0 registered
and 33 anonymous users online.
|
|
6802 Members
70 Forums
17321 Topics
964909 Posts
Max Online: 371 @ 10/24/07 11:59 PM
|
|
|
#863986 - 06/25/06 11:41 PM
shkencetaret: "evolucioni ne shkolla"
|
S_6_T_6_N_6
UNINVITED GUEST
anetar aktiv
Registered: 03/21/04
Posts: 7373
Loc: UnDergRoUnd
|
Me mire vone se kurre do te thoja une per lajmin me te fundit qe degjova mbi rikthimin e "evolucionit" ne tekstet shkollore. Mbi 60 akademi shkencash (perfshire akademine e shkencave te shqiperise) kane kerkuar nga qeverite e shteteve te fusin ne tekstet shkollore "evolucionin darvinian". Nder te gjitha teorite e ardhjes se njeriut ne hapsire dhe kohe, ajo konsiderohet si me e pranueshmja dhe e besueshmja. Shkenca me kete levizje te ngritur mbi baza te forta mendimi e logjike i jep keshtu nje grusht te fuqishem genjeshtres me bisht qe ofron teologjia.
Ju si mendoni te nderuar anetare! a eshte i drejte veprimi i shekencetareve apo do ishte me mire qe femijet ti rritnim me prrallat e krishtit dhe te muhamedit?
_________________________
CHARDONNAY KARAOKE i vetmi vend ku kendohet shqip. 100 kenget e shekullit (dy edicionet) dhe plot baza te tjera muzikore qe mund ti kendoni e bejne fundjaven tuaj me te bukur.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#863987 - 06/26/06 04:11 AM
Re: shkencetaret: "evolucioni ne shkolla"
[Re: S_6_T_6_N_6]
|
Eclipse
anetar
Registered: 04/12/05
Posts: 44
|
Me fal qe pyes, por ngaqe me duket e cuditshme ajo qe lexova ne shkrimin tend.
A nuk mesohet evolucioni neper shkollat tona?
Rastesisht (koincidence me temen) pyeta keto dite nje shoqe qe studion te Fakulteti i Mjekesise, dhe mu pergjigj tekstualisht "po, evolucionin mesojme".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#863991 - 07/07/06 01:12 PM
Re: shkencetaret: "evolucioni ne shkolla"
[Re: Wii]
|
Gurax
anetar aktiv
Registered: 11/02/02
Posts: 3197
|
Quote:
ke degjuar per inteligent design?nje tip kompromisi qe kane bere evolucionistet qe te pranojne se qeliza e pare eshte e krijuar por me pas gjithcka ka vazhduar me evolucion..
Unrelated to the current use of the term, the phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, and in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman.
(from the article) No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possiblein heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.
Nemesis, jemi ne 2006 e jo 1847 dhe as qe krahasohen njohurite e atehershme me te sotmet.
Sot ne 2006 kemi qe...
The predominant modern use of the term began after the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula. Stephen C. Meyer, cofounder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, reports that the term came up in 1988 at a conference he attended in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA. He attributes the phrase to Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People. In drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, the word 'creationism' was subsequently changed, almost without exception to intelligent design. The book was published in 1989 and is considered to be the first intelligent design book.
Kaq shume sqarime per nje pohim te vetem, nje pohim nga shume!
Perfundimet preferoj t'ia le secilit qe lexon, por dua te them vetem qe shkrimi yt ka shume, vertet shume informacion te ketij lloji, dizinformues me nje delikatese te admirueshme. Si perkthehet "that's what appeals to the masses"? Do te duheshin faqe e faqe analize per te treguar se ku jane gabimet ne interpretimin (me dashje apo jo) te fakteve (gjysmake) te permendura, ne te cilat prape do te kishte reagime qe do te kerkonin sqarime te metejshme e kshtu deri tek disa njohuri themelore per cfare na rrethon, te mos cuditesh nese mberihet deri tek zhanri i pyetjes: "a eshte zero nje mase sasiore?" (te vjen per te qeshur sot por greket e lashte nuk dinin si te zgjidhnin psh: 6-6=? ) etj koncepte qe tashti s'vlen te permenden. Varet se me ke bisedon apo diskuton. Une s'kam as motivim e as kohe per ta bere dicka te tille ketu.
Per kuriozet qe do duan te gjejne informacione te tjera te gabuara ne shkrimin me lart, le ta fillojne me: oksigjeni dhe qelizat qe helmohen! Atmosfera s'ka patur oksigjen atehere! Filluan ta krijojne vete disa qeliza me ane te fotosintezes fillestare, qe ne vetvete ishte nje proces zhgarravine krahasimisht me fotosintezen qe njohim sot. Pati dhe qe u helmuan, plot, ndoshta dhe shumica. Por te tjerat, sado pak te kene qene, sot sundojne planetin!
_________________________
Before we are wise. After we are wise. In between we are otherwise.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#863992 - 07/08/06 02:19 AM
Re: shkencetaret: "evolucioni ne shkolla"
[Re: Gurax]
|
Wii
anetar aktiv
Registered: 11/03/02
Posts: 1014
Loc: Racoon city
|
une nuk po them qe ka pasur,po te them vetem per momentin e kalimit nga gjendja anaerobike ne ate aerobike...si mund te jete kryer kjo gje sipas teje?edhe mua ajo pakice qe po thua ti po me ben kurioz,si paska arrit te mbijetoje?  nese ke parasysh jetgjatesine e nje qelize,atehere si mundet te arrije ate shkalle kompleksiteti qe ka ne perberjen e vet mitokondria brenda qelizes?nje gjenome te veten,proteina te veta,nje kod aminoacidesh qe ndryshon nga ai qe ka berthama per sa i perket kodifikimit te gjeneve,nje gjenome pa introne, etj...pastaj i gjithe kompleksiteti i ciklit te krebsit si dhe i komplekseve qe trasportojne elektronet per te prodhuar ATP?e ne te njejten kohe,pa humbur mbikqyrjen e gjenomes ne berthame.si mund te arrihet ky kompleksitet?ki parasysh vetem nje gje "qeliza nuk eshte budallaqe"...ndryshe nga si e mendojne shume evolucioniste,qe thone qe jane mbledhur proteina te ndryshme (tek nje shkrim kam hasur analogjine e navigatorit satelitar te makinave dhe vendit qe u la per to para se te shpikeshin,gjasme qe u mendu qe me para per to)nese mutacionet do conin ne permirsime aq te theksuara sa dallohen ne cdo kafshe,atehere nuk ka pse qelizat e mbroje veten me nje enzime sic eshte polimerazi qe te rregulloje gabimet e veta...mos harro qe kemi mbi 6000 semundje gjenetike dhe se te gjitha vijne si pasoje mutacionesh...pse i gjithe ai mund per te mbajtur numrin e caktuar te species kur fare thjesht mund te dale nje specie me e avancuar...e megjithate,cdo ndryshim i numrit te kromozomeve duket sikur nuk i pershtatet mire njeriut...
