A better ending for the movie - The 3 Idiots should be:
Having lost contact with Wangdu (taking Rancho's identity to study), who disappeared during the graduation party and went into seclusion, Raju and Farhan (Wangdu's best friend in Engineering College) begin a journey to find him as Rancho. When they find Rancho's house in Shimla, they find a completely different Rancho. From him they come to know that their friend was in fact only a destitute servant boy "Chhote" who loved learning, while he, the real Rancho, disliked study. The real Rancho's old man agreed to let the servant boy study in Rancho's place instead of laboring. In return, the real Rancho would pocket the qualifications and after graduating, the servant boy has to cease all contact with the school in order not to reveal this secret, especially to people related to Imperial College of Engineering. Although Wangdu understand this is a very selfish wish of the old man, the old man is still the one who brought him up and he has to keep this secret to repay the old man.
The real Rancho reveals that Chhote (that is Wangdu) is now a school-teacher in Ladakh. Raju and Farhan decide to tell Wangdu's lover in college - Pia. And Pia is just going to marry a guy she does not really love. For 10 years, Pia has not been able to contact with Wangdu. Wangdu is just like vanished in her universe. Now she suddenly gets his news from Raju and Farthan. She have been waiting for Wangdu and delaying her marriage for long last. As a brave girl, she decides to join Raju and Farthan to meet Wangdu. She is in great pain and doubts during the journey because Wangdu never approaches her since 10 years. If he ever loves her, why he disappeared like a meteor in the summer night.
Certainly, Pia never imagines the pain in Wangdu's heart is no less than hers. After he left Imperial College of Engineering, Wangdu had to fulfill his commitment to the real Rancho's old man that he must not reveal the secret. Throughout 10 years, in all those sleepless nights, he missed Pia, he wanted Pia. Especially when nights are long and friends are few, he sat by his window and thought of her. A silent whisper, a silent tear, with all his heart he wished she were there. And he prepares his love for her will be brought with him to the grave one day. In one of the rooms, he puts all her photos on the walls and all the details of how they met and fell in love.
And Wangdu never forgets his friends. He kept every copy of Farhan's wildlife photo collections. He constantly reads Raju's blog only that he is bounded by his promise not to contact them. Wangdu is like an elephant and never forgets. He still cares for his friends. And for certain, he never forgets Pia, his first love.
When Pia enters the room and finds the photos on the walls for all the years, she is completely stunned. With mixed feelings of love, regrets and anger, she runs out of the room and asks Wangdu's assistant, Millimeter to lead her to Wangdu. Finally, the lovers meet again and when Wangdu knows that the old man died and all the promises could now be released. The two lovers finally kiss for the first time.
A simple and direct reason is: Beliefs, no matter they are with right or wrong result, usually hinder constructive changes that are based on facts.
Beliefs lead to ideology without factual support will bring unnecessary suffering and disaster to other living organism in the planet. In past history of mankind, beliefs were mostly religions as Catholics, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist. Beliefs in modern term also should include all kind of ideology not based on facts. One example is communism, they believed human nature would be contented to contribute their best and only take back what they need. So a communist society neglects the brutal, selfish and animal aspect of human beings. The tragedies of communism execution in Russia, China, North Korea, etc prove this ideology is very much deviated from facts beyond any doubt.
The other example is Environmentalists. They conceive that climate becomes warmer (still a controversy in science) only because of human activities. And they are always promoting the idea that Polar bears go to human community to find food is because global warming and the bears do not have enough snow and ice to live on. They choose to ignore the fact that population of Polar bears increase 2 to 3 times after the 50s because illegal hunting was banned since then. They see more Polar Bears wondering around is not the result that the bears is starving owing to not able to find food on land without ice covering (this thinking is already quite strange, without ice on the ground, should be much easier to find food for all kind of animals even the Polar Bears). This is the result of over populated Polar Bears, so many of them need to find food away from their original habitation. Again, Environmentalists perform what they do best, confusing correlation to causation.
For certain, those who embracing beliefs tightly are Creationists. Creationists are always asking this question, you have your belief and they have their belief, why some Scientists are so against religion. The danger of beliefs is that people with beliefs ignore facts and rational thinking. This attitude perhaps is good for human in ancient time. It helps to make decision fast no matter it is right or not. We know that in some life or death situation, fast decision (maybe it is proven wrong later) still get a better chance of survival (when not counting about the quality of survival). Our genes would not care if we lost both of our legs and arms, as long as we are still able to reproduce and can have descendants, then the survival mechanism (even it causes great pain and suffering) is still a better strategy for survival neglecting the quality of well-being.
The experience of inhabitants in Easter Island could show how the beliefs of dead ancestors lead to cannibalism:
In daily life, we may still utilize belief to facilitate our decision process and to make lives easier. But we need to be very cautious not to mix beliefs with facts. Take for an example, we can always choose not to bring one of our friends to picnic because we "believe" every time we bring him along, it rains. However, we have to distinguish that the phenomenon is just co-incident and is nothing to do with causation. With this kind of understanding, we can still live happily although we know in our heart that this belief is just a "joke" to make us feel comfortable. But if this belief is not controlled well, it may lead to sufferings too. Say, when one day a drought in our area happens, this belief may encourage believers to pull this friend out to attract rain no matter he is willing to go out or not. If by then, he is not able to bring along any rain, we may even angry with him and think he is not co-operating and terrible things on him may follow ......
After all, there needs not an explanation to everything we don't understand yet. Could we, human just humbly say that "We don't know the answer yet"? rather than making up a supernatural creature who has, and is all the answers. Admitting we don't know should be much better than giving an irresponsible wrong answer from beliefs that are rooted from a primitive evolution misfire in our human mind.
