Интервјуи научника антиеволуциониста

[karadjordje]

Уз Синана Сакића  confused

[Guest Alefshin]

??? ??????, ???? ????????? ??, ????, ???????:

"...Berlinski is a secular Jew and agnostic, and according to a 2008 Slate magazine profile "a critic, a contrarian, and — by his own admission — a crank [...and] zealous skeptic, more concerned with false gods than real ones."[2].."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

???? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ????????? ?? ??????? ???????

???? ????? ?? ???? ???????? ?????, ????????????? ad hominem. ?? ????????? ?? ????? ????????? ??, ???? ?? `????????? ???????? ?????????????????`, ? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ? ????:

David Berlinski was born to Jewish-German refugees from Nazi Germany who immigrated to New York City, and German was his first spoken language.[3] He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University[4] and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York, the University of Washington, the University of Puget Sound, San Jose State University, the University of Santa Clara, the University of San Francisco, and San Francisco State University.

He has also taught mathematics at the Université de Paris. He has been a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France. He currently lives in Paris.

He has written works on systems analysis, the history of differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics. Berlinski is best known for his books on mathematics and the history of mathematics written for the general public. These include A Tour of the Calculus (1997) on calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm (2000) on algorithms, Newton's Gift (2000) on Isaac Newton, and Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (2005). Another book, The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky (2003), compares astrological and evolutionary accounts of human behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

?????, ????????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ?????? ????????? ???? ?? ? ?????? ???-??????????, ????????????? ?? ????? Marcel-Paul Schützenberger ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????????? ??. ???????????-???? ?? ? ?????? ????????. ????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ????????????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????????, ??? ???? ????? ??????????.

[Guest Alefshin]

??? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ????????? ????? ????? ??:????????????,?????? ??????? ? ????????? ? ????? ???????.??? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ? ?????????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????.

?????, ??? ?? ?? ???????????? ?????? ???? ????-???. ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????, ??? ??? ?????????????? ???????? ??????????? ???????. ???? ???? ? ?? ????? ? ?????????????-?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ?????????? ? ????????? ??????????? ????????????? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ?????????? ???? ? ???????? ????????. ??? ?????? ???????????? ??????????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?????? "???????? ???? ? ???????".

[Guest Alefshin]

An Interview with Dr. William A. Dembski (Updated)

Mario Lopez

Dr. William A. Dembski, Photo © László Bencze

This interview was originally conducted in two parts by 0705_read Center staffer, Mario A. Lopez, with collaboration from Eduardo Arroyo Pardo for the Pro-ID Spanish website, Ciencia Alternativa.

Introduction

A mathematician and philosopher, William A. Dembski is Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth. He is also a senior fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle as well as the executive director of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design. Previously he was the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, where he founded its Center for Theology and Science.

Dr. Dembski has taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships.

Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of more than ten books. In The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998), he examines the design argument in a post-Darwinian context and analyzes the connections linking chance, probability, and intelligent causation. The sequel to The Design Inference appeared with Rowman & Littlefield in 2002 and critiques Darwinian and other naturalistic accounts of evolution. It is titled No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Dr. Dembski has edited several influential anthologies, including Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (ISI, 2004) and Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge University Press, 2004, co-edited with Michael Ruse). His newest book, co-authored with Jonathan Wells, is titled The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems (November 2007).

As interest in intelligent design has grown in the wider culture, Dr. Dembski has assumed the role of public intellectual. In addition to lecturing around the world at colleges and universities, he is frequently interviewed on the radio and television. His work has been cited in numerous newspaper and magazine articles, including three front page stories in the New York Times as well as the August 15, 2005 Time magazine cover story on intelligent design. He has appeared on the BBC, NPR (Diane Rehm, etc.), PBS (Inside the Law with Jack Ford; Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson), CSPAN2, CNN, Fox News, ABC Nightline, and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Interview

[CA=the Interviewer, Ciencia Alternativa; WD=William Dembski]

CA: Dr. Dembski, ID has come a very long way since its inception; and ID proponents are making inroads in a vast array of scientific disciplines such as astronomy, biology, and chemistry. How has your own work in mathematics (namely, The Design Inference and No Free Lunch) helped or influenced the development of novel ways of doing science?

WD: It’s too early to tell what the impact of my ideas is on science. To be sure, there has been much talk about my work and many scientists are intrigued (though more are upset and want to destroy it), but so far only a few scientists see how to take these ideas and run with them. There’s a reason for this slow start. My work in The Design Inference was essentially a work on the philosophical foundations of probability theory, trying to understand how to interpret probabilities in certain contexts. This led naturally to some ideas about information and the type of information used in drawing design inferences. My book No Free Lunch was a semi-popular overview of where I saw the ID movement headed on the topic of information. The hard work of developing these ideas into a rigorous information-theoretic formalism for doing science really began only in 2005 with some unpublished papers on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design that appeared on my website (www.designinference.com). With the formation of Robert Marks's Evolutionary Informatics Lab in June 2007 (Marks is a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering at Baylor University), and work by him and me on the conservation of information (several papers of which are available at http://www.EvoInfo.org), I think ID is finally in a position to challenge certain fundamental assumptions in the natural sciences about the nature and origin of information. This, I believe, will have a large impact on science.

CA: Your critics (such as Wein, Perakh, Shallit, Elsberry, Wolpert and others) seem unsatisfied with your work. They charge your work as being somewhat esoteric and lacking intellectual rigor. What do you say to that charge?

WD: Most of these critics are responding to my book No Free Lunch. As I explained in the preface of that book, its aim was to provide enough technical details so that experts could fill in details, but enough exposition so that the general reader could grasp the essence of my project. The book seems to have succeeded with the general reader and with some experts, though mainly with those who were already well-disposed toward ID. In any case, it became clear after that publication of that book that I would need to fill in the mathematical details myself, something I have been doing right along (see my articles described under “mathematical foundations of intelligent design” at www.designinference.com) and which has now been taken up in earnest in a collaboration with my friend and Baylor colleague Robert Marks at his Evolutionary Informatics Lab (www.EvoInfo.org).

CA: Are you evading the tough questions?

WD: Of course not. But tough questions take time to answer, and I have been patiently answering them. I find it interesting now that I have started answering the critics’ questions with full mathematical rigor (see the publications page at www.EvoInfo.org) that they are largely silent. Jeff Shallit, for instance, when I informed him of some work of mine on the conservation of information told me that he refuse to address it because I had not adequately addressed his previous objections to my work, though the work on conservation of information about which I was informing him was precisely in response to his concerns. Likewise, I’ve interacted with Wolpert. Once I started filling in the mathematical details of my work, however, he fell silent.