edhe nje gje: kur perdor fjalet "u shnderrua,u be...etj" duhet te kemi parasysh nje numer te madh procesesh,por qe me sa duket evolucionistet nuk e kane problem ta thone sepse njeriun e nisin ne udhetim nga azia dhe kur ka mberritur ne evrope eshte shnderruar ne nje specie me te avancuar (kete e kam pare ne nje dokumentar tek Rete 4 ketu ku jam,programi "la macchina del tempo")...etj...
shembuj ka shume,dhe ne mund te vazhdojme sa te duash por sic te thashe gjithcka varet nga sa pranohet fakti qe gjenetika e hedh poshte ate teori...vete darvini ja kishte friken nje kapitulli te librit te vet nese nuk gabohem,aty ku shkruante pikat ku mund te bie teoria e tij...ato qe sot quhen unazat munguese...qe nese do kishin qene aq sa mendonte darvini,duhet te ishin shume te perhapura por qe nuk po arrijne ti gjejne edhe ca bejne?ke degjuar per njeriun e piltdown-it apo jo?apo per ate arkeopteriksin qe e kishin prodhuar ne nje pazar te kines?beh,cte te them me teper
beh,as une nuk eshte qe kam kohe te merrem me kete teori,kshu qe ja leme te tjereve ta pasurojne kete teme  ...pastaj me duket se po dalim prej asaj qe ishte thelbi i temes...duhe te mesohet apo jo ne shkolle!
Edited by nemesis (07/08/06 02:26 AM)
_________________________
Think Again!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#863993 - 07/08/06 01:42 PM
Re: shkencetaret: "evolucioni ne shkolla"
[Re: Wii]
|
Lubardhi
Elusive
anetar aktiv
Registered: 02/23/04
Posts: 4402
Loc: N41°19'13" E19°47'29"
|
Nemesis, vella, aq sa me vjen mire dhe kenaqem kur lexoj shkrimin tend per njohurite e thella qe ke, aq dhe me vjen per te qeshur nga kendveshtrimi yt rreth kesaj ceshtje.
Ti e vlereson qelizen premordiale (parahistorike) me karakteristikat e qelizes qe ne njohim sot! Kjo eshte qesharake!!! Qeliza parahistorike ka qene shume me ndryshe nga ajo qe ne njohim sot dhe askush nuk mund te thote me saktesi si ka qene. Por me siguri nuk mund te behet fjale per mitokondri, cikel krebsi, ATP, etj, etj. pasi keto karakteristika jane te qelizes se sotme dhe vijne pikerisht si pasoje e evolucionit MILIARDA-vjecar qe ka pesuar qeliza parahistorike. Qelizat asokohe nuk i kane patur keto karakteristika, ato kane qene shume me te thjeshta dhe funksionet qe kryenin ishin shume elementare.
Por koha ndryshon gjithcka (edhe gurėt...) dhe ketu flitet per nje kohe jashtezakonisht te madhe ("miliarda vjet" A arrin ta konceptosh kete "sasi" kohe...???!!!) dhe qeliza parahistorike ka patur boll kohe per te ndryshuar dalengadale ne pershtatje me ndryshimet qe ndodhnin ne mjedisin perreth. Dhe jo vetem ndryshimi i mjedisit ndikonte ne ndryshimin e qelizes por dhe anasjelltas qeliza ne mjedis...
Eh, kjo teme ka shume per te diskutuar, por si per ta permbledhur mendimin tim mund te them se Teoria e Evolucionit e dhene nga Darvini pergjithesisht nuk eshte pranuar pasi shumica e njerezeve nuk kane aftesine dhe kapacitetin mendor per ta kuptuar. Neqoftese nje njeri arrin ta "kuptoje" teorine e evolucionit atehere jua garantoj se gjithcka do ti behet me e qarte dhe nuk do te mund te pranoje asnje teori tjeter.
Sot ke akoma njerez qe qeshin dhe tallen me perkrahesit e evolucionit duke abuzuar ne menyren me diskriminuese te mundshme me "prejardhjen e njeriut nga majmuni". Mendjengushtesia dhe driteshkurtesia e tyre i con ne konkluzione se ne paskemi rrjedhur nga ndonje tip majmuni i diteve te sotme si babuini, gorrilla apo shimpanzeja! Kjo eshte injorance, zoterinj!!! Nuk mund te njehsohet prejardhja primate e njeriut me majmunet e koheve te sotme. Primatet nga te cilen e kemi prejardhjen kane qene shume te ndryshem dhe me evolucionin e tyre nder miliona vjet jane shendrruar ne primate te koheve te sotme, ku pervec njeriut hyjne dhe shume specie majmunesh.
Per mua eshte me i besueshem fakti se njeriu e ka prejardhjen nga evolucioni i nje primati parahistorik sesa krijimi i njeriut nga "shkopi magjik" i Zotit...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#863995 - 07/09/06 05:47 PM
Re: shkencetaret: "evolucioni ne shkolla"
[Re: Wii]
|
Gurax
anetar aktiv
Registered: 11/02/02
Posts: 3197
|
Nemesis, me vjen mire qe ke njohuri te shumta persa i perket biologjise. Ndoshta studion per nje gje te tille dhe nese po, edhe me mire.
Ne shkrimet e tua ka mjaft informacion, te cilin une e pranoj qe nuk jam ne gjendje ta perpunoj te terin sepse me mungojne njohurite e mjaftueshme per ta bere kete gje. Por nese jo te terin, ka copa per te cilen jam i mireinformuar.
Quote:
pastaj per kohen,eshte nje paradoks qe quhet paradoksi i levintalit sipas te cilit koha e universit deri me sot nuk mjafton as per te formuar nje proteine me 100 pjese edhe nese marrim nje shpejtesi marramendese kombinimesh...leje pastaj te mendojme qe ne gjenomen tone ka 90.000 proteina te kodifikuara nga vetem 25.000 gjene...
Gabim, gabim, gabim rrenjesor nemesis.
Ne 1969 Cyrus Levintal verejti se per shkak te shkalleve te shumta te lirise, ne nje varg polieptidesh, molekula ka nje numer astronomik mundesish kombinimi. (10 ne fuqi 300 sipas artikullit te 1969) Nese proteina do te duhej te merrte me rradhe keto kombinime, do te duhej nje kohe me e gjate sesa aq sa sot percaktohet mosha e universit per t'u nisur nga nje kombinim dhe ne fund te mberrihej perseri ne kete kombinim.
