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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment