Hmmm... so this is blogging. I'm still to see the interest in it. The reason I'm finally getting to this, is because of a faint chance of getting a gmail account ( and the possiblity of my friend stopping his bragging about his gMail (( it should be called GBMail, really, shouldnt it?!!)) ((I wonder whether paranthese within parantheses are allowed?)) ) (Must check whether I have closed all parantheses, whats the data structure for that?..) ...ok there I go, Mumbling! I always do that when I talk so I guess its a natural progression towards blogging as well. So Im not going to edit it out. These are fresh off my fingertips. OK. Now to my thoughts. I always wanted to write about Science and Religion. I always believe the two should never be mixed. Why, says a divine voice from above? Its very simple really. Science is based on observation. Human observation. Religion is based not on observation, but on things which are beyond observation. Science is about trying to explain why the sun circles around the sky. The natural tendency would be to "theorise" that the sun travels around us. Of course it takes a few centuries for someone to ask the question, what if WE are turning and not the sun. Ayyy!! Theres the rub! But in those days of "sun circulation" people would have sworn on their dear life that the sun DID circle the earth. A kind of myopic "We know all" syndrome. But science contradicts religion, doesnt it? Yes it does. So what? Science has been changing so much in the last few centuries, that who knows what we will find out about our universe tomorrow? And will we believe it? If the nasa calls a press conference and states that the universe that we know of is just a computer program and we are just "sims" in it, will you believe it? (SimCity good games, along with Sims SimLife, SimTheme park) Remember the "sun goes around us" thinkers that I mentioned about earlier? They FELT the same way! Do I believe in Darwins Theory of Evolution. I dont "believe" in it, but I do accept it as a scientific theory. He saw something and put two and two together which others could not. It will, I guess, take a while for someone to think differently than him. But as things stand now, his theory seems justifiable. But there are great many, non-religious people, who question his theories. But I, as a humble layman, accept his theory as a justifiable rationalisation or explanation of what he "observed". Fair enough.
BUT DO YOU KNOW WHAT REALLY DRIVES ME CRAZY! The zealots who carry the holy book and then compare the latest theories and say "We told you so". How myopic are they? It is almost blasphemous to compare a divine declaration with a humanistic, error prone theories (whats the word for "error prone"? Im sure theres one but for the life of me cant find it. Anyway, thats how I feel. Now, have I done enough to get a gmail I wonder?