Shume proteina te thjeshta formohen spontanisht ne nje hapesire kohore prej nje milisekonde, madje dhe mikrosekonde. Escherichia coli eshte nje bakterie qe jeton ne organizmin e njeriut dhe koha e saj e gjenerimit eshte vezhguar te jete deri dhe 20 min. Kjo tregon qe te tera proteinat e nevojshme formohen brenda nje hapesire kohore qe matet me minuta.
Teoria e Levintalit perhere eshte keqinterpretuar si nje teori e deshtuar per dinamiken e formimit te proteinave. Shume studime per "Teorine e pejsazheve energjitike (energy landscape theory) per formimin e proteinave (protein folding) e kane krituar publikisht paradoksin e Levintalit si naiv dhe budallallek, pasi ky "paradoks" shpjegohet menjehere nese formimi i proteinave sihet si formim pergjate nje "hinke" perkundrejt pejsazhit energjitik, dhe jo te kerkohet si kombinim rastesor ne hapesiren konvencionale.
Ne fakt, nje kritike per paradoksin e Levintalit eshte fare e panevojshme. Shume pak shekencetare kane besuar ndonjehere qe proteinat formohen sipas nje procesi te lodhshem kerkimor random. (nese profesori i nemesis e beson kete gje, urgjentisht nemesis nderro profesor) Paradoksi i Levintalit sheben vecse per te treguar qe nje kerkim i tille nuk behet me kerkim linear random. Vete Levintali ishte i vetedijshem se proteinat formohen spontanisht ne hapesira shume te shkurtra kohore, fakt qe e ben te pamundur nje kerkim random konformacional. Vepra e tij flet per zgjidhjen e paradoksit.
Ne te tera rastet qe une personalisht kam patur informacion per cfare kam lexuar ketu, ajo qe kam lexuar ketu ka qene ose gjysmake, ose e interpretuar per ate qe s'eshte. Urime kreacionisteve per kete successful social engineering. 
Quote:
teoria e evolucionit mbahet gjalle per faktin se nese e heq,e vetmja qe mbetet eshte shpjegimi fetar
Nemesis, nese 3+5 nuk e dime sa bejne, kjo s'do te thote qe bejne 7!
Nese profili yt i shkolles eshte nje nga shkencat ekzakte, cudi si s'eshte rregulli numer nje ne shkollen ku ti meson!
Teoria e evolucionit nuk ka nevoje te mbahet gjalle, sepse rri vete ne kembe.
Pse ke kaq turp te thuash per dicka "Nuk e di!" por me vrap mberrin ne "perfundime" qe ne vetvete s'jane gje tjeter vecse spekullime me te panjohuren? Shume gjera ne kohen e sotme jane ne dukje "te pakapshme dhe pakonceptueshme" dhe qe "rrjedhimisht cojne ne perfundimin logjik qe duhet ekzistenca e nje dickaje mbinatyrore". Realiteti nderkohe eshte po i njejti dhe nuk varet nga kjo paaftesi njerezore per te pranuar nje sasi informacioni ne nje kohe shume te shkurter, apo dhe pamundesi e disave qe te perpunojne kete informacion. Ne te njejtin kontekst, pse ti je dakort qe koha rrjedh perhere e me ngadale sa me shume i afrohemi shpejtesise se drites? Apo gjatesite shkurtohen nese i afrohemi shpejtesive te drites? A thua ti vete je ne gjendje te imagjinosh nje fenomen te tille? Apo efektin tunel ne zhvendosjen e grimcave sipas Plankut dhe konceptin e tij te pasigurise vendndodhje-kohe? Une, dhe tere njerezimi bashke me mua, nuk i dime te tera gjerat, por po e them edhe nje here, qe perpara 1000 te panjohurave, me mire studioj te paren, pastaj te dyten e keshtu me rradhe pas meje te tjeret do te vije nje dite qe do te studiojne edhe te 1000 (jam koshient qe do te kene dale 1000000 te panjohura te tjera deri atehere), sesa te them "Kaq shume te panjohura s'ka mundesi te jene te rastesishme dhe prandaj jane veper e Zotit". Nje "dhe prandaj" i tille eshte spekullim, eshte naivitet dhe nuk shpreh asgje me shume sesa pertacine e njerezve te marrin informacion progresivisht ne rritje per te shpjeguar enigmat qe lindin pas zbulimit te enigmes paraardhese. Sic thote nje shprehje "Every long journey starts with a single step."
Njohuria s'ka fund dhe asnjehere s'do te kete fund. Shkenca nuk trembet nga kompleksiteti peballe saj, por e studion ne menyre te palodhur, hap pas hapi, per sa kohe te kene kuptim fjalet njeri dhe dije. Ne dallim nga Feja, shkenca nuk e percakton nje perfundim dhe t'i afrohet me pas me cdo kusht. Dhe ky eshte guxim, eshte kurajo per te ecur perpara pavaresisht nga enigmat dhe te papriturat qe na presin!
E persa i perket pyetjes nese duhet mesuar apo jo ne shkolla teoria e evolucionit, duke marre parasysh edhe tere sa shkrojta me perpara, une them: PATJETER. Ajo qe duhet bere eshte te ruhemi nga keqinterpretimet, apo fshehja e pjeseve te informacionit qe e perbejne.
_________________________
Before we are wise. After we are wise. In between we are otherwise.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#863996 - 07/13/06 09:53 PM
Re: shkencetaret: "evolucioni ne shkolla"
[Re: Gurax]
|
jimmy84
mėndje mė vete
anetar aktiv
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 1206
Loc: rrugėve tė atdheut
|
Une thom: Ne ASNJE MENYRE! JO teorise se Evoluicionit. Ne jemi mbrapa se duhet jo vetem te heqim teorine e Darvinit por edhe Mendelin dhe Pavllovin.(Perderisa instiktet dhe genet na i ka dhene Zoti atehere nuk mund te ndryshohen).
Nje gje tjeter qe duhet ta fusim ne shkolla eshte mesimi i historise se Babagjyshit te Vitit te Ri. Dhe nqs ndonje mesues guxon te thote: Babagjyshi nuk ekziston por eshte Krijim i njerezve,(sic ndodhi ne Australi) ai duhet te pushohet nga puna (sic kerkuan prinderit e nxenesve australiane).
Prandaj lerini budalliqet darviniane dhe beni gati letren qe do t`i dergoni Babagjyshit per Krishtlindje (vetem se duhet te silleni mire gjate vitit)
_________________________
Nuk eshte IDEJA, ajo qe me mungon, por NJERIU. iVi. Ngjyrat e verbojne syrin. Nga "Tao". http://www.impulstudio.com
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#863998 - 07/15/06 01:05 PM
Re: shkencetaret: "evolucioni ne shkolla"
[Re: SeXxXx_oN_SaXxXx]
|
jimmy84
mėndje mė vete
anetar aktiv
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 1206
Loc: rrugėve tė atdheut
|
Po praaa. Se Stalini dhe Mao ne fakt fotografine e Darvinit vinin ne tribune. Dhe kur biles edhe teorine e tyre keshtu e quanin "Darvinizem-Pavllovizem". Edhe Hitleri poshte jastekut "Origjinen e llojeve" mbante.
