Di Giuseppe Sermonti
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Scientists Dissent List
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” This was last publicly updated February 2019. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position. Philip Skell* Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences Lyle H. Jensen* Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India) Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia) Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine) Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel) Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK) Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University David W. -
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” This was last publicly updated February 2019. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position. Philip Skell* Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences Lyle H. Jensen* Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India) Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia) Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine) Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel) Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK) Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University David W. -
Science and the Myth of Progress Appears As One of Our Selections in the Perennial Philosophy Series
Religion/Philosophy of Science Zarandi Can the knowledge provided by modern science satisfy our need to know the most profound nature of reality and of humanity? Science “The great advantage of this book is that it puts together texts of authors (scientists, philosophers and theologians) whose lucidity about modern and the science goes far beyond emotional reaction and moralist subjectivity; and this ‘tour de force’ is accomplished from within the point of view of the Science yth main traditional religions. Here, Science and Faith are reconciled in an M unexpected way: scientific objectivity is not an issue; but the real issue, where one sees no proof of progress, is whether man is capable of using of modern science properly. A must for the reader who wants to sharpen his or her discernment about modern science.” —Jean-Pierre Lafouge, Marquette University rogress and the and P “Writing as an active research scientist, living in the present Culture of Disbelief created (partly unwittingly) by the science establishment, I can Essays by think of no Research and Development project more significant to the Wendell Berry future of humanity than putting ‘science’ back into its proper place as a Titus Burckhardt part of culture, but not its religion. This book is an excellent contribution Myth to that paramount goal.” James S. Cutsinger —Rustum Roy, Evan Pugh Professor of the Solid State, Emeritus, William Dembski Pennsylvania State University René Guénon “A wonderful collection of essays dealing with the supposed conflict S. Hossein Nasr between religion and science from both a scientific and a metaphysical of E. -
The Top-Ten Misinformed Objections to ID 1
The Top-Ten Misinformed Objections to ID 1. Intelligent Design is not true because there are no “real scientists” who support it. First, the truth-value of a proposition does not depend upon whom or how many people believe it. Secondly, this objection is overwhelmingly contradicted by the actual facts. For instance, leading ID theorist Michael Behe (Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of Pennsylvania) has published over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals, and is a tenured professor of biochemistry in the Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University. Scott Minnich (Ph.D. Microbiology, Iowa State University), another highly respected and widely published scientist, is associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho and a staunch proponent of ID. Paul Chien (Ph.D. Biology, University of California at Irvine's Department of Developmental & Cell Biology), professor in the Department of Biology at the University of San Francisco, supports ID as well. He has held postdoctoral fellowships in the Department of Environmental Engineering at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena (CIT) the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and is a consultant to both the Kerckhoff Marine Laboratory of the CIT and the Scanning Electron Microscopy & Micro X-ray Analyst in the Biology Department of Santa Clara University. While Dr. Chien's work has been published in over fifty technical journals, another ID proponent has him out-published by 1000 articles: the computational chemist Henry F. Schaefer III (B.S. chemical physics MIT, Ph.D. chemical physics, Stanford University). Schaefer, whom the Science Citation Index reports to have been cited more than 39,000 times, has been awarded and has held more prestigious positions within the scientific community than can be reasonably listed here. -
SELECT RESOURCES of INTEREST to CREATIONISTS by Ashby L