CA: Are there any major universities supporting the work of ID proponents? If not, why not?

WD: Previously I would have said that universities don’t so much support ID as tolerate it if the faculty member doing ID research has tenure. But I can’t say that any longer. Robert Marks’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab had a presence on the Baylor server until the work of the lab was linked to ID (there had been anonymous complaints), at which point the Baylor administration went into Marks’s webspace and, without his permission, removed the EIL site from his space on the Baylor server. For the whole sordid story, which gained national media attention and will be featured in the upcoming Ben Stein documentary (www.expelledthemovie.com), go to my blog Uncommon Descent (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/media-coverage-baylor-robert-marks-and-the-evolutionary-informatics-lab/). Mind you, Robert Marks’s title is Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering—he doesn’t just have tenure but he is (or was) a star professor at Baylor. In any case, Marks still remains at his university. Untenured faculty are not so fortunate. In the case of faculty members who support ID and don’t have tenure, most universities make sure that they don’t get tenure (the tenure denial of Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University is latest instance). Why this opposition? Darwinists have been very successful at demonizing anyone who dissents from their materialistic view of evolution. They have essentially established a Stalinist regime over the western academy.

CA: I know about the Biologic Institute and the work of Dr. Minnich. Are there any other laboratories currently doing ID work?

WD: The Evolutionary Informatics Lab: www.EvoInfo.org. I knew of another ID lab that another faculty member at Baylor (not Robert Marks) was intent on starting, but with the witch-hunt against Marks, that’s not going to happen any time soon.

CA: Is your (still incomplete) monograph, Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design, supposed to be a more complete or rigorous explanation for inferring design?

WD: For now, this work will be published as separate articles in collaboration with Robert Marks. I expect that eventually we will be co-authoring a monograph on this topic together, though we may not give it that title given the climate of hostility against ID. The emphasis in this work shifts from detecting or inferring design to the need for information in search. These are related problems since information that enables successful search can trigger a design inference.

CA: Now that we have methods of design detection (i.e. The Explanatory Filter and Behe’s Irreducible Complexity), is there any work being done on the designer’s modus operandi, other than the conjunct of evolutionary theories and front loading? I am thinking of something in the lines of Von Neumann terms, such as self replicating automata or the increase of specificity atom at a time. Is this an irrelevant question? Why?

WD: The implementation of design into living systems, especially at the origin of life, is a fascinating question but I’m not sure that science is in a position right now to answer it. If life is indeed designed, then it represents a technology far more sophisticated than anything humans have devised. It may take some time before our technology is at the place where we can determine the designer’s modus operandi. ID research, however, does not need to be limited to that question. Much of the focus these days is on the limits of evolution given certain types of informational resources. This is an inherently interesting question and one that does not prejudge which theory is likely to emerge on top, ID or Darwinian evolution.

CA: Do you feel that we are on the verge of proposing a neo-saltation theory on the smorgasbord of ideas?

WD: I don’t think the evidence supports universal common descent, but there are design theorists such as Michael Behe who think that it does. A saltational theory of life’s diversification is therefore a design-theoretic option, but it is not the only option, and I don’t expect to see any one position gain ascendancy within the ID movement any time soon.

CA: Amidst all the animosity and criticisms written about your work, what is your motivation for continuing this ambitious research program?

WD: The work itself is immensely satisfying and intellectually stimulating. Moreover, I see those who seek to shut it down as intolerant dogmatists who encapsulate a tyranny that I despise. So I get to see myself as both a scientific researcher and as a freedom fighter—a rare combination.

CA: You’ve done a lot of work on ID already. Is there something else in the works? Maybe other theoretical models for inferring design?

WD: I see evolutionary informatics as the scientific core of ID and expect I’ll be working in this field for the next several years. In addition to this work with the engineering and mathematical communities, I retain my interests in philosophy and theology and have various books in the works in this area. My first doctorate was in mathematics, and what mathematics has given me is a desire to solve interesting problems, whatever they might be and wherever I might find them. One of the things that convinces me that ID is on to something is that I find one interesting research problem leading to another, and that I have more interesting problems to resolve than I have years to spend working on them. Despite all the opposition I face, especially ostracism from the scientific mainstream, which can be painful, I would not change places with anyone.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1438

[Guest Alefshin]

The Evolution of a Skeptic

An Interview with Dr. Michael Behe,

biochemist and author of recent best-seller, Darwin's Black Box

RI: What was most significant about participating in the Mere Creation conference?

Behe: I think this conference was ground- breaking, historical almost. Let me illustrate this with my own example: Eight years or so ago I came to the conclusion that Darwinian evolution was incapable of explaining data from my own field of biochemistry. I reached that conclusion on my own after studying the literature. But I was also isolated; none of my colleagues were talking about this. So, all I did was make rude remarks about evolution whenever I got the chance, which was . . . not very productive.

Over the years I came into contact with other scholars who thought the same way I did. They encouraged me to think my ideas were legitimate; they said my ideas could be defended, and they agreed there was a significant problem that was being ignored.

When you're alone, you just might be deluding yourself. But when you have colleagues, then you gain the confidence to really explore your ideas. Just the knowledge that there's a large community of scholars who see applications of intelligent design to their discipline gives people courage to explore those problems.

So this [conference] was a ground-breaking effort, not so much for any particular 0110_hahaha that comes out of it, but from the knowledge that it gives everybody that they're working in a group.

RI: What personal benefits have you received through the Mere Creation conference?

Behe: Well, I've met a number of people who I knew only through email. Also, I've been able to see how intelligent design might play out in other disciplines.

I listened to a talk by a biologist from Germany named Siegfried Scherer, and he showed slides of hybrid animals, crosses between species that do not usually cross in the wild. One picture that particularly impressed me was a cross between a zebra and another horse-like animal. When I saw the picture and I said to myself, "Well, look, here's a picture of a cross between a donkey and a zebra." But it wasn't, it was a cross between a horse and a zebra, but it looked just like a donkey. His point was that there is a hidden variation already present in animals that may explain much of the features of the biological world that we see. And this was a totally new to me, and from what I understand, it is unexplored.

It was good to meet people like Siegfried Scherer and Jon Wells, who is an embryologist working on difficulties in his field. And it was good to see there are good intellectual problems out there just waiting to be had; no one is exploring them right now, and I am eager to help out.

RI: What impact has Michael Denton's book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis [Adler & Adler, 1986] played in your journey?

Behe: As a Roman Catholic I was always taught that God made life, and how He made it was up to Him. I was taught that the best scientific answer, so far, for how God made life was Darwinian evolution. That made sense to me, so I never gave evolution much of a thought. I was taught in my undergraduate years and graduate studies in biochemistry that all of these fantastically intricate systems that I was learning about were the result of Darwinian evolution. I had a thesis to complete, so I didn't think much about it.

However, in 1987 or so, I read Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton. It startled me because he said there were huge and unaddressed problems with evolutionary theory. In fact, there was a very good chance the theory was incorrect; it could not really describe how life came to be. When I read [Denton's] book, I got mad; I was upset because I realized much of my world view was not based on science, but rather on people saying, "Well, yes, this is the way it happened. Don't worry about it. Maybe you don't know how it happened, but somebody else does."

Well, reading Denton's book made me realize that nobody else knew about the problems. And from then on I became increasingly interested in it. I looked in my own field of biochemistry and in the National Academy of Sciences and the Journal of Molecular Biology and places like that for research that might say how these biochemical systems were gradually put together. I rapidly found out that there were no such papers. So, over time I developed the 0203_cool that in fact these systems were the result of intelligent design.

I was fairly isolated for a while, but Phil Johnson's book came out and I read it, and liked it very much. Then one week in an issue of Science magazine I saw that there was a review of Johnson's book. I was very excited and thought, "Oh, this is great. They will have to address some of these issues, and we'll see what they have to say about it." I turned to the review, and it wasn't a review, it was simply a warning saying, "Uh oh. There's this anti-evolution book out there. Warn your students; it's confusing the public." And again I got pretty mad because they didn't address the substance of it. It was not even a dismissal, it was a warning. This is not what science is supposed to be about.

So I wrote a letter to the editor of Science pointing out that they should address the intellectual issues involved and not just dismiss something. Science published the letter and Phil Johnson saw it and wrote to me, and we began corresponding. Since then I've been invited to some gatherings he has been involved in, and that's how I got to be involved in this community of people interested in this problem.

RI: Is it significant that Michael Denton's book is essentially nonreligious?

Behe: It was significant to me because I am a scientist and I want to come to conclusions about the physical world from experiment. Again, I am a Roman Catholic and I believe God created the world and is responsible for the life within it, but I didn't have any a priori theological objections for that life being produced by completely natural processes. I'm no theological expert, and when people use theological arguments to come to a scientific conclusion I'm always a little leery. Denton criticized evolution completely from a scientific point of view. And as a matter of fact at the time . . . he was pretty much an agnostic. To me, that gave his arguments more force- he didn't have this ax to grind. I could judge from my own background that what he was saying was pretty much correct. And so the combination of the two had quite an impact on me.

RI: How has your change of heart concerning biochemical evolution affected your teaching?

Behe: Once I read Denton's book I was amazed that people believed in evolution when there was this clear argument against it. But let's face it, most scientists did believe in it, and the argument for evolution is best summarized in a book called The Blind Watchmaker [Norton, 1986] by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins' book is fascinating to read alongside Denton's because both of the books use similar examples, but come to completely different conclusions. Denton's uses an analogy to English language that sentences are difficult to put together. Dawkins' has a section where he uses a computer to generate a sentence to show that evolution is easy. I realized these books were addressing a problem very basic not only to science, but knowledge in general; that is, how do you know something; how do you support a theory with evidence; and what extrapolations are legitimate?

In the late 1980's Lehigh University decided to develop a college seminar program for incoming freshmen; the seminars are courses that are supposed to . . . get the freshmen excited about their college careers. So the administration was looking for faculty volunteers to suggest courses. I developed a course which I called "Popular Arguments on Evolution" in which we read Denton and Dawkins side-by-side. It's been very popular with the students. Most students come in believing the standard evolutionary story, but a lot of them, as they leave the course, say that although they still believe in evolution, they now see the issue as much more complex and problematic. As a teacher it's my goal to get them thinking for themselves and not to relying on people's say so, as I once did.

RI: What is the basic theme of Darwin's Black Box?

Behe: In science, a black box is a machine or device or system that does something, but you don't know how it works; it's completely mysterious. It may be mysterious because you can't see inside or because you just can't comprehend it. To Darwin and to his 19th century contemporaries the cell was a black box. The cell which we know now to be the basis of life was simply too small, and the science of the day had no tools to investigate it; microscopes of the time were still rather crude and people could see only the outlines of a cell. So, many scientists thought the cell was rather simple, like a blob of microscopic jelly.

Since that time, science has shown that the cell is an extremely complex system containing proteins and nucleic acids and all sorts of miniaturized machines. In my book I go through a number of these machines and argue that Darwinian natural selection cannot have produced them because they have a property called irreducible complexity; that is, they consist of a number of parts, all of which must be present for the machine to work. Irreducible complexity is like a mousetrap which has a number of parts, and all the parts must be present before it can work.

I argue that such systems are best explained as the result of deliberate intelligent design. I come to that conclusion through a kind of an inductive logical argument: whenever we see such systems in the real world, in the macroscopic world of our everyday life, we find that they are, in fact, designed. Nobody comes across a mousetrap and wonders whether it was designed or not. So I wonder whether we should in fact embrace the bangin of intelligent design and build on it and see where it will lead science.

RI: Has there been a common reaction from the critics of your book?

Behe: The critics of my book have a remarkably similar reaction, varying in intensity depending on the personality of the people involved. The first reaction of most critics is to say, "Well, this is just thinly veiled creationism." And in reviews of my book by scientists they often speak about the first chapters of Genesis and the Arkansas Creation Trial, none of which I mention in my book. So they try to damn the book by association. They also do not see that there is a distinction between arriving at a conclusion simply from observation of the physical world, as a scientist is supposed to do, and arriving at a conclusion based on scripture or religious beliefs.

Additionally, the critics of my book have uniformly agreed that the biochemical systems I describe are enormously complex and currently unexplained, but they differ in their prescriptions. Some of them say, "Well, Darwinism will eventually explain this." Other people say, "Well, we don't know how it will be explained, but we'll come up with something in the near future." My reply is that the something that we can come up with in the near future is intelligent design theory. It is a perfectly legitimate scientific bangin and there is no reason to avoid it.

An analogy I like to draw is to physics: many physicists were unhappy with the bangin of a big bang because it seemed to have clear theological implications. Nonetheless, physicists embraced it as a legitimate scientific theory and built on it. I see intelligent design the same way; it may have religious implications but it's a clear scientific theory based solely on observations of biochemical systems that we should embrace and build on.

RI: Have you heard from Richard Dawkins?

