Now what Mr. Satyapal Singh’s forefathers have discussed the theory of evolution, i have no idea which theory Union Minister Satyapal Singh told.
I am aware of one theory of Vedic system that is the varn system in which they have tried to say about creation.The Vedas do present a model of creation within which you were not to be equal in the eyes of the very divine that created you, at the time that they created you. The Purusha Suktha, the 90th hymn in the 10th Book of the Rig Veda, presents a cosmogony that describes the creation of man.
“Brahmanoasya mukhamasida bahu rajanyakriah, Uru tadasya yadvaishya padabhyam shudro ajayat.”(Rigveda 10.90.12, Yajurveda.31.11).
From the head of a primeval God, arose the Brahmans (priests, scholars), from the arms, Kshatriya (kings, warriors), the thighs, Vaishya (merchants, cultivators) and the feet, Shudra (servants, slaves). And thus the creation of human being came to in exist. May be Mr. Satyapal Singh referring this.
If it is then I am completely disagree with honorable union minister Mr. Satyapal Singh and most of the science students including all those people who have some true scientific spirit in them would also disagree.
If Mr. Satyapal Singh is talking about that Vedas include all source of knowledge then why Vedas do not contain any information regarding Harappa and Indus valley civilization. Though the name Harappa, Mohan Jo Daro is not actual name of the civilization and it is not the Mohan Jo Daro but Muon Jo Daro, a Sindhi word means mound of dead.  According to the linguistic Rajendra Prasad Singh, the real name of this civilization is Melukh civilization and gathered from the Mesopotamian civilization’s scripts.
Vedas have not even mentioned about Indus valley civilization which already has been found and has given authenticity by various countries archaeological survey agencies then how we can believe that Vedas have all thing in it and it is correct.
Written by V.P. Singh,  PhD, Indian Institute of Technology.

Youth Ki Awaaz is an open platform where anybody can publish. This post does not necessarily represent the platform's views and opinions.