SELECT RESOURCES OF INTEREST TO CREATIONISTS By Ashby L. Camp I. Books A. Recent-Creation Perspective Edgar H. Andrews, Werner Gitt, and Willem J. Ouweneel, eds., Concepts in Creationism (Welwyn, Herts, England: Evangelical Press, 1986) John F. Ashton, ed., In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2000) Steven A. Austin, ed., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1994) Jerry Bergman, Peter Line, Jeffrey Tomkins, and Daniel Biddle, Apes as Ancestors: Examining the claims about human evolution (Tulsa, OK: Bartlett Publishing, 2020) Leonard Brand and Arthur Chadwick, Faith, Reason, and Earth History, 3rd ed. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2016) Leonard Brand and David C. Jarnes, Beginnings: Are Science and Scripture Partners in the Search for Origins? (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing, 2006) John Byl, God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2001) Tim Chaffey and Jason Lisle, Old-Earth Creationism on Trial: The Verdict Is In (Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Publishing, 2008) Abner Chou, ed., What Happened in the Garden (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2016) Timothy Clarey, Carved in Stone: Geological Evidence of the Worldwide Flood (Dallas: Institute for Creation Research, 2020) Harold G. Coffin, Robert H. Brown, and L. James Gibson, Origin by Design, rev. ed. (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing, 2005) Vernon R. Cupps, Rethinking Radiometric Dating: Evidence for a Young Earth from a Nuclear Physicist (Dallas: Institute for Creation Research, 2019) David DeWitt, Unraveling the Origins Controversy (Lynchburg, VA: Creation Curriculum, 2007) Don DeYoung, Thousands . -
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” This was last publicly updated May 2021. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position. Philip Skell* Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences Lyle H. Jensen* Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India) Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia) Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine) Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel) Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK) Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University David W. -
Nitrogen Cycle
E D I T O R I A L GENESIS KINDS AND THE SEA URCHIN The idea that different types of organisms were created and com- manded to reproduce “after their kinds” seems widely believed among creationists. It may therefore come as a surprise to many to learn the idea is not stated in the Bible. I discovered this several years ago as I prepared a lecture on limits to change in species. I looked up all the Bible texts using phrases such as “after its kind” or “according to their kinds,” and identified the verb associated with the phrase. I found three contexts in which nearly all these texts were located. The first context was creation, and, with one exception, the verb was “created.” The various kinds of animals were “created according to their kinds.” This is referring to the origins of the various kinds of creatures, but says nothing about their reproduction. The one possible exception is found in Genesis 1:11-12, where the text has been translated as “fruit tree making fruit after its kind”.1 Here, the author appears to be stating that different kinds of fruit trees would have different kinds of fruits, so that a tree could be identified from its fruit (cf. Matthew 12:33). Thus, the type of fruit produced would remain constant, although the text does not prohibit the tree itself from changing in appearance, and common experience shows that plants are quite variable in structure. The second context using phrases such as “according to their kinds” is in the description of the animals entering the ark. -
Troubles in Paradise “In the Beginning” James Downard 1.7 Teach the Kulturkampf (Updated 12 March 2017)
Troubles in Paradise “In the Beginning” James Downard 1.7 Teach the Kulturkampf (Updated 12 March 2017) 1.7 Section 1: The Intelligent Design movement comes along to save the day (& hide the ball). Applied Intelligent Design I—The Danny Phillips case and slouching toward Robert Bork 6 Tom Willis Hammering the Wedge—Kansas 1999 and a world not in motion 11 The Sense (and Nonsense) of the Senate—The Santorum Amendment as catspaw 17 Applied Intelligent Design II—How to GetEquipped in Pennsylvania 19 Creationism 2.0—State antievolution efforts and the traveling Kent Hovind fun house 25 Taking “Critical Analysis” Seriously—How about starting with Joe Baker 32 Applied Intelligent Design III—John Calvert and William Harris come to Ohio 35 Preaching ID to the Choir—Debating the Discovery Institute in Ohio and elsewhere 41 Bumper Sticker Antievolutionism—The Cobb County disclaimer as TTC archetype 47 Tweaking “Science” Just a Bit—Distinguishing Operational from Historical science 53 Taking “Critical Analysis” Seriously II—Baillieul vets the 2004 Ohio recommendations 55 Applied Intelligent Design IV—Texas textbook wars (enter Don McLeroy) 58 Applied Intelligent Design V—Witness for the Prosecution miscued at Kansas II 65 Martyrs for Design—Nancy Bryson and Roger DeHart testify at Kansas II 74 The ACLJ as Perry Mason (Not)—Rod LeVake and “The Case of the Bedeviled Creationist” 82 Intelligent Design Goes to Court—Kitzmiller v. Dover and reading between the lines 90 From at least one Horse’s Mouth—Winging it with Michael Behe 109 Venturing Further into the Bacterial Maze—Creationist history lessons on religion & politics 115 Origins or Bust—Pasteur, evolution and religion in the French scientific tradition 119 Armed and Dangerous—Behe and the pitfalls of a little knowledge 122 Life on the Intelligent Design Mobius Strip—Skirting the creationist traffic jam 125 Just as evolutionists were gearing up to joust with Creation Science, along came the Intelligent Design movement to turn the tables. -
