Flossing That Causes Infective Endocarditis

is out the latest issue of the journal MicroMega and, as happens once a year, is devoted to scientific subjects. The magazine writes the illustrious names of Italian and international scientists and, as usual, the editorials are intended to demonstrate the falsity and absurdity of the idea of \u200b\u200bcreationism, that too now pervades academia and education, not only in Italy. Indeed, the creationist idea is so absurd and crazy, from the standpoint of scientific and theological, not even deserve to be mentioned more. So why waste each year enlightened scientists rivers of ink to remove a building which alone can not stand? Why those who dispute Darwinism has to be considered an outright creationist and not, for example, a supporter of the theory of punctuated equilibrium? Why in fact continue to equate Evolutionism and Creationism, as creationists want? My personal answer is that talking about God increases sales!




The Creationism is an idea born in Europe, in opposition to Darwinism . Emigrated from here in America, where religious areas (especially Christians and Jews ) controlled a large slice of public opinion, and if the popularity of contending with strokes, a bit 'as a TV show. The power of these groups is still so strong that the idea is back in vogue. In comparison, the interference of "our" Vatican is almost laugh!
The reasons for conflict are that it excludes from the Evolution History of Man need for God, while the Darwinian revolution has brought to the center of the study natural science and secular setting. While the religious gooders saw nature as a gift from God, on the other hand, there was in fact the existence of a nature that supports the creation of many more puppies than they could and did survive the death differential his instrument. This thought went to feed two important currents that arise and develop on horseback between the nineteenth and twentieth century: the Dialectical Materialism (which was support to publicize the class struggle) and Racism (supported by the so-called social Darwinism). So now the scientific debate has been confused with something else, an excuse for making a choice of field. It is clear, however, that Darwin only interested in a new and likely explain the functioning of life, looking at the Biosphere in a now secular. The scope of discovery is comparable to that of Kepler, Newton, Galileo and Einstein: So anyone today claiming to be a scientist (even believers) can not deny evolution.
Who says scientist creationist, claiming to prove the existence of a generative force transcendent origin of the Universe, an oxymoron makes a scientific and theological offense. In answer to these well-educated people and respected scientists of the caliber of R. Dawkins and P. Odifreddi have easily proved the nonexistence of God, with much more convincing evidence of those who would prove the nonexistence of evolution! Those involved (like myself) of Science and Science Education would also be happy with that. Yet already
Gaber had understood: "Someone was a communist because he was an atheist so he needed another God." In fact, once demonstrated the absurdity of creationism, the danger of religion (Christianity above all) and the nonexistence of God, you start to affect the sentiment of the same faith as you would desecrate God's body after killing him; but God, if there does not die, if there can not be killed! Perhaps it is an attempt to recover a lost that divine spark, but the Science, by its nature, it may not have nor want. It lives of doubt and experimentation, while living in the religion of dogma and of contemplation, the two irreconcilable Pillars of Time!
dedicate to the conclusion of the second article MicroMega October (EC Scott), who threatens to remove a wrong word all the effort of those who promote really, with the Research and Education, the idea of \u200b\u200bEvolution: Creationism is not a theory. Who gave him this name equates evolution, ignoring that is simply not true.

Pain Disorder Of Sale Lady

The answer is blowin 'in the web

But yes, if it is to do some 'publicity to a few friends is always a pleasure ... if then these friends will share the goals, then the question becomes more interesting. Here then is the first network to offer entirely free of free journalism. It's called OpenJournalist and allows to anyone who signs up to improvise a journalist. Like a game? No! As a newspaper.

The idea of \u200b\u200bthe network is not open a gym for aspiring journalists, but to allow anyone with good ideas and communication skills to publish articles. course, with these assumptions is not always easy to be able to offer a quality journalistic product, nor is it intended to convey the message that of vox populi vox . But the vagueness is sometimes the price to pay for freedom of expression.

