ARTICLES
========
BY T P SUBRAMONIAN
------------------
1)INTELLIGENT DESIGN
====================
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And then He created light. And then over the course of six days, He created the lakes and the rivers, the seas and the mountains, the plants and the trees, the birds and the animals and every form of life. And then he created man and asked him to look after all that he had created. That was the sixth day. And then He rested on the seventh day. That is the origin of life, according to the Bible and the Christian faith all over the world. Since then there have been other theories and speculations over the origin of life but they made little impact in the Christian world.In the year 1859, Charles Darwin, an English naturalist, published his treatise, ‘On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection’. This work was, next to Newton’s Principia, perhaps the most important single book in the history of science. It was after long years of data collection and observation that Darwin concluded that species had not been independently created, but had descended from other species. External conditions like climate, food etc have contributed to variation , but in the struggle for existence, any being , "if it vary, in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form". Natural selection or the survival of the fittest almost inevitably causes much extinction of the less improved forms of life and leads to ‘divergence of character’. "It leads to the improvement of each creature in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life; and consequently, in most cases, to an advance in organization. Nevertheless, low and simple forms will long endure if well fitted for their simple conditions of life."The theory of organic evolution had burst like a bombshell upon the England of the late 1850s and early 1860s. The theory was violently attacked by certain clergymen as contrary to the teachings of the Bible. The Origin of Species lumped man with other living things as a product of organic evolution, thus apparently contradicting the Biblical story of creation. At the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1860, there was a debate on the revolutionary book. Among the debaters, were the Rev Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford and a sworn foe of the revolutionary theory on one side and the famous biologist Thomas Huxley, one of Darwin’s ardent supporters on the other.After an impassioned attack on Darwin’s theory, The Bishop turned to Huxley and said smilingly, "I should like to ask Prof Huxley as to his belief in being descended from an ape. Is it on his grandfather’s or his grandmother’s side that the ancestry comes in?"The good Bishop was evidently under the impression, as so many people have been from that time to this, that the central idea of the Origin of Species is that man is descended from the ape. Actually, the doctrine of organic evolution, as expounded in the Origin of Species, stresses particularly the idea that all living things – men, monkeys, amoebas, starfish, birds and plants, for example, have attained their present structure and function through a slow eon-long series of changes in living tissue, beginning with the simplest primordial protoplasm. The doctrine states further that the direction of changes is guided by the process known as natural selection or the survival of the fittest. This doctrine of organic evolution, modified since it was first presented, has profoundly influenced the thinking of mankind. It has even had its impact on political philosophy. economics and business Despite initial furor in Christian circles, the opposition from the church and the controversy over evolution gradually died down in England and most of Europe with the advance of science and the industrial revolution. In India and other Asian countries there does not seem to have been a controversy in regard to the teaching of evolution in biology classes. Nobody has suggested in India that along with evolution schools should teach the creative cycle of Brahma. Nor has anyone demanded that in geography classes, Rahu’s devouring role should be mentioned along with the astronomical explanation of the solar and lunar eclipse. My father, who taught biology in school and zoology in college almost with a missionary zeal in the early years of the last century, himself believed in the role of a divine hand behind the wonders in the world of nature.. But in his study at home, as I recall, he had an impressive picture of Thomas Huxley, the celebrated biologist and the ardent supporter of Charles Darwin. In America, however, the theory of evolution has had a chequered career, particularly in school teaching. Until around 1920, there was apparent harmony, as school education was largely a private decision. It was only after 1920 that secondary education became compulsory in the United States. Around that time, the religious conservatives began to worry about the future of America, the fall of religious and moral values in the face of the insatiable pursuit of wealth and material pleasure. A widening gap was noticed between the God-fearing majority and the disbelieving cultural elite. Evolution was seen as a challenge to Christian belief. Since then the movement against the theory of evolution has passed through three distinct phases of evolution. In the first phase (say 1920-60) the opponents of evolution wanted to remove evolution from the class room. In the second phase, (say 1960-90) they demanded balanced treatment of evolution with some form of creationism. In the third phase, which began in 1990, they seek to downgrade evolution to ‘just a theory’, without any indisputable validity. Indeed, now the controversy has acquired political overtones as well, a matter of conservatives vs liberals, or Republicans vs Democrats. Let us take the first phase. In 1925, Tennessee became the first state to pass an anti-evolution law. It banned the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools. Scientific method lay at the heart of modernity. Darwinism was criticized for applying that method to the key issue of biological origin and human morality. John Scopes, a school teacher in Tennessee, challenged the law in court. Harvard zoologist Louis Agassiz challenged the very notion of organic evolution, arguing that highly complex individual organs, such as the eye, and ecologically dependant species, such as bees and flowers, could not evolve through the sort of minute random steps envisioned by Darwinism. The Tennessee law was upheld in court. John Scopes was put on trial for violating the law of the land by teaching evolution in the class room. This was the famous ‘monkey trial’, as the issue was man’s descent from the ape!The pace of anti-evolution quickened. More states passed anti-evolution statutes. Evolution dropped out of American public schools in the 1920s, 30s and 40s. Then came the Second World War, which diverted attention. The issue did not turn up until the 1960s. By the time the issue went back to the courts, the legal landscape had changed. Beginning 1947, the US Supreme Court began applying the First Amendment against public schools. The old controversy got a new relevance. In successive rulings, beginning in 1948, the US Supreme Court struck down class room religious instruction, school-sponsored prayers, mandatory Bible readings, and finally in 1968, the anti-evolution laws. These old laws had only banned the teaching of human evolution. They did not authorize the teaching of alternative theories. The next phase of anti-evolution began in 1961 under Henry Morris. The Genesis and the six-day creation, dating them within the past 10,000 to 6,000 years, were projected as scientific enough for school instruction. He called it ‘creation science’ or ‘scientific creationism’. Okay, you may teach evolution, but teach creationism alongside, was the slogan. The movement for ‘balanced treatment’ of evolution and creationism in the science classes developed further in the 1970s and 1980s. Three states and dozens of local schools mandated balanced treatment of creation science along with evolution in public schools. It took another decade before the US Supreme Court unraveled these balanced treatment mandates and struck them down as unconstitutional. Creation science was nothing more than religion dressed up as science, the Court declared in a 1987 decision. In the third phase of this anti-evolution movement, the leadership passed on to Philip Johnson, who published his book, ‘Darwin on Trial’ in 1991. The movement is spearheaded by the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Seattle think tank. Johnson’s target was the philosophical belief that material entities subject to physical laws account for everything in nature. Evolution excludes God from science labs and class rooms using the methodology of naturalism. He maintained that evolution is ‘just a theory’. In its mission statement, the CSRC ‘seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies" The CSRC argues, ‘As Christians we know that naturalism is false. Nature is not self-sufficient. But neither theology nor philosophy can answer the evidential question whether God’s interaction with the world is empirically detectable. To answer this question, we must look to science’. In other words, the creationists cleverly decide to wear a science garb and seek an equal status with evolution as an alternative scientific theory. They have also authorized funded research work for their mission, but no progress has been made. The new name for the creationist theory propagated by the Discovery Institute is "Intelligent Design". Intelligent Design (ID) is the name given to the concept that ‘certain features of the universe and of living things are explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. The intelligent designer is not identified, but we know who it is! Leading proponents of ID, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that ID is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life. Most creationists also dispute existing theories about the origin of life, the evolution of the human species, the geological history of the Earth, and the formation of the solar system. The overall goal of the movement is to defeat the materialist world view.An overwhelming majority of the scientific community view ID not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudo-science or junk science. The US National Academy of Sciences has stated that ID and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment. The National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) has