Biles une them te prishim edhe banjot se Stalini dhe Hitleri kur u vinte per t`u liruar venin ne banjo. Edhe gjithe shkrimtaret qe nga Tolstoi e deri tek Esenini duhet te digjen ne zjarr se i ka pelqyer shume Stalini.
_________________________
Nuk eshte IDEJA, ajo qe me mungon, por NJERIU. iVi. Ngjyrat e verbojne syrin. Nga "Tao". http://www.impulstudio.com
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#864000 - 07/16/06 12:47 PM
Re: shkencetaret: "evolucioni ne shkolla"
[Re: SeXxXx_oN_SaXxXx]
|
jimmy84
mėndje mė vete
anetar aktiv
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 1206
Loc: rrugėve tė atdheut
|
Po c`lidhje ka biologjia e Darvinit me marksizmin apo me nazizmin? Lidhja e vetme mes tyre eshte se jane ateiste. Ti mendon se Hitleri dhe Stalini do ishin bere shenjtore po te mos lexonin "Origjinen e llojeve"?
Ateizmi dhe Politeizmi kane ekzistuar qe ne kohen e shpellave (me vone edhe Monoteizmi).
Dhe meqe e paskan fajin ateistet cfare kane bere ata kleriket (katolike,ortodokse,muslimane etj)? Sa ushtare u jane "bekuar" armet dhe masakrat nga keta besimtaret? Sa shkencetare jane djegur, vrare apo persekutuar? Sa masakra jane bere ne emer te Zotit, nga kleriket dhe besimtaret te te GJITHA besimeve?
Nuk ka te beje hic besimi. Njerezit e pushtetshem jane munduar te mbajne pushtetin dhe ta zgjerojne ate. Dhe kjo nuk behet me te lutura dhe me falje ne kishe/xhami por behet me lufte dhe me vrasje.
Po normale, ku do hane buke pastaj gjithe ata klerike? Po gjithe ai pushtet qe kane duke u thene besimtareve cfare te mendojne dhe si te veprojne? Pastaj ku te gjejne pune me te rehatshme, te besh tere diten palle duke lexuar c`te te vije per mbare dhe prape te jesh me i nderuari? Prandaj nqs del dikush qe mendon ndryshe, ai patjeter eshte sherbetor i djallit.
Po tani kane nisur zakonin e vjeter. Nisin nga shpifjet. Darvini ka frymezuar kolonializmin anglez dhe genocidin kunder rracave jo-te bardha (se ku e ka thene Darvini qe raca e bardhe eshte superiore vetem keta e dine). Darvini ka frymezuar Hitlerin dhe Stalinin.
Po pse nuk akuzohet Nicja, Marksi, Shopenhaueri dhe mijera filozofe ateiste apo politeiste? Keta jane perfshire ne te gjitha fushat duke marre edhe politiken? Pse pikerisht nje SHKENCETAR?
Pergjigjen ta jep Galileo Galilei, Xhordano Bruno dhe ata qindra shkencetare qe u dogjen sepse hodhen poshte pallavrat e klerikeve.
_________________________
Nuk eshte IDEJA, ajo qe me mungon, por NJERIU. iVi. Ngjyrat e verbojne syrin. Nga "Tao". http://www.impulstudio.com
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#864001 - 07/31/06 01:29 AM
Re: shkencetaret: "evolucioni ne shkolla"
[Re: Gurax]
|
ViNNy
anetar
Registered: 07/27/06
Posts: 197
|
gurax per ju evolucionistet shtrohet ajo pyejta ...sa bejn 5+3= ..esht e pamundur te thoni 8 po duhet me gjet ndonje zgjidhje tjeter .besoj se e njef mire anthony flew ateistin e perbetuar per me shume se 60 e ca vjet .bile ka shkrujt edhe librin e tij te famshem 'darwinian evolution'[1984]. ai vet e ka pranuar inteligent design[por jo ne aspektet fetare].In a December 2004 interview[2], he said: I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian .por ama ne te njejten kohe ka then per evolution..... Flew wrote in a letter in the August-September issue of Britains
Philosophy Now magazine, "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about
constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." (MSNBC, 2004a;
Flew, 2004). He had "been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved
out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature" (Wavell & Iredale,
2004). If we trace evolution backwards, we reach a primitive single cell than which nothing simpler could
survive and reproduce (Witt, 2004). But then this first cell must be produced by something other than
natural selection (Witt, 2004). Flew insists that the scientific establishment has simply failed to answer this
question persuasively (Witt, 2004). But in taking issue with pre-biotic evolution, Flew is challenging the
bedrock of modern materialism (Witt, 2004). He conceded that his current ideas had some similarity with
those of "intelligent design" theorists" (MSNBC, 2004a...
me vjen keq qe se kam perkthyer se jam shume i dobet ne perkthim angisht-shqip...:)plus bie ndesh me dy ligjet e shkences.....
Evolution violates two laws of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized, unless there is already a mechanism in place to build things up. But this very same Law prevents such a mechanism from assembling by itself. The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but raw chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.
faleminderit
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#864002 - 07/31/06 11:01 AM
Re: shkencetaret: "evolucioni ne shkolla"
[Re: ViNNy]
|
Gurax
anetar aktiv
Registered: 11/02/02
Posts: 3197
|
ViNNy, meqe je i regjistruar tashti se fundmi ne kete forum, po te lajmeroj qe keto qe shkruan jane pretendime pa baze dhe "old news". Nese do te shpjegoja pse, do te perserisja per here te 4 nje seri postimesh te gjata ne kete forum brenda ketyre 3 vjeteve te fundit. Ne fakt, pertoj ta bej, dhe plus, ashtu sic eshte demonstruar me shume se nje here, sado qe une te perpiqem apo te argumentoj, te tera fjalet e mia do te bien ne vesh te shurdhet.
Sidoqofte, te pakten per pohime fizike, te rekomandoj te kesh kujdes sepse merr persiper shume pergjegjesi kur ja fut kot. Pa analizuar gjate detajet e shkrimit tend, gjeta nje fragment mashtrimi:
Quote:
Evolution violates two laws of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized, unless there is already a mechanism in place to build things up. But this very same Law prevents such a mechanism from assembling by itself.
Ligji i dyte i Termodinamikes thote qe objektet shkaterrohen?