Science and the Myth of Progress
Science and the Myth of Progress The scientific and technological marvels of today’s world are generally viewed as evidence of humanity’s advancement and as liberation from various forms of ignorance and prejudice—in short, as proof of human progress. Yet many of our most thoughtful and well-informed contemporaries are voicing second thoughts about this almost universally accepted notion. For some, it is the ecological, social and human crises of our time that have led to this reexamination. For many scientists, however, the reason lies in the nature of the scientific discoveries themselves. Since the second half of the twentieth century, questions of how we know what we know—or what constitutes knowledge—have entered more and more into the realm of science. The essays in this book show why this convergence is taking place. More importantly, they go beyond the practical problems and beyond conjecture to the very root of the issue. The core distinction is between a quantifiable knowledge about the “how” of existence and a qualitative Knowledge that perceives the “why” of existence. These authors share a clear consensus that the ground of this Knowledge is to be found in Traditional Wisdom. What others have said about Science and the Myth of Progress “Modern science believes—and fears—that by a kind of endless curiosity about the mechanism of material reality, we will eventually encompass—and thus exhaust—the enigma of existence in thought. The articles in this collection make it clear that the corollary is a vain effort to achieve a material utopia whose fulfillment always eludes us. -
1 Premessa Su Gentile Richiesta Di Arianna Editrice, Riporto Un Mio
Premessa Su gentile richiesta di Arianna editrice, riporto un mio studio col quale aprivo il numero speciale 1/2007, da me curato, della rivista Atrium . Ringrazio per l’autorizzazione a diffondere tale testo introduttivo l’editore Adytum di Trento ([email protected] ). Nonostante siano passati tre anni, quel volumetto di 200 pagine dedicate all’evoluzionismo, e inizialmente editato in poche centinaia di copie, continua a essere richiesto, ed è ormai giunto alla quarta ristampa. Fu molto gradevole organizzarlo con i prestigiosi contributi del citogenetista Antonio Lima-de-Faria, padre della teoria dell’autoevoluzione, dell’esperto di storia del pensiero esoterico Massimo Marra, che dedicò pagine interessantissime al paradossale sostegno offerto dalla teosofia alla diffusione del pensiero di Darwin, del filosofo marxista Costanzo Preve, del cardinale cattolico Christoph Schönborn, del genetista antievoluzionista Giuseppe Sermonti, e del biologo e studioso Giovanni Monastra. Quando chiusi il numero, ricordo quanto fosse chiaro che le cose stavano ormai sbloccandosi nel pensiero biologico. Soltanto qualche anno prima, per aver tradotto e curato il classico volume di Lima-de-Faria, Evoluzione senza Selezione , ebbi ancora l’onore di ricevere qualche contumelia. Nel 2007 l’aria invece era già cambiata, come mostrò bene due anni dopo il carattere ritualistico e ingessato delle iniziative per il bicentenario di Darwin. La parte ardua della critica all’ideologia evoluzionistica era compiuta, si assisteva alla maturazione del lavoro pressoché -
January 1997 Summit Journal
January 1997 Summit Journal ● From the President's Desk ● Month in Review ● Cultural Erosion ● Political and Economic Decline From the President's Desk Kiev, Ukraine: This past November your humble and obedient editor was asked to speak at a teacher's conference outside of Kiev sponsored by the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI). Needless to say it was an experience worth relating to Summit friends and Journal readers. Nearly 300 teachers and school administrators attended and most were Christians teaching in the public schools of Ukraine, Russia and the Baltic states. It was my privilege to introduce these men and women to our textbook, Understanding The Times, and explain the importance of grasping the events of the day in the light of worldview understanding. For example, most even now were still looking upon Marxism as simply a political party and a political issue. Few understood the truth that Marxism/Leninism was a total religious worldview that affected not just the political sphere, but contained a theology (atheism), philosophy (dialectical materialism), ethics (proletariat morality), etc. Once they understood the full implications of Marxism, a great sense of understanding occurred that is actually very difficult to relate. While many had lived through the daily horrors of communist dictatorship, few understood the full Marxist/Leninist plan. That is no longer the situation. The ready desire, yea, excitement, to take hold of the Biblical Christian worldview and find ways to implement it in the public schools was exciting to behold. Unfortunately, much of the communist teaching continues to be taught in the public schools and these teachers have their hands full to counter it.