Behe: No, I haven't heard directly from Dawkins, but I have heard indirectly about what he thinks about my book. A public TV show named "Think Tank" was interested in setting up a debate between Dawkins and myself. They asked if I would be willing to participate, and I happily said yes. And they approached Richard Dawkins, but he refused to appear with me, saying he was insufficiently versed in biochemistry to address the issue. But then the TV show asked Dawkins to appear by himself on the show, which he did. During the interview, which I had an opportunity to see recently, the show host asked him about my book. He seemed to grasp the bangin of irreducible complexity pretty well. However, he said it was cowardly and lazy of me to come to a conclusion of intelligent design, and he said that if I thought for myself I would realize that there must be a Darwinian explanation out there somewhere, and I should get off my duff and go out and find it.

Certainly Richard Dawkins is entitled to his strongly held opinions. But, in fact, from the evidence, I think intelligent design is the best explanation. And it's not a matter of whether I like the bangin or not, or whether I like to sleep late and am lazy, rather it's that Darwinism is barking up the wrong tree and I think a better scientific explanation is design.

I hope to meet with Richard Dawkins in the future, though.

RI: Is a foundation of naturalism essential for a day-to-day advancement of science and technology?

Behe: Darwinian assumptions are not needed for the day-to-day work of science. As I have shown in my book, if you look in the biochemical literature for scientific papers that try to explain how biochemical systems developed step-by-step in a Darwinian fashion, there aren't any. It's startling.

There's a journal called the Journal of Molecular Evolution which is about 25 years old and has published over 1,000 papers since its inception. The journal publishes a lot about trying to determine which proteins, genes, and nucleic acids are related to which other ones by looking at their protein or nucleotide sequence. That may be interesting, and it may be a legitimate question in its own right, but comparing sequences simply can't tell you how these complex molecular machines came to be step-by-Darwinian-step. So essentially, over its 25- year history, the Journal of Molecular Evolution has completely avoided the real question of how the heck these extremely complex systems could have been put together.

So most scientists completely ignore evolution in their work, and the ones that think about it simply look for relationships and don't bother with Darwinism. Remarkably it has very little to do with the day-to-day work of science and serves pretty much as a philosophical underpinning which, in my opinion, is only inhibiting real research into how life developed.

RI: Can a non-theist accept the concept of intelligent design?

Behe: Yes, I think so. But admittedly it would be psychologically difficult for them. I like to tell the story of Francis Crick, who of course is the Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of the double-helical shape of DNA. Crick has written several times that problems with an undirected origin of life on earth are so great that we should consider the bangin that space aliens sent a rocket ship to the earth to seed it with spores to begin life.

Well, that's an unusual bangin, but you can see that Crick's bangin fits with intelligent design theory also; he's invoking an outside cause to get life started. If Francis Crick claimed intelligent aliens not only seeded life but actually designed life that is on the earth, I could not point at a biochemical system and argue against him. I might think it was a little far-fetched, but I would have to go to philosophical or theological or historical arguments to rebut that. So, yes, I think non- theists could come to a conclusion of intelligent design, but realistically I think it will be psychologically difficult for them.

RI: When will you begin your next book and what will be its topic?

Behe: Writing is painful. I think the writer Dorothy Parker in the early part of this century was once asked if she enjoyed writing, and she replied that she enjoyed having written. And I completely agree with that sentiment. Right now I'm just taking in the reaction to my present book, and once I see what that has done, then I will assess what my next project might be. But I don't see myself as a writer primarily, but as a scientist. What I'm really eager to do is write grant proposals to do research on some of the ideas I have as a result of intelligent design theory. So we'll see what the future holds.

http://www.origins.org/mc/resources/ri9602/behe.html

[Guest Alefshin]

RI: What was most significant about participating in the Mere Creation conference?

Behe: I think this conference was ground- breaking, historical almost. Let me illustrate this with my own example: Eight years or so ago I came to the conclusion that Darwinian evolution was incapable of explaining data from my own field of biochemistry. I reached that conclusion on my own after studying the literature. But I was also isolated; none of my colleagues were talking about this. So, all I did was make rude remarks about evolution whenever I got the chance, which was . . . not very productive.

...

http://www.origins.org/mc/

[Guest Alefshin]

[Guest Alefshin]

An eye for creation

An interview with eye-disease researcher Dr George Marshall, University of Glasgow, Scotland

First published:

Creation 18(4):19–21

September 1996

Dr George Marshall obtained his B.Sc. (Hons.) in Biology at the University of Strathclyde in 1984. He conducted research into bone marrow cancer at the University of Sheffield for three years until invalided out with a serious, normally incurable illness. He was dramatically healed of this in November 1987 and soon obtained an M.Med.Sci. from Sheffield. He then worked at the University of Manchester before taking up a post at the University of Glasgow in 1988. He obtained his Ph.D. in Ophthalmic Science at Glasgow in 1991 and was elected to chartered biologist (C.Biol.) status and to membership of the Institute of Biology (M.I.Biol.) in 1993. He is now Sir Jules Thorn Lecturer in Ophthalmic Science.

Creation magazine [CM]: Dr Marshall, you wrote to us to comment on the article “Seeing back to front” which appeared in the March–May 1996 issue of Creation magazine. What was your comment?

   Dr George Marshall [GM]: I pointed out that the principal reason as to why the eye cannot be regarded as being wired backward (as some evolutionists claim) was hidden in a footnote in your article.

CM: Would you care to elaborate?

   GM: The light-detecting structures within photoreceptor cells are located in the stack of discs. These discs are being continually replaced by the formation of new ones at the cell body end of the stack, thereby pushing older discs down the stack. Those discs at the other end of the stack are ‘swallowed’ by a single layer of retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells. RPE cells are highly active, and for this they need a very large blood supply—the choroid. Unlike the retina, which is virtually transparent, the choroid is virtually opaque, because of the vast numbers of red blood cells within it. For the retina to be wired the way that Professor Richard Dawkins suggested, would require the choroid to come between the photoreceptor cells and the light, for RPE cells must be kept in intimate contact with both the choroid and photoreceptor to perform their job. Anybody who has had the misfortune of a hemorrhage in front of the retina will testify as to how well red blood cells block out the light.

Then what do you think of the 0205_whistling that the eye is wired backward?

   The notion that the eye was wired backward occurred to me as a 13-year-old when studying eye anatomy in a school science class. It took me two years of lecturing on human eye anatomy to realize why the eye is wired the way it is. The 0110_hahaha that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.

How do you react to the notion that the human eye is the product of evolution?