Te kane mashtruar ViNNy.
(link per faqe) -> Ketu do gjesh pse-ne.
Ligji i dyte i Termodinamikes flet per nivele energjitike, jo per objekte! Pyet cdo fizikant apo njeri qe fiziken e meson me pasion per njohurine e vertete dhe jo me fanatizmin e mendimit "Dashte Zoti gjej dicka per t'a mbeshtetur"! Ai ligj s'ka te beje absolutisht fare me fazat e sintezes.
Duke shkeputur nga ajo faqe:
Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously.
The second law has nothing to do with pathways or procedures of synthesis.
.
.
Chlorophyll and substances as complex as chlorophyll have been synthesized in the laboratory, in glass vessels without the presence of any organisms in the reaction. Although that process was extremely difficult and took many person-years to complete, the principle was clear long before the chlorophyll project was undertaken: The non-spontaneous syntheses of greater-energy, complex substances from lesser-energy simple molecules without the aid of organisms is not prevented by the second law.
Me kete rast, si padashje, apo ironikisht "e paraprojektuar" del dhe nje pergjigje e Ligjit te Biogjenzes i L.Pasteur, qe sic the dhe vete u ideua vetem pak vjet pas publikimit te teorise se Darvinit! Sallata e njohurive qe ti parashtron me copa te viteve 1800+, pastaj 2000+, e prape 1800+ e keshtu me rradhe, vlen vetem te behet silazh per bagetine. Koncept i njohur besoj, "Accept me as thy shepherd!"
ViNNy, mos merr persiper te besh pohime shkencore, sepse ne dallim nga pohimet fetare, nuk lene shume hapesire per shformime te rastit te llojit "sic e kuptoj une". Dhe nuk eshte se po te sulmoj apo drejtohem ty, por tere burimeve referenciale qe i ngjajne nje gjimnazisti qe ka marre pjese nje dite ne nje konference akademike boterore per fizike dhe me pas perpiqet t'u shpjegoje shokeve teorine e fushes, transformimet Fourier dhe "String Theory" per te cilen degjoi, u mrekullua dhe "e kuptoi sic ja mori mendja".
PS: Ne kete moment nuk kam aq kohe sa t'i perkthej sic duhet pjeset anglisht te shkrimit. Nese ndokush do te jete i interesuar, shkruani ketu vetem kerkesen per kte gje dhe do te gjej kohen te modifikoj kete post dhe te shtoj edhe perkthimin.
_________________________
Before we are wise. After we are wise. In between we are otherwise.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#864003 - 08/01/06 02:32 AM
Re: shkencetaret: "evolucioni ne shkolla"
[Re: Gurax]
|
ViNNy
anetar
Registered: 07/27/06
Posts: 197
|
The Case for the Existence of God
One of the most basic, and most fundamental, issues that can be considered by the human mind is the question, Does God exist? In the field of logic, there are principlesor as they are called more often, lawsthat govern human thought processes and that are accepted as analytically true. One of these is the law of the excluded middle. When applied to objects, this law states that an object cannot both possess and not possess a certain trait or characteristic at the same time and in the same fashion. When applied to propositions, this law states that all precisely stated propositions are either true or false; they cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same fashion.
The statement, God exists, is a precisely stated proposition. Thus, it is either true or false. The simple fact is, either God exists or He does not. There is no middle ground. One cannot affirm logically both the existence and nonexistence of God. The atheist boldly states that God does not exist; the theist affirms just as boldly that God does exist; the agnostic laments that there is not enough evidence to make a decision on the matter; and the skeptic doubts that Gods existence can be proven with certainty. Who is correct? Does God exist or not?
The only way to answer this question, of course, is to seek out and examine the evidence. It certainly is reasonable to suggest that if there is a God, He would make available to us evidence adequate to the task of proving His existence. But does such evidence exist? And if it does, what is the nature of that evidence?
The theist advocates the view that evidence is available to prove conclusively that God does exist, and that this evidence is adequate to establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of God. However, when we employ the word prove, we do not mean that Gods existence can be demonstrated scientifically in the same fashion that one might prove that a sack of potatoes weighs ten pounds, or that a human heart has four distinct chambers within it. Such matters as the weight of a sack of vegetables, or the divisions within a muscle, are matters that may be verified empirically using the five senses. And while empirical evidence often is quite useful in establishing the validity of a case, it is not the sole means of arriving at proof. For example, legal authorities recognize the validity of a prima facie case, which is acknowledged to exist when adequate evidence is available to establish the presumption of a fact that, unless such fact can be refuted, legally stands proven (see Jackson, 1974, p. 13). It is the contention of the theist that there is a vast body of evidence that makes an impregnable prima facie case for the existence of Goda case that simply cannot be refuted. I would like to present here the prima facie case for the existence of God, and a portion of the evidence upon which that case is based.
CAUSE AND EFFECTTHE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Throughout human history, one of the most effective arguments for the existence of God has been the cosmological argument, which addresses the fact that the Universe (Cosmos) is here and therefore must be explained in some fashion. In his book, Not A Chance, R.C. Sproul observed:
Traditional philosophy argued for the existence of God on the foundation of the law of causality. The cosmological argument went from the presence of a cosmos back to a creator of the cosmos. It sought a rational answer to the question, Why is there something rather than nothing? It sought a sufficient reason for a real world (1994, p. 169, emp. in orig.).
The Universe exists and is real. Atheists and agnostics not only acknowledge its existence, but admit that it is a grand effect (e.g., see Jastrow, 1977, pp. 19-21). If an entity cannot account for its own being (i.e., it is not sufficient to have caused itself), then it is said to be contingent because it is dependent upon something outside of itself to explain its existence. The Universe is a contingent entity, since it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. Sproul has noted: Logic requires that if something exists contingently, it must have a cause. That is merely to say, if it is an effect it must have an antecedent cause (1994, p. 172). Thus, since the Universe is a contingent effect, the obvious question becomes, What caused the Universe?
It is here that the law of cause and effect (also known as the law of causality) is strongly tied to the cosmological argument. Simply put, the law of causality states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. Just as the law of the excluded middle is analytically true, so the law of cause and effect is analytically true as well. Sproul addressed this when he wrote:
The statement Every effect has an antecedent cause is analytically true. To say that it is analytically or formally true is to say that it is true by definition or analysis. There is nothing in the predicate that is not already contained by resistless logic in the subject. It is like the statement, A bachelor is an unmarried man or A triangle has three sides or Two plus two are four.... Cause and effect, though distinct ideas, are inseparably bound together in rational discourse. It is meaningless to say that something is a cause if it yields no effect. It is likewise meaningless to say that something is an effect if it has no cause. A cause, by definition, must have an effect, or it is not a cause. An effect, by definition, must have a cause, or it is not an effect (1994, pp. 172,171 emp. in orig.).