considered this issue and has come out with its thoughts. Science does not base theories on untestable dogmatic proposals or beliefs. Scientific theories can be, and often are, modified and improved as new empirical evidence is uncovered. Science is a constantly self-correcting endeavor to understand nature and natural phenomena. Specifically, the teachers concluded that a) Evolution should be a recurrent theme throughout biology courses;b) Teaching the principles and mechanisms of evolution promotes a rational and coherent scientific account of biology;c) Science and religion differ in significant ways that make it inappropriate to teach religious beliefs in science class rooms; to contrast science with religion is not the role of science or science education;d) Teachers should respect diverse beliefs; science teachers can, and often do, hold devout religious beliefs, accept evolution as a valid theory and teach the theory’s mechanisms and principles. Students can maintain their religious beliefs and learn the scientific foundation of evolution.Besides opposition from scientists, the ID movement has had several legal setbacks. The most significant occurred in December 2005. The Dover Area school district of Pennsylvania had a requirement since October 2004 that ID should be taught as a supplement and an alternative to evolution. This was struck down by the US federal court as unconstitutional and violative of the First Amendment separation of church and state.(Kitzmiller vs Dover Area school dt). Judge John e Jones ruled that ID is not science but is essentially religious in nature.The controversy does not seem to die down. On the contrary, the anti-evolutionists try every means to advance their cause. They evolve a new strategy with every new setback. The latest strategy is to bring in ID as an alternative theory to broaden the outlook of the hapless student. Innocuous clauses are introduced in elaborate education reform bills for this purpose. The Michigan example is glaring. The course content expectation for science "shall include the scientific method to critically evaluate scientific theories and using relevant scientific data to assess the validity of those theories and formulate arguments for and against those theories". Look at the subtlety!(House Bill 5606 Jan 06)In the state of Mississippi a Senate bill provides that no school prohibit a public school teacher from discussing the flaws in evolution.. In Utah State a Senate bill seeks to ensure that if instruction is given to students on the origin of life, the teachers should stress that not all scientists agree with the evolution theory. In Wisconsin, a bill is under way to prohibit the teaching of supernatural and pseudo-scientific theories in science class rooms. In Ohio, a proposal to remove the ‘critical analysis of evolution’ lesson from the curriculum was defeated, signifying a victory for the anti-evolution lobby. In Kansas, the Association of Science Teachers is at loggerheads with the Board of Education over the teaching of ID. The list goes on.Meanwhile, the evolutionists are getting support from unexpected quarters, perhaps for the wrong reason.. The official Vatican newspaper wrote early this year endorsing the Pennsylvania ruling that ID should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution. It said that such teaching would reduce Biblical faith and revelation to a dubious scientific explanation. This apparently represents the Pope’s thinking. The Archbishop of Canterbury in England has also endorsed this view and he fears that creationst teaching in science can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it.In the light of the above, I would sum up my concluding observations as follows.a) The raging debate in the US is part of a picture of distorted priority. The overall quality of education, particularly at the school level, has suffered grievous erosion and calls for urgent attention. The ID controversy only diverts national attention.b) The political overtones of ID also tend to influence political alliances and the fortunes of political parties, swaying popular support from national priorities.c) Science should be taught in the science class room, while religion can be taught at home or in the church. Any conflict in the child’s mind, arising from this should be resolved in the home or the church.d) Propagation of religious doctrines through the media of science is not the best way to safeguard ethical values and build up moral character in society.e) ID is just a camouflaged name, the thin end of Biblical Christian teaching. Christianity is not the only religion in the pluralist, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic America of today. The public school is not the place to propagate it.
---------------------------
2)RIGHT TO INFORMATION
======================
Under British colonial rule, when the people of India had limited civil rights, very little information flowed from the government to the people. The people were naturally afraid to ask the government for information, except when absolutely necessary for conforming to the law of the land. Government departments and officials kept themselves at a distance from the people, dishing out limited information and viewing with suspicion or disdain at any needless request for information.

With the coming of Independence, things changed. It became a people’s government. But not really. It is not easy to change a mind set. Government departments were slow to close the gap with the people. The people were to slow to approach the officials for information, either because of diffidence or lack of awareness. Often, information was not even available in readily retrievable form.

All this has changed or will be changed with an epoch-making legislation enacted and implemented last year. This is the Right to Information Act, 2005. Now the citizens of India have the right to seek and obtain any information from any government department and the department concerned has to provide the information within a maximum time limit of 30 days. There are, of course, some conditions and exemptions primarily to safeguard the sovereignty and security of the country.

Be that as it may, the people of India have always exercised and enjoyed the right to information, from each other. You take the train from Chennai to Mumbai on the Chennai-Mumbai Express. Within the first half-hour your neighbor, your fellow passenger has asked your name and guessed your age. He or she has found out whether you are a resident of Chennai going to Mumbai or a resident of Mumbai returning after a visit to Chennai. In either case, the purpose and duration of the visit has been duly explored. He has collected information on your marital status and family size and occupation, past or present. By lunch time he as asked you about your food habits, religion and caste. By evening he has also proffered some genuine advice to you on a variety of matters. This is not entirely a one-way transaction. If you are inclined or interested he may be willing to enlighten you on some of the points as pertains to himself. But he remains the winner.

You may think that the above exercise is undertaken to relieve the tedium of a long rail journey. No, not necessarily. You move residence or relocate to a new city or even to a new neighborhood in the same town. That afternoon, the next door lady drops in ostensibly to offer you a cup of tea and any help you mat want before you settle down in the new house. You are caught. In the next half-hour, she has collected your entire bio-data.

Even children exercise this right to information. Particularly girls, rather than boys. When we relocated from Calcutta to Madras, my daughter was intrigued by this experience. She had to answer questions from her class mates on her caste. Are you a Brahmin? Other questions related to housing and transportation. Do you live in own house or rented house? Own house raises your economic status in the school. Is it your car own car or company car? A company car apparently gives you a higher official status.

I used to tell my daughter that they don’t mean to be intrusive. It all comes from genuine interest and concern. I would tell her about my rail travel experiences. Those questions from the fellow traveler come from a genuine interest and concern which are part of our humane culture. Not like the proverbial Englishman who takes his seat in the tube and hides his face under the newspaper, showing little concern to the rest of the world. Not like the American, who greets you with a ‘Good Morning’ on your morning walk, but turns his back on you, when you take (or mistake) the cue and try some polite conversation. We are different.

In India, the Right to Information Act has been enacted to enable the people to obtain information from the government. In America, however, the right to information is amply exercised in the reverse manner, ie by the government and by public agencies. Questions abound: What is your first name, what is your last name? What is your date of birth? What is your telephone number? Daytime or evening phone? In some cases, what is your social security number, what is your father’s first name, what is your mother’s first name and maiden name? And all this even before your have asked your question!

You may think that the Indian who comes to this country, would undergo some change in his chemistry on account of the western exposure.. You will be disappointed if you entertain any such notion. I often take a walk in a park in the morning. I come across different people on different days, all strangers. As Indians we readily recognize each other and often stop by for a few seconds. But within the short time, I would have had the unique pleasure of answering or evading a variety of questions. The questions are usually predictable. Where do you live? How long have you been here? Are you a visitor? When are you going back? If you are not a visitor, other questions follow. Do you have a green card? How long have you had the green card? Do you stay permanently here or you come and go? From which part of India do you come? Are you retired? What were you doing in India? Where were you working? Are you staying with your son or daughter? (If you say daughter, he may even comment, that’s better). What is your son doing? Which company? (Not that he knows many companies here) If you stay with your daughter, does your daughter work? And what about your son-in-law? Where do you stay? Apartment or house? How many bedrooms? If you have reached this point, the questions will now turn to your health care? What about your medical insurance? Do you have Medi-Cal? Or Medi-care? And which is better? Are you thinking of staying permanently here? Do you like it here? How do you pass your time?


If you have answered all the questions satisfactorily, wait for your next encounter. Until then, bye bye. See you tomorrow.
(Writer is a learned thinker and a Former Executive of Burmah Shell,Multinational Company, India.)
---------------------------------------