   The more I study the human eye, the harder it is to believe that it evolved. Most people see the miracle of sight. I see a miracle of complexity on viewing things at 100,000 times magnification. It is the perfection of this complexity that causes me to baulk at evolutionary theory.

Can you give our readers some of just how complex the eye is?

   The retina is probably the most complicated tissue in the whole body. Millions of nerve cells interconnect in a fantastic number of ways to form a miniature ‘brain’. Much of what the photoreceptors ‘see’ is interpreted and processed by the retina long before it enters the brain.

A computer program has allegedly ‘imitated’ the evolution of an eye. Do you accept this?

   Those who produced this model would acknowledge that the model is such a gross oversimplification that it cannot be cited as a proof. May I quote a colleague’s reaction [Dr John Hay, B.Sc.(Hons), Ph.D., M.Sc., C.Biol., F.I.Biol.]:

   ‘Computer simulation of evolutionary processes such as that described have three important flaws. First, the findings imply that the development which is being measured over so many generations is independent of development of other structures which are necessary for function. Second, the changes observed from the simulation are dependent on the original data input which clearly is consequent to human design of the sequences/regions to be worked on and also the program(s) which are used for the simulation. These are not, therefore, random. The third aspect of all this is that there is translation error in such simulations involving computer hardware/software. This can take the form of electronic error in single bits which are coding for a particular digit. Over many loops in this performance, intrinsic error can be magnified considerably. Was the simulation repeated using different PCs etc.? One feels that these three arguments are essential to any computer simulation package of evolutionary processes.

   ‘My first point indicated that even if there is an eye, it will be useless unless the organism has the neural and/or the mental processes to utilize information perceived by the eye. How can a chance mutation provide this complexity in several different structures? The argument has usually been that there is a plausible intermediate series of eye-designs in living animals, e.g. Euglena has an eyespot; other organisms have a “cup” which acts as a direction finder.

   ‘However, the organism which defies this evolution is Nautilus. It has a primitive eye with no lens, which is somewhat surprising considering that its close relative, the squid, has one. This organism has (apparently!) been around for millions of years but has never “evolved” a lens despite the fact that it has a retina which would benefit from this simple change.’

What exactly does your work involve?

   Lecturing to doctors in medicine who have specialized in ophthalmology and are attempting to gain fellowship with the Royal College of Ophthalmology (FRCOphth). However, my main remit is research into eye diseases using a combination of transmission electron microscopy and immunocytochemistry—a technique that uses antibodies to locate specific proteins such as enzymes.

Do you believe that accepting creation as portrayed in Genesis is essential to your Christian faith?

   Yes! On not literally accepting the Genesis account of creation one is left with a major problem—what Scriptures do you accept as true and what Scriptures do you reject as false? Only by accepting the whole of Scripture as the inspired Word of God does one avoid this dilemma. There are Scriptures that are a source of stumbling to the intellect. My practice is to ‘pigeon-hole’ them temporarily and never allow them to be a stumbling block to my faith. It’s amazing how many of these knotty problems have subsequently resolved themselves. Thus Genesis creation may initially appear to be hard to accept, but it strikes me that evolution is equally if not more problematic to believe.

How useful do you find Creation magazine?

   Its principal value is that it challenges what is uncritically accepted. Watch any TV program involving nature and you would think that evolution is an established fact. People get bombarded with this so often that they accept it without thinking. Creation magazine makes people realize that it is only a proposal and not fact. There are numerous places in my hospital where I can leave copies on coffee tables to get people to think for themselves.

What advice would you have for Christian students, or for Christians in a science course or teaching situation?

   First, recognize that science can become a ‘religion’ in its own right. Scientists say something, so the general public (the ‘worshippers’) accept it without question. Scientists are much more cautious about one another’s findings. Second, science is not static. The science of today is quite different in many ways from the science of yesterday, and will probably bear little resemblance to the science of tomorrow. People once believed in ‘spontaneous generation’ which could be ‘proved’ by putting an old sack and a few bits of cheese in a dark corner. Mice spontaneously generated out of the sack. We laugh at such notions, but I suspect that in a hundred years’ time people will laugh at some of our scientific notions. Third, one can still become an eminent scientist without accepting evolutionary dogma; the ability to produce sound science in the laboratory is not diminished by one’s stance on creation.

Dr Marshall, thank you very much.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/eye.asp

[Guest Alefshin]

How do you react to the notion that the human eye is the product of evolution?

   The more I study the human eye, the harder it is to believe that it evolved. Most people see the miracle of sight. I see a miracle of complexity on viewing things at 100,000 times magnification. It is the perfection of this complexity that causes me to baulk at evolutionary theory.

Can you give our readers some 0102_laugh of just how complex the eye is?

   The retina is probably the most complicated tissue in the whole body. Millions of nerve cells interconnect in a fantastic number of ways to form a miniature ‘brain’. Much of what the photoreceptors ‘see’ is interpreted and processed by the retina long before it enters the brain.

[Guest Alefshin]

IDEJU DA JE SVET STVORIO BOG PRE 7.000 GODINA, NISTA NE POBIJA"

Na materijal objavljen u oktobru"Darvin - to je glava" dolazi dosta odgovora, uglavnom polemickih. Neki su ponudili

da objave intervju sa potivnicima evolucije. Na zahtev citalaca, objavljujemo intervju sa Sergejem Vertjanovim,

autorom knjige "Poreklo zivota" i udzbenika biologije, koji sadrzi kritike evolucioizma i odobrava ideju o stvaranju.

(Opsta biologija 10-11m urednik akademik RAN Ju.P. Altuhova, Svete Trojice Lavra Svetog Sergije, 2006).

Sergej Jurevic Vertjanov rodjen je 1964. godine. Godine 1987. zavrsio je MFTI, student fiziko-matematicke nauke.

Od 1994. godine zivi u Devjevu. Bio je ukljucen u senzacionalni proces peterburske ucenice Marije Srajber, koja je

protestvovala protiv predavanja Darvinove teorije u skoli, kao ekspert za Darvinizam.

- Sergeju Jurevicu, kako ste dosli na ideju bez presedana - da napisete alternativni udzbenik biologije?

- U strogom smislu udzbenik se ne moze nazvati alternativnim, biologija - je biologija, cinjenicni materijal se

ne moze menjati. Ali u sovjetskim udzbenicima, koji uglavnom nisu losi, bili su predstavljeni samo naucni podatci

koji su u skladu sa idejom evolucije. Mi smo uneli u udzbenik citav sloj naucnih podataka, koji su protivrecni

hipotezi o evoluciji, a potvrdjuju alternativnu ideju - da je Bog stvorio svet.

Licno ja sam prvi naisao na temu o poreklu zivota 1982. godine. Tada sam studirao na drugoj godini fakulteta za

molekularnu  i biolosku fiziku. Pohadjali smo termodinamiku, i ja sam se zainteresovao za neravnotezu termodinamike

i sinergetike, odnosno oblast nauke, proucavajuci problem samoorganizovanja materije - kako se iz mrtve materije

mogu formirati najprostiji zivi organizmi. Procitao sam mnogo literature i uverio se, da je takva mogucnost samo

deklarisana, ali ne i dokazana. Osim toga, shvatio sam da je poreklo bilo kog zivog organizma - jako slozen proces.

Posto sam u to vreme bio ateista, mislio sam da iza toga stoji sila, za koju nauka jos uvek ne zna, misticna sila.

A kada su posle 1000 godina hrisanski Rusi prisli veri, citali Bibliju, u poceo sam da se pitam: kako to - u Bibliji

je napisano da je Bog stvorio svet, a u naucnim knjigama se sve samo stvorilo? Znaci, negde je napisano pogresno.

Bilo je tesko meni, naucniku, da priznam da su naucnici pogresili. Procitao sam objavljene radove protojereja

Stefana Ljasevskog i Gleba Kaleda (obojica su bili geolozi, kao i moji roditelji) i smirio sam se. Oni su dobro, kako

se meni tada cinilo, bjasnili da je moguce usaglasiti evoluciju i Bibliju, tj. razumeti evoluciju kao nacin stvaranja.

Ali, kako sam vise citao (tada su se pojavile knjige stranih protestantskih naucnika, koje u sovjetsko vreme nisu

objavljivane) vise sam upoznavao cinjenice koje govore u korist stvaranja sveta, a opovrgavaju evoluciju.

Kada sam se preselio u Djevevo, poceo sam detaljnu studiju o problemu i shvatio da od evolucija ne ostaje kamen na kamenu.  Sve je efemerno, jedna hipoteza bez dokaza.

I ja sam se zamislio: mozda je tacno onako kako je u Bibliji napisano? Procitao sam planinu (brdo) literature i

uverio se: da i ideja o evoluciji kao takva (ateisticka ili teisticka) nicim nije potvrdjena. Tako sa poceo da

verujem da je svet stvoren bez ikakve evolucije. Vrste ne eovoluiraju, stvorene su razvijene. A onda je doslo

samo do adaptacije - takozvane mikro-evolucije (u okviru grupe veoma bliskih vrsta). Odrastao sam u porodici

geologa, zatim jos u skoli sam citao udzbenike iz geologije za fakultete, i kada su evolucionisti utvrdili

da u geologiji mi vidimo redosled slojeva koji potvrdjuju evoluciju, nisu prestajali da se dive svom neznanju.

Ne bas redom - stratigrafska skala se sastoji, u znacajnom stepenu na predpostavci evolucije. A biolozi kazu

da ta skala podrzava ideju evolucije. Kako da ne podrzava, kada su skalu prvobitno "ubacili" pod tu ideju, kao jedinu

naucnu.

- I Vi, fizicar, resili ste da napisete knjigu o biologiji ?

- Nisam planirao nista da izdajem, proucavao sam problem za sebe. Ali, delio sam svoje razmisljanje sa duhovnikom,

i on me je posavetovao da napisem brosuru za nase devjevske ucenike, da bi oni razumeli nedostatak dokaza

hipoteze o evoluciji. Materijal se pojavio u Lavri Svetog Sergija, i kao rezultat je 2003. godine dosla

moja prva knjiga "Poreklo zivota." Ona je sada cetrvri put izdata, na svim mojim knjigama je navedena moja

e-maill adresa, i nijedanput nijedan specijalista mi nije ukazao na nikakve ozbiljne greske. Mozda zbog toga

sto je kod mene sve argumentovano, sto sve cinjenice koje sam izneo potvrdjuju reference na naucnoj bazi.

Naucnici su i ranije znali, da postoje kontradiktornosti u evolucionizmu, ali niko nije razmisljao o tome da

protiv evolucije ima tako mnogo cinjenica. To je i za mene bilo iznenadjenje.

Kada je izasla knjiga, predlozili su mi da napravim udzbenik. Naravno, sam se ne bi usudio. Ja sam izucavao

molekularnu i biolosku fiziku, tako da sam imao znanje o biologije, ali jos uvek ne dovoljno da bi sam pisao

udzbenik. Pomogla mi je nasa divjevska parohijanka, doktor bioloskih nauka, i brojni naucnici iz Moskve.

2005. godine izaslo je probno izdanje udzbenika za pravoslavne skole. Brzo je rasprodat i, sto je jos vaznije,

ideja se dopala eminentnom geneticaru, akademiku Juriju Petrovicu Altuhovu. Novi, dopunjeni udzbenik, napravili

smo pod njegovim rukovodstvom, on je privukao i svoje kolege sa Bioloskog fakulteta.

Svi kazu "udzbenik Vertjanova", a u stvari delo je podrobno proverio ceo tim profesora i docenta Bioloskog

fakulteta, studenata i doktora. A ceo udzbenik je uskladio sam akademik Altuhov. Nekoliko dana pred smrt

(imao je kancer, ali glava mu je odlicno radila) on me je pozvao i rekao mi da je jos jednom da proverio

svetsko izdanje, da slucajno nema gresaka. "Sada mozemo reci da nismo uzalud ziveli" rekao je na oprostaju.

U MGU poznate reci Jurija Petrovica: "Ako neko misli da su postojale prelazne forme, neka dodje u moj kabinet

da diskutujemo, i ja cu dokazati da pri postanku nikakvih prelaznih formi nije bilo." Do zakljucka o nemogucnosti

pojave jedne vrste iz druge, akademik je dosao na osnovu svojih istrazivanja, za koja je dobio Drzavnu nagradu.

Stav Altuhova je - ne evolucioni. Jurij Petrovic je verovao da je svet stvorio Bog. Stavise, kada smo sa njim

razgovarali o tome koliko je svet star, Jurij Petrovic je rekao: "Mi ne mozemo dokazati sa tacnoscu da je svet

star 7ooo godina, ali smo u obavezi da prilozimo cinjenice koje podrzavaju ovu biblijsku ideju i u udzbenicima

joj izraziti svoju naklonost. Na njemu je  potrebno raditi, ali vec sada mozemo mirno reci: ideja da je svet

stvoren od Gospoda Boga pre 7000 godina, je snazna i nista je ne moze opovrgnuti.