Effects without adequate causes are unknown. Further, causes never occur subsequent to the effect. It is meaningless to speak of a cause following an effect, or an effect preceding a cause. In addition, the effect is never qualitatively superior to, or quantitatively greater than, the cause. This knowledge is responsible for our formulation of the law of causality in these words: Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall from the table because the fly lighted on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we observe, we must postulate adequate antecedent causeswhich brings us back to the original question: What caused the Universe?
There are but three possible answers to this question: (1) the Universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist; (2) the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; (3) the Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing; rather, it was created by something (or Someone) anterior, and superior, to itself. These three options merit serious consideration.
Is the Universe Eternal?
The most comfortable position for the person who does not believe in God is the idea that the Universe is eternal, because it avoids the problem of a beginning or ending, and thus the need for any first cause such as God. In fact, it was to avoid just such a problem that evolutionists Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi, and Fred Hoyle developed the Steady State Theory. Information had come to light that indicated the Universe was expanding. These scientists suggested that at points in space called irtrons hydrogen was coming into existence from nothing. As hydrogen atoms arrived, they had to go somewhere, and as they did, they displaced matter already in existence, causing the Universe to expand. Dr. Hoyle suggested that the atoms of gaseous hydrogen gradually condensed into clouds of virgin matter, that within these clouds new stars and galaxies formed, etc.
However, the Steady State Theory was doomed to failure, in part, because it violated one of the most fundamental laws of sciencethe first law of thermodynamics (also referred to as the law of the conservation of matter and/or energy), which states that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed in nature. Astronomer Robert Jastrow observed:
But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in sciencethe principle of the conservation of matter and energywhich states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact (1977, p. 32).
The Steady State Theory eventually was relegated to the relic heaps of history. Yet problems for those who advocated an eternal Universe continued to multiply because such a concept violated the second law of thermodynamics as well. Simply stated, the second law of thermodynamics dictates that as energy is employed to perform work, it is transformed from a usable to a nonusable form. The Universe is running down because energy is becoming less available for use. As Jastrow has remarked:
And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates that the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up. Arthur Eddington, the most distinguished astronomer of his day, wrote: If our views are right, somewhere between the beginning of time and the present day we must place the winding up of the universe. When that occurred, and Who or what wound up the Universe, were questions that bemused theologians, physicists and astronomers, particularly in the 1920s and 1930s (1978, pp. 48-49).
A year before making that admission, Dr. Jastrow made another important concession when he wrote:
Only as a result of the most recent discoveries can we say with a fair degree of confidence that the world has not existed forever;... The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its birth, but the impact is the same; modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe, either in the past or in the future (1977, pp. 19,30, emp. added).
The scientific evidence states clearly that the Universe had a beginningsomething eternal things do not have. Nor do eternal things run down, yet clearly the Universe is doing just that, as Dr. Jastrow has noted. As Henry Morris has commented, The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning (1974, p. 26). Indeed, it does. The Universe is now known not to be eternal.
Did the Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing?
In the past, it would have been practically impossible to find any reputable scientist who would be willing to advocate a self-created Universe. George Davis, a prominent physicist of the past generation, explained why when he wrote: No material thing can create itself. Further, Dr. Davis affirmed that this statement cannot be logically attacked on the basis of any knowledge available to us (1958, p. 71). The Universe is the created, not the creator.
However, as surprising as it may seem, some in the scientific and philosophical communities have stepped forward to defend the option that the Universe simply created itself out of nothing. Edward P. Tryon, professor of physics at the City University of New York, wrote for example: In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from nothing, as a result of established principles of physics. This proposal variously struck people as preposterous, enchanting, or both (1984, p. 14). But the real push for the acceptance of a self-created Universe came as a result of an article published in the May 1984 issue of Scientific American. Under the title of The Inflationary Universe, evolutionists Alan Guth and Paul Steinhardt wrote:
From a historical point of view, probably the most revolutionary aspect of the inflationary model is the notion that all the matter and energy in the observable universe may have emerged from almost nothing.... The inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by which the observed universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire Universe evolved from literally nothing (1984, p. 128, emp. added).
Such ideas as those set forth by Tryon, Guth, Steinhardt, and others have set off a wave of controversy within the scientific community, as is evident from heated discussions at annual scientific meetings, articles published in refereed scientific journals, books written on a scholarly level, and even items appearing in popular science magazines. For example, in the summer 1994 edition of the Skeptical Inquirer, Ralph Estling of Great Britain wrote a stinging rebuke of the idea that the Universe created itself out of nothing. Estling suggested:
The problem emerges in science when scientists leave the realm of science and enter that of philosophy and metaphysics, too often grandiose names for mere personal opinion, untrammeled by empirical evidence or logical analysis, and wearing the mask of deep wisdom. And so they conjure us an entire Cosmos, or myriads of cosmoses, suddenly, inexplicably, causelessly leaping into being out ofout of Nothing Whatsoever, for no reason at all, and thereafter expanding faster than light into more Nothing Whatsoever.... They then intone equations and other ritual mathematical formulae and look upon it and pronounce it good. I do not think that what these cosmologists, these quantum theorists, these universe-makers, are doing is science. I cant help feeling that universes are notoriously disinclined to spring into being, ready-made, out of nothing (1994, 18[4]:430).
Estlings article provoked numerous letters to the editor of the Skeptical Inquirer, which were printed, with Estlings response, in the January/February 1995 issue. Estling wrote, in part: All things begin with speculation, science not excluded. But if no empirical evidence is eventually forthcoming, or can be forthcoming, all speculation is barren.... There is no evidence, so far, that the entire universe, observable and unobservable, emerged from a state of absolute Nothingness (1995, 19[1]:69-70).
Estling is correct, of course. There is no evidence that would allow matter or energy simply to pop into existence of its own accord. This suggestion is in clear violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, to suggest that the Universe created itself is to posit a self-contradictory position. Sproul addressed this when he wrote that what an atheist or agnostic
...deems possible for the world to docome into being without a causeis something no judicious philosopher would grant that even God could do. It is as formally and rationally impossible for God to come into being without a cause as it is for the world to do so.... For something to bring itself into being it must have the power of being within itself. It must at least have enough causal power to cause its own being. If it derives its being from some other source, then it clearly would not be either self-existent or self-created. It would be, plainly and simply, an effect. Of course, the problem is complicated by the other necessity weve labored so painstakingly to establish: It would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to exercise that power (1994, pp. 179,180).