The network offers very strong possibility, but like all great tools be handled with care, especially with an open mind and always on. We believe that portals like this (as well as Agoravox ) provide an important service to the community, since they allow those who feel active citizen to exercise their right thinking.

as the motto of OpenJournalist:

The informed citizen can decide
uninformed citizens believe to decide.
uninformed and the best way to give orders

Happy reading!

Cheap Wedding Programs

choice for Paul and Miriam

These days I am close to my two young friends who have had a disagreement. Carry two names entirely fictitious, of course, because what interests me is not to focus on the story itself, rather the way to deal with it.
Miriam was the idea of \u200b\u200binvolving his friend Paul in a small project. The proposal, Paul found himself crowded out and contact me for advice. The first thing I thought, and I said, is that in fact the couple were stocked in a strange way, because the two, despite knowing for years, have always had difficulty communicating with each other. However, I felt that there was nothing that a little 'patience and commitment (and perhaps a little' help) could not be resolved. My point of view-from "outside" - was that the proposal seemed interesting, although difficult to achieve. So I recommend Paul to think first of whether the project's interest, then to deal with on this basis, the problems with Miriam.


few days later I hear also Miriam. She explains the story from their point of view and tells me that it does nothing. At this point, wondering what had gone before to be addressing Paul, then to give up so fast: the answer that gives me start to meditate.
Miriam - I thought of Paul, because I thought we compensate, but now that I have not responded so I mean to continue the project with him.
Paul - In the end I said no, because I had proposed in a manner not satisfactory, then gave me answers that made me give up.

at first seem reasonable answers, weighted according to the difficulties of communication. However, the tone was bitter, the sting ... almost offended! As if the responsibility for the failure resided exclusively in the attitude of the other, and the reasons were not anything personal. From the outside you could take a few nuances: on the one hand Miriam has been conducting a purely theoretical point of view (similar to mine, except that she was "internal"), on the other Paul responded, without giving the ' impression to choose for themselves.
So, I asked Miriam if her motivation was sufficient to overcome the difficulties with-prevedibilissime-Paul, Paul and Miriam whether the proposed interest to him, apart from the difficulties of communication. In any case, I received a reply: Believe it or not, in the end I could not tell if the project that would involve really wanted to follow them. Although almost economically " weighed the difficulties, in fact, none of them had really made a budget with itself and with its arguments. Probably, there was an epilogue that was the only possible, but I wonder: what has driven the decision?

years of ideologies and utopias, which gave guidance were the great dreams of the masses. When ideologies have collapsed and left surviving any plans to guide personal choices. The basis for judging a project, however, is different from that for an ideal: the project is expected to be real and credible. Since the project is linked to its proponents, the focus has slowly shifted from the idea to people. As I heard at a recent seminar on communication in the Catholic Church, in fact, the values \u200b\u200bof sincerity and fidelity to oneself driving choices by only fifteen years, while first loyalty to an ideal stepping over that.
It is perceived, then, during the '90s, a shift ineffable utopia, the real person, mail suddenly at center stage. Someone started talking about domination of relativism and tried to fix it, patching old ideals without worrying if indeed correspond to popular sentiment, without grasping, then, nor teach the importance of the individual as the center of gravity and making the twenty-first century. This lack of "education for individuality", has brought deep loss, to the point that you do not even have the basics to make small choices: the reaction of others becomes the only lifeline concrete, tangible. As has happened to Paul and Miriam.
is the definitive dismantling of the individual. Being understood as a self (I do not care so much because of what I want is impossible or too tiring), is intended as another (which only becomes my mirror or my alibi).
The economic crisis of this era, reflects the social distress which he poured in: a little money do not prevent people to survive (at least in the West), but greatly reduce the basis for investing in the future. A sociological level, the sentiment is similar: first to continue a project, regardless of desires and aspirations, assessing whether there is support from the outside, then proceed accordingly, but without choosing. The problem is that now feels strong lack of courageous decisions.