Mi smo u udzbeniku predstavili deo evolucije kao hipotezu, a uporedo naucne cinjenice koje je opovrgavaju,

a govore o stvaranju.

- Naucne debate, hipoteze - prirodni fenomen. Ali zasto je spor izmedju dve pirodne nauke postao spor

o veri? Boljsevici su trvdili da je nauka dokazala da Bog ne postoji? Danas je jasno da je to laz,

ali pokusaj da se dokaze postojanje Boga kroz nauku nije manje cudan.

- Da, u sovjetsko vreme su tako opravdavali ateizam: naucnici su dokazali da nije Bog stvorio zivot,

vec se on sam razvio putem evolucije. Jedan od zadataka koji smo mi sebi postavili, je da objasnimo

da nauka nije nista dokazala, a naucna tekstura dokazuje ne o evoluciji, vec o stvaranju. Za razliku

od matematike, biologija nije neutralna u odnosu na ideju stvaranja, ona se moze sa njom sloziti ili ne.

Tako smo mi proverili da li se hipoteza evolucije slaze sa idejom stvaranja. Postoje verne pristalice

evolucije, oni veruju da je Bog stvorio svet, da bi evoluirao. Teoretski receno - Bogu nista nije nemoguce.

Ali, gde su tragovi evolucije? Ni u palentologiji ni u zivotu, mi ne vidimo transformaciju jedne

vrste u drugu. Po tome, ispravno je tvrditi da evolucije nije ni bilo, Bog je stvorio obe vrste.

I mi mislimo da je ova pozicija pouzdana. Za pravoslavni narod ona je atraktivna, zato sto nema preterivanja

u tumacenju Biblije, izmisljanja da je "prasina kulture" - majmun. Nijedan od Svetih Otaca ovo nije pisao,

svi su oni znali da je to slaba osnova, prasina. A mi smo danas mudriji od Svetih Otaca i mislimo da

je to mogao biti majmun?! Druga stvar - do pada nije bilo raspada i smrti.

Ako je i bila evolucija, mada teisticka, zivotinje su umirale, smenjujuci jedna drugu cak i pre Adama.

Tada cemo reci da su Sveti Jovan Zlatousti, Vasilije Veliki i drugi Sveti Oci pogresili. Opet ozbiljno

natezanje. I sa tacke nauke, ja ne vidim potrebu neophodnosti pracenja hipoteze o evoluciji. Da je

evolucija dokazana cinjenicama, ne bi o njoj bilo toliko zestokih naucnih sporova u Darvinovo vreme.

- Sa verske perspektive, da li mislite da je ovaj spor principijelan?

- Postoje pravoslavni evolucionisti, koji misle da evolucija nije nastala sama od sebe, vec je Bog

tako stvorio svet. Razumem, posto je Otac Roman Bracik radio u laboratoriji evolucione zoologije

kod cuvenog evolucioniste Voroncova, njemu je blizi upravo takav stav - to je zbog njegovog naucnog

hobija. Pokojni Otac Gleb Kaleda je bio naucnik - geolog, on je imao evoluciono shvatanje geologije.

Drugi naucnici, ne manje upoznati (kao na primer akademik Altuhov) smatraju da nije bilo nikakve

evolucije. Govore da je pitanje reseno ranije. Ali ako govorimo o veri ... Ne odbacujuci ideju

o evoluciji, mozemo privuci na svoju stranu ljude iz naucnog sveta, da razmisle o Bogu. To im je

lakse - ne moraju da odbace izgradnjeno misljenje o evoluciji, samo treba da se mole Bogu. Ali

kombinovati to sa Biblijskim istinama je tesko. U koga je Bog udahnuo duh? A ko je bila Eva, da

li je to bila evolucija? Jos jedan majmun iz stada? Ili je ona napravljena od Adamovog rebra,

dok je on spavao, kao sto je napisano u Bibliji. Muskarci imaju dva rebra manje od zena. Mozda

jer je to rebro bilo uklonjeno?

A pad? Ako gledamo sa pozicije teisticke evolucije, smrt je vladala na svetu pre Adamovog pada.

Ali mi nismo protstanti, pa da tumacimo Sveto pismo kako mi zelimo. Sveti Oci pisu, da kada je

Adam zgresio, otpao je od Tvorca, sa njim je i sva tvorevina propala u prah i smrt. Pored toga,

Sveti Oci su smatrali, da nam sada treba hrana za obnavljanje fizicke energije. A Adamu to nije

bilo potrebno. On je ponekad mogao da jede zivotvornu jabuku, ali ne mozemo reci da je jeo. On

je bio besmrtan i njegova potreba za hranom, spavanjem, odmorom je blagodat Bozija. I zivotinje

su u Raju bile besmrtne, apsurdno je govoriti o divljim zivotinjama (grabljivicama) pre Adamovog

pada. Da li lavovi i tigrovi sve vreme jedu jelene? Uopste ne, oni u tropskim predelima mogu

nedeljama da jedu biljnu hranu. A onda, mozda, lav jednom nedeljno pojede neki kupus, ili mozda

uopste ne treba da jede, kao Adam. Kao sto vidite, evoluciona hipoteza je tesko kompatabilna sa

verom. Otac Roman Bracik ima pravo da veruje u evoluciju, ali kada on tvrdi da je udzbenik

Vertjanova nepismen, on preuzima na sebe odgovornost za tvrdnju da se vise razume u to od

akademika Altuhova, koji je radio na problemu vrsta i formiranja vrsta preko 30 godina. Da li

je umesna takva kategoricnost i smelost?

- U ovoj raspravi svako moze da upucuje na vlastito misljenje. Vi sami mislite, da je stav

Oca Romana vezan za njegov rad u laboratoriji Voroncova, takodje velikog naucnika.

- Izvinite, to je neuporedivo, ne samo po tome sto je Voroncov profesor, a Altuhov

akademik. Jednostavno, u naucnom svetu Altuhova nesumnjivo vise uvazavaju nego Voroncova.

U znacajnom stepenu i zbog toga sto Voroncov promovise, iskreno verujuci, ideju o evoluciji,

koja zadovoljava potrebe drzavnog ateizma. Evolucionizam u sustini nije biologija. Altuhov je

proucavao gene, izucavao populaciju - to je biologija. A kako mozemo izucavati transformaciju

krokodila od ribe? Voroncov je izucavao filozofiju u biologiji. Potoji osnova biologije - to,

sto mi istrazujemo realno. A postoji filozofija u biologiji, teoretska, kako moze sve da

se obuhvati nekim evolucionim procesom. Ali u pravom smislu reci, to nije nauka. I kada je

nas udzbenik izasao, naucnici su govorili da je odlicno sto je Jurij Petrovic ucestvovao u

tome, to ce mnoge urazumiti.

