Salt * Wet * Fish

I guess that when Charles Darwin was urged to publish his theory on the origins of the species, he must have feared the threat of death as much as he wanted his views to be known. Things have not changed much even in this age of reasoning and with reasonable people.

The perfect eye, for example, they argued cannot be caused by natural selection and evolution of nature, but only by the hands of dog god. Even for a reasonable person of this age this sound like convincing proof, enough evidence for them to stop investigating further. However the thinking person would find that the eye is actually flawed (evidenced through the rigours of science), which in fact suggest that the eye evolved via natural selection and is still evolving.

For every so-called perfect structure that they point as a proof of his existence, science and good reasoning have dispelled their myths. And for every evidence produced to show the signs of godlessness, they would probably go back and back until a place where science and hence reasoning could not touch, yet.

At the end of the day, they are probably left with only the big bang theory as the proof of god, because science could not yet reach before the big bang or even near it. Nobody could proof godliness nor godlessness. But, of course, they would conveniently say that they are right simply because you cannot proof otherwise.

One should not think that such unreasoning exists only in the olden days when people knew little about the nature. In fact, such views still exists and can be prominently noticed even in scienctist, academics and amongst your friends and closed ones.

Take the theory of the evolution of man for example. There are many evidence and facts that have been uncovered to support that theory. Yet there was not a shred of evidence about god-created humans. The voice of unreasoning would instead favor a few paragraphs in a text to the rigours of sciencific research. After all they would say, there is not direct evidence that evolution of men exists. How convenient an excuse not to think!

But we must understand that even though we cannot find any direct evidence, we always infer from evidence. For example, if I just killed someone but nobody saw me do it. However, my fingerprints where found on the scene and the victim’s blood was found splattered on my dressing. Plus some neighbours saw me enter the house, heard loud noises and then I came out and the next moment the guy is died. Also the neighbours saw me discarding the murder weapons right outside the victim’s house.

Would it not be reasonable to suspect that I am the kiiler, based on these evidence? However, the voice of unreasoning would be conclude that since nobody actually saw me kill the victim then I cannot be the killer. In fact, they would insists that it was Elvis Presley who kiledl him because their grandpa said so and he is always right.

Look around you and see if you can spot this common phenomenon?

The voice of unreasoning