Science is based on observation and reproducibility. But when pressed for the reproducible, empirical data that document their claim of a self-created Universe, scientists and philosophers are at a loss to produce those data. Perhaps this is why Alan Guth lamented: In the end, I must admit that questions of plausibility are not logically determinable and depend somewhat on intuition (1988, 11[2]:76)which is little more than a fancy way of saying, I certainly wish this were true, but I could not prove it to you if my life depended on it.
The eminent British astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking, put the matter in perspective when he wrote: The new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory, although a lot of people do not seem to have heard of its demise and are still writing papers on it as if it were viable (1988, p. 132, emp. added). The Universe did not create itself. Such an idea is absurd, philosophically and scientifically.
Was the Universe Created?
Either the Universe had a beginning, or it did not. But all available evidence indicates that the Universe did have a beginning. If the Universe had a beginning, it either had a cause or it did not. One thing we know assuredly, however: it is correctlogically and scientificallyto acknowledge that the Universe had a cause, because the Universe is an effect, and requires an adequate antecedent cause. Nothing causeless happens.
Since it is apparent that the Universe it not eternal, and since likewise it is apparent that the Universe could not have created itself, the only remaining alternative is that the Universe was created by something, or Someone, that: (a) existed before it, i.e., some eternal, uncaused First Cause; (b) is superior to itsince the created cannot be superior to the creator; and (c) is of a different nature, since the finite, contingent Universe of matter is unable to explain itself (see Jackson and Carroll, n.d., 2:98-154).
In connection with this, another important fact should be considered. If there ever had been a time when nothing existed, then there would be nothing now. It is a self-evident truth that nothing produces nothing. In view of this, since something exists now, it must follow logically that something has existed forever. As Sproul has remarked:
Indeed, reason demands that if something exists, either the world or God (or anything else), then something must be self-existent.... There must be a self-existent being of some sort somewhere, or nothing would or could exist (1994, pp. 179,185 emp. in orig.).
Everything that exists can be classified as either matter (which includes energy), or mind. There is no third alternative. The theists argument, then, is this:
Everything that exists is either matter or mind.
Something exists now, so something eternal must exist.
Therefore, either matter or mind is eternal.
Either matter or mind is eternal.
Matter is not eternal, per the evidence cited above.
Thus, it is mind that is eternal.
In the past, atheists suggested that the mind is nothing more than a function of the brain, which is matter; thus the mind and the brain are the same, and matter is all that exists. However, that viewpoint is no longer intellectually credible, as a result of the scientific experiments of British neurologist, Sir John Eccles. Dr. Eccles won the Nobel Prize for distinguishing that the mind is more than merely physical. He showed that the supplementary motor area of the brain may be fired by mere intention to do something, without the motor cortex of the brain (which controls muscle movements) operating. In effect, the mind is to the brain what a librarian is to a library. The former is not reducible to the latter. Eccles explained his methodology in The Self and Its Brain, co-authored with the renowned philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper (see Popper and Eccles, 1977). In a discussion centering on Dr. Eccles work, Norman Geisler discussed the concept of an eternal, all-knowing Mind.
Further, this infinite cause of all that is must be all-knowing. It must be knowing because knowing beings exist. I am a knowing being, and I know it.... But a cause can communicate to its effect only what it has to communicate. If the effect actually possesses some characteristic, then this characteristic is properly attributed to its cause. The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. If my mind or ability to know is received, then there must be Mind or Knower who gave it to me. The intellectual does not arise from the nonintellectual; something cannot arise from nothing (1976, p. 247).
From evidence such as that presented here, Robert Jastrow (an agnostic, by his own admission) was forced to conclude: That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact (1982, p. 18). The evidence speaks clearly regarding the existence of a non-contingent, eternal, self-existent Mind that created this Universe and everything within it.
CONCLUSION
The law of cause and effect, and the cosmological argument based upon that law, have serious implications in every field of human endeavor. The Universe is here, and must have an adequate antecedent cause. In addressing this problem, R.L. Wysong commented:
Everyone concludes naturally and comfortably that highly ordered and designed items (machines, houses, etc.) owe existence to a designer. It is unnatural to conclude otherwise. But evolution asks us to break stride from what is natural to believe and then believe in that which is unnatural, unreasonable, and...unbelievable.... The basis for this departure from what is natural and reasonable to believe is not fact, observation, or experience but rather unreasonable extrapolations from abstract probabilities, mathematics, and philosophy (1976, p. 412, first ellipsis in orig.).
Dr. Wysong then presented an interesting historical case to illustrate his point. Some years ago, scientists were called to Great Britain to study orderly patterns of concentric rocks and holesa find designated as Stonehenge. As studies progressed, it became apparent that these patterns had been designed specifically to allow certain astronomical predictions. Many questions (e.g., how ancient peoples were able to construct an astronomical observatory, how the data derived from their studies were used, etc.) remain unsolved. But one thing is knownthe cause of Stonehenge was intelligent design.
Now, suggested Dr. Wysong, compare Stonehenge to the situation paralleling the origin of the Universe, and of life itself. We study life, observe its functions, contemplate its complexity (which defies duplication even by intelligent men with the most advanced methodology and technology), and what are we to conclude? Stonehenge might have been produced by the erosion of a mountain, or by catastrophic natural forces working in conjunction with meteorites to produce rock formations and concentric holes. But what scientist or philosopher ever would suggest such an idea?
No one ever could be convinced that Stonehenge just happened by accident, yet atheists and agnostics expect us to believe that this highly ordered, well-designed Universe, and the complicated life it contains, just happened. To accept such an idea is, to use Dr. Wysongs words, to break stride from what is natural to believe because the conclusion is unreasonable, unwarranted, and unsupported by the facts at hand. The cause simply is not adequate to produce the effect.
The central message of the Cosmological Argument, and the law of cause and effect upon which it is based, is this: Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. The Universe is here; intelligent life is here; morality is here; love is here. What is their adequate antecedent cause? Since the effect never can precede, or be greater than the cause, it stands to reason that the Cause of life must be a living Intelligence that Itself is both moral and loving.
REFERENCES
Davis, George (1958), Scientific Revelations Point to a God, The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, ed. John C. Monsma (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons).
Estling, Ralph (1994), The Scalp-Tinglin, Mind-Blowin, Eye-Poppin, Heart-Wrenchin, Stomach-Churnin, Foot-Stumpin, Great Big Doodley Science Show!!!, Skeptical Inquirer, 18[4]:428-430, Summer.
Estling, Ralph (1995), Letter to the Editor, Skeptical Inquirer, 19[1]:69-70, January/February.
Guth, Alan (1988), Interview in Omni, 11[2]:75-76,78-79,94,96-99, November.
Guth, Alan and Paul Steinhardt (1984), The Inflationary Universe, Scientific American, 250:116-128, May.
Hawking, Stephen W. (1988), A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam).
Hull, David (1974), Philosophy of Biological Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall)
Jackson, Wayne (1974), Fortify Your Faith (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).