There is always a confusion among Creationists regarding science. They take science as a belief or another opinion. They equalize science as what they believe that human is created by God without factual support. But in fact, science never could be a relief because science is only methods of thinking and perhaps more precisely, methods or tools to find out the fact.
A simple analogy for this is like that: when 2 person X and Y see a swallow flying in the direction towards their house in middle of a field with a forest nearby. X loves swallow very much and "feels" (or subjectively hoping) that the swallow should like their house because their house was so nicely built, the smell is good, the color is soft (nothing really related to what is attractive to the swallow). So X believes that the swallow must be flying into his house as it is flying to that direction and is going to make a nest inside their house.
Y may also share the same feeling of X, but he knows that feeling is one thing, and fact is another. So he makes a ladder and using it to search around the house inch by inch, including the roof and every corner. But finally, he finds nothing related to swallow nest. Y declares that that is no swallow nest in their house while X still strongly believes that the swallow nest is somewhere inside the house that Y was not able to find it. And then both person see that the swallow is just flying past their house to the forest.
The ladder in this story is science. It is the tools for Y to find out the fact and not relying on beliefs. X can still have strong belief that Y did not find the swallow nest because he is not searching the house thoroughly or just neglecting to accept the fact.
Communism could be a belief because it has assumptions that human are born equal while some are more equal. And communists also believe that human nature could be unselfish and like to share everything if they are taught correctly. But we all know that now, this belief is completely against the fact of human nature from the evolution of selfish genes.
Environmentalist could also be a belief because they do not know how to distinguish correlation from causation to climates. They just simply believe human is the major causes for all the changes of climate without adequate evidences.
Nonetheless science could not be a belief. Because it is only a tool or a way to find out the fact. The tool could be improved when knowledge increase. According to the Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased (from feelings, from preference, from beliefs without root) interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established. Not just saying that this is God's mysteries that we, as a human are not able to understand.
Many creationists do not accept a generally adopted way in science to find out fact by logical induction and deduction. Just like this one: a beautiful but bigoted and snobbish woman - Wendy Wright. What a shameful waste!
When Wendy Wright was asking for the evidence of evolution, Dr. Richard Dawkins asked her to visit museums and to read more text book about the evolution evidences. She thought she had read enough and accursed Darwinist disguising their mistakes about the missing piece of the evolution theory. And she kept saying that there should be a lot of evidences in the fossils to show intermediate species before evolving to human. The fact is, there are really a lot of evidences about evolution out there, but her incomplete information from Christian organizations still remains in the 30s or 40s.
In addition, the level of evidences she required is far beyond a normal straight and reasonable person's thinking. It seems that she will be satisfied only if she could watch a monkey evolving in front of her eyes to become a human or else all the evidences by logical deduction will be counted as inadequate or insignificant. With this kind of evidence requirement, I think even no one could prove to her, the earth is in fact a globe but not flat. Because no one could ever show her in front of her eyes that the earth is round instead of flat. She will always feel that that the ground is flat as all of us do. And the earth is too large for her or as a human to perceive the earth is really round when we walk on the ground, sit on the ground, build things on the ground. But the evidences we have, are by experimental traveling from one place to another place pointing to the same direction and we go back to the original point. We may not practice this by ourselves, but we have to admit that it is a fact when many people tried it and got the same result. And also with this knowledge (not belief) of fact about the shape of earth, human developed many useful tools to improve our lives, such as flying crafts, ships, maps, satellites etc.
This is similar to evolution, human (including Wendy Wright) "feelings" also are never able to perceive events occurred over million of years step by step with small mutations unless through logical reasoning and scientific tools. When we find many fossils of species that bridging the gaps of fishes evolving to amphibian, we will be quite certain by induction that there will be gaps of species evolving to human to be found someday, somehow.
Moreover, one of Wendy's major fault about DNA is that: she thought because individual human's DNA is different to each other, that there must be a designer or creator to make this difference. Or else without a creator, all human should be the same. This argument was utilized by her repeatedly and seems she thought she is smart about this. But this argument is just a fallacy of thinking.
Firstly, if simply judging and concluding that because individual human is "unique" to each other then there must be a creator, this is certainly a logical mistake. This is as laughable as seeing a creature with 2 feet walking on the ground, and concluded that the creature must be a human. Everyone with sensible mind will know that, creature walking with 2 feet could be a chicken, a penguin, or many other kind of animals. So this deduction is at most a kind of belief or subjective wishes without any relation to the fact.
Secondly, she only noticed the minor difference of human's DNA and forgot the 99.9% of human DNA are the same. If the uniqueness of each individual human shows that there must be a creator, then how about the 99.9% similarities of human? Is that shows 99 times more that there should not be a creator because they are identical. However, for those who respect science, we know that this is that minute difference of DNA (in Darwinian's term, this is the mutation) will make evolution possible. Because if a specie is so stable, that all the members' DNA is 100% the same, this specie will not get a chance to survive in longer term. The environment of Earth is everlasting changing, without deviation of DNA, natural selection will remain only 1 outcome - the specie will be extincted sooner or later. Say, this super stable specie survives so successfully in a period of time, that they grow to huge population (growing in population is also an environmental change) with brutal competition on exactly same resources (because they are 100% the same) and hence no one could survive. The other scenario is that, as if this super stable specie faces a small change of environment, they will not stand a chance to survive because they are 100% the same. One of them not able to survive this environmental change, no other will be able to.
Moreover, Wendy Wright on one hand accused some people disguising the evidences against Darwinism which was mostly happened in the 20s or 30s, on the other hand, she also did not told the whole truth about the incident that she was sentenced to jail because of "just praying" outside an Abortion Clinic.
After all, ways of searching facts are never able to become a belief as a belief of a supernatural creator.