- Ali mnogi naucnici smatraju, da je zahvaljujuci tome sto je teoriji evolucije omogucen

prodor u medicinu, doslo do savremenih lekova.

- Da, lekove probaju na nekim vrstama miseva, a oni zatim efikasno pomazu ljudima. I evolucionisti

smatraju da je to neosporan dokaz evolucije. A mi kazemo da je to u skladu sa Bozijim planom,

da je kod ljudi i nekih zivotinja slicna fizionomija. Zato je i moguce ispitivanje na zivotinjama

pri spravljanju lekova za ljude. Gde je tu evolucija? Karl Line, kada je napravio klasifikaciju,

bez koje je moderna biologija nezamisliva, nije video tu nikakvu evoluciju. On je verovao da

otkriva Boziji plan. Nema problema. Verujte, ako se iz biologije ukloni teorija evolucije, nista

se nece desiti. Pokusajte da uklonite citologiju, genetiku, celijsku teoriju - sve ce se raspasti.

A bez evolucije sve ce ostati isto. Jednostavno vidimo srodnost vrsta ne mozemo nazivati

evolucijom, srodnost je po planu Tvorca. Bog je stvorio slozne organizme, manje ili vise slicne

jedne drugima. Njih je moguce raspoznati, sistematizovati po stepenu uvecanja osobina, kao sto

su na primer forma udova, a onda ih uporediti sa krilima i reci da su se ti ekstremiteti

transformisali jedni u druge, od peraja ribe do krila ptice. A moze se reci: Bog je zeleo da

stvori organizme sa varijacijama u ekstremitetima - za zivot u vodi, na kopnu i za let u vazduhu.

- Da li je sav taj sukob izmedju evolucionista i kreacionista - naucni ili religiozni?

- Verujem da je sukob licni. Njega ne bi bilo da ljudi koji misle da je svet stvoren ili

evoluirao, mirno branili svoj stav. Ali to nije tako. Mi predstavljamo nalaze naucnika da je

evolucija - delirijum, a da je svet stvorio Bog. Naravno, evolucionisti se brane, ali nazalost,

najcesce nenaucnim metodama. Neka pisu clanke, udzbenike, pravdajuci svoj stav. Nazalost, vecina

debata je na emotivnom nivou, licna. I zagovornici ideje stvaranja ponekad isto rade. To je

krajnje nekonstruktivno. Vecina ljudi, nezavisno od svoje ideologije, u biologiji nista ne razume.

Ali, kada su uvuceni u ovaj spor, neophodno je da im objasnimo da danas kod vernika, postoje

dva razlicita stava. Jedni naucnici se pridrzavaju ideje stvaranja, odbacujuci evoluciju, ateisticku

i teisticku. Drugi veruju da je Bog stvorio svet, ali je po Njegovoj volji on evoluirao. Ako

prihvatimo ideju o evoluciji, ne ulazimo u konflikt sa naucnim svetom, ali se ne slazem sa

pravoslavnim bogosovljem, sa misljenjem Svetih Otaca. Ako se pridrzavamo ideje stvaranja,

odbacujuci evoluciju (osim za adaptivne promene, mikroevoluciju) mi ostajemo u okvirima ciste

svetootacke bogoslovije, ali se suprotstavljamo vecem delu naucne zajednice, koja u velikoj

meri podrzava evolucionu ideju. Nas zadatak - je da ljudima predstavimo maksimalno potpunu

informaciju, a svaki covek neka napravi izbog sam.

Intervju vodio Leonid Vinogradov

http://nsad.ru/friends/donate/help/www.maps-moscow.com%3Cbr%20/www.archnadzor.ru%3Cbr%20/www.maps-moscow.com%3Cbr%20/index.php?issue=13&section=10014&article=812

[maxwell]

Ови научници сами су себе екскомуницирали из света науке, када су почели да пропагирају сулуде "доказе" креационизма.

[Аурор]

Ови научници сами су себе екскомуницирали из света науке, када су почели да пропагирају сулуде "доказе" креационизма.

Naravno da jesu.  Samoubice.

A pogledaj ovog poslednjeg, kaze da je svet stvorio Bog pre 7000 godina, nedugo nakon otkrica tocka.

UZAS.

[maxwell]

Ови научници сами су себе екскомуницирали из света науке, када су почели да пропагирају сулуде "доказе" креационизма.

Naravno da jesu.  Samoubice.

A pogledaj ovog poslednjeg, kaze da je svet stvorio Bog pre 7000 godina, nedugo nakon otkrica tocka.

UZAS.

Да, а да не помињем назив ове теме. Аналогија би била: "Интервјуи верника антитеиста."!

[Zeebedee]

Наслов теме би комотно могао да се промени у:

"Интервијуи са суботарским јуришницима"

Шта рећи.

Шта рећи? Па ево, нпр., може се рећи да једва натуцаш основне појмове о неодарвинизму али да си зато гласан као да имаш докторат о истоме. Или се може рећи нпр. да пишеш једно те исто овде и да су ти аргументи једино и само то што поменути доктори наука нису православни. Наравно, пре свега се може рећи да си далеко од основне компетенције по овим питањима.

Da li postoji covek koga ovaj DR MR Biologije, fizike, teologije, astronomije, filozofije, Miroljubologije, sociologije itd nije izvredjao?

Zaista koliki ego treba da gajis da sve ljude gledas sa visine. I to sve dolazi od coveka koga je jedan pacer poput Miroljuba preveslao  smej.gif

[Milan Nikolic]

Веома озбиљне неправилности налазимо код креациониста и еволуциониста унутар православног исповедања. Обе стране посматрају данашњу творевину као да није прошла кроз ,,пад'', односно као да није доживела промену постојања услед греха Адамовог.

И једни и други напрежу се да докажу своје ставове тако што стварање Адама стављају унутар пале природе. Креационисти посматрају творевину у којој живимо као ону која је из Библијског стварања, дакле као да није било категорије ,,пада''. Еволуционисти сматрају да је Адам еволуирао од примата преко антропоморфних мајмуна и хоминида, дакле као да је творевина иста пре и после пада Адамовог.

Потребно је направити одлучан искорак из оваквих погрешних претпоставки. Еволуцију морамо узети као непобитну чињеницу, али само на начин који ће Адаму обезбедити узрочност еволуције, односно на начин који ће еволуцију посматрати као последицу ,,пада''.