Jackson, Wayne and Tom Carroll (no date), The Jackson-Carroll Debate on Atheism and Ethics, Thrust, ed. Jerry Moffitt, 2:98-154.
Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).
Jastrow, Robert (1978), God and the Astronomers (New York: W.W. Norton).
Jastrow, Robert (1982), A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths, Interview with Bill Durbin, August 6.
Morris, Henry M. (1974), Scientific Creationism (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers).
Popper, Karl R. and John C. Eccles (1977), The Self and Its Brain (New York: Springer International).
Sproul, R.C. (1994), Not A Chance (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Tryon, Edward P. (1984), What Made the World?, New Scientist, 101:14-16, March 8.
Wysong, R.L. (1976), The Creation/Evolution Controversy (East Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press).
Edited by ViNNy (08/01/06 02:51 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#864005 - 08/01/06 02:35 PM
Re: shkencetaret: "evolucioni ne shkolla"
[Re: Kondrapedali]
|
Gurax
anetar aktiv
Registered: 11/02/02
Posts: 3197
|
ViNNy, te jesh i sigurt qe per cfare po flitet ketu nuk eshte per nje boshllek qe mund te mbushet me nje apo dy shkrime te vogla si ky qe ke sjelle ti, aq me teper tashti qe pashe c'je ne gjendje te shkruash.
Kondra, ne pjesen prezantuese te nenforumit "Shkenca" ka dicka qe do te doja ta citoja:
-----------
.. ka shume pyetje interesante qe nuk bejne pjese ne prizmin shkencor. Psh, a ka Zot? Apo cila eshte natyra e dashurise? Apo edhe a do te ishim me te lumtur po te jetonim 1000 vjet?
Keto jane pyetje shume interesante, dhe jane pyetje te rendesishme. Keto jane pyetje qe na provokojne dhe na stimulojne si dhe te te shprehim humanizmin tone, por ato nuk jane pyetje shkencore. Ato nuk mund te jene te fallsifikueshme. Ato jane pyetje qe nuk mund te testohen me eksperiment.
-----------
Nese lexon shkrimin tend, me cilin profil do ta karakterizoje? Shkencor, social, filozofik, teologjik, epistemologjik? Une di qe njeri prej atyre profileve nuk e karakterizon shkrimin ne fjale.
Por po te shmangem edhe une pak nga tema e ta shoh ceshtjen disi me gjere, mund te bej pyetjen "cfare eshte shpirti ne fund te fundit?" Une nujk mund ta them, por di qe pjese e tij jane dhemshuria e nenes per femijen, gezimi per nje arritje, dhimbja per nje humbje, malli per njerezit qe na mungojne. Dhe nderkohe, kam pare edhe qen te perlotur ngaqe i zoti kishte thyer kemben dhe uleriste nga dhimbjet. Apo te tere jemi te vetedijshem per vajtimet e kafsheve nese i marrim nje kelysh si dhe format e ndryshme te ngazellimit kur ua rikthejme. Kjo nuk tregon qe kafshet kane shpirt, cfaredoqofte ky shpirt, por gjithashtu nese e kemi, fare mire mund te mos jemi vetem. Kush mund t'i jape pergjigje ketyre pyetjeve?
Ideja e evolucionit eshte qe me kalimin e kohes permiresohen teknikat per te jetuar me gjate, per te jetuar me te sigurt, per te jetuar me ne menyre efektive. Ka gjallesa, kush me mire e kush me keq, di te gjeje nje strofull kur bie shi. Kush me mire e kush me keq, di te ndertoje nje strofull apo strehe kur bie shi. Kush me mire e kush me keq, e vezhgon kur bie shi dhe futet me perpara ne strofull. E paska dhe te tille qe jane bere aq nazelinj saqe shiun duan ta komandojne vete se kur te bjere. Gjithcka ka te beje me aftesine te njohim ambientin qe na rrethon dhe ne pefeksionimin e teknikave qe jeta ne kete ambient te jete sa me me pak kokecarje. Aftesia me pas jo vetem e pershtatjes, por ne menyre aktive e ndryshimit te ambientit per nevojat jetike, eshte ultimate. Konkludon ne ate qe shkurt filluam ta quajme inteligjence. Dhe bashke me te vijne te tera veprimet, konseguencat, gabimet, humbjet, fitoret, eksperiencat qe e pasojne.
Ne kete aspekt, ne cdo dite evolojme, por tashme edhe ne nje dimension tjeter, te pamate e te jashtezakonshem, ne dimension ku perparimet nuk maten me me miliona vjet, por me dhjetera vjet! Cdo dite qe kalon grumbullon njohuri dhe eksperience, na ndryshon per te bere me mire neser ate qe kemi bere deri me sot. Pyetjet qe i parashtrojme vetes jane pjese e kesaj ecje perpara, jane themelet e avancimeve qe do te behen neser pergjate rruges se gjate te evolucionit.
Ndoshta na tremb vete shpejtesia marramendese e kesaj ecje perpara. Ndoshta jemi ne panik sepse kemi kuptuar vertet qe sa me shume pergjigje te kemi, aq me teper pyetje do te lindin. Frike, e kush s'ka frike?
Shkenca ne kete aspekt kthehet ne veglen rigoroze te studimit dhe njohjes jo vetem te ambientit i cili na ndikon perdite, por qe tashme edhe ne e ndryshojme po perdite. Ne nje kuptim piktoresk, shkenca eshte tashme nje nga menyrat per te studiuar veten tone si rrjedhoje direkte e majes se evolucionit, inteligjences. Pyetjet qe parashtrojme, te cdo natyre jane perseri pjese e saj. Dhe te jeni te sigurt qe kemi mjaftueshem urtesi qe si te thuash "mos blejme buke ne dyqanin e fruta perimeve".
Evolucioni nuk eshte armik i Teologjise, ashtu sic Teologjia e para e damkos. Ashtu si shkenca, Teologjia eshte nje rruge per te njohur veten dhe cdo gje qe na rrethon, duke mesuar cdo dite e me shume, duke kuptuar cdo dite e me shume. Tashme qe evolucioni ka konkluduar ne nje rruge per te studiuar vetveten, nuk duhet te trembemi nga perfundimet e kombinuara te shkences, teologjise, filozofise e cdo fushe tjeter qe ka te beje me NE!
Kondre, ti e di shume mire qe synimi im s'ka te beje fare me "ranting and flame bait". Dua vetem te ve ne pah qe pyetja se ku eshte shpirti i pemes, tek filizi apo pema fillestare, s'ka te beje fare me te drejten e mesimdhenies se evolucionit ne shkolla.
_________________________
Before we are wise. After we are wise. In between we are otherwise.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Wii
|
