Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Isn’t LOVE more predominant over FITNESS, for survival ?

The influence of Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ theory over man’s world view, as well as man's ‘personal view’ for conducting life, is undisputed. One must prevail over the other for survival! This theory has some what legitimized the old law of the jungle in human societies, though silently . None of our social institution is free from this base notion. Though our age talk of freedom and equality a lot, due to this underlying base notion, above ideals remain merely as decorative slogans, without any one willing to let the other man totally liberated for fear of his own survival.

Here comes the vital need of having a re-look at this base notion, for the sake of true scientific spirit.

If looked at the early stage of any living unit’s survival, parental love and care for the new born could be seen as more preliminary an aspect for survival, than its own fitness criteria that comes to play at a later stage. If the former emotion was not set by nature before hand, no unit would have survived and reached such stages of life, where it could use its own survival instincts to compete, and be alive ! Hence, what would be the logical objection in concluding that parental care, or the emotion of Love, is more fundamental in nature than one’s physical, or the adaptation capability for survival? 
( Please see our blog-post: explains few evidences against Darwin's theory, those are difficult to refute.)

Such a fundamental shift of ideology would open up a whole new line of thought for mankind. It will compel him to have a re-look at the correctness of his existing socio-political institutions that had its base on Darwin's ideology.

From time immemorial, man was eager to set his laws and theories in tune with his presumed, hidden laws of nature. Survival of the fittest, or the law of natural selection was based on such presumed natural directives of mother nature.
Scientific spirit is all about one’s willingness to re-verify his established conclusions. If science is not willing to check on any newly arrived ray of evidence, it also should face the allegation of being fundamentalist or dogmatic. 

Knowledge is an unending highway. Conclusions have to be temporary huts on this highway, to be thrashed and moved away at any time, looking for finer truths. If sky was a dome, and earth flat earlier in history of knowledge, it paved way for spherical earth and unending space later on. Newton’s laws of motion ruled the scene of science for few centuries, finally paving for Einstein’s theory of relativity. This journey would definitely move on, throwing many surprises to mankind for ever.