Newsgroup: it.scienza.biologia
Titolo: Creazionismo scientifico nell'Islam

 compare il darwinismo seguirà a ruota.........
Prima cosa: affermi cose senza senso e per di più assurde, come paragonare
marxismo e darwinismo...... sei patetico... oltre che profondamente triste.
Seconda cosa: inviare sul NG un messaggio da 32 Kb è mostruosamente
eccessivo, leggiti le normali norme di comportamento (la cosiddetta
netiquette), devi imparare ancora tante cose. Prima di tutto il rispetto per
gli altri e il saper stare zitto quando è necessario.
--
Emanuele Passerini
ema.pa...@libero.it
http://go.to/manupippo
ICQ# 34957310

Questo interessante documento preso su Internet pone l'accento su una tesi a
me cara:l'identità fra marxismo e Darwinismo, due idola della società
occidentale del XX secolo.Il comunismo sappiamo la fine che ha fatto, il suo
compare il darwinismo seguirà a ruota.........
gb
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++
Originally published in Creation/Evolution, 34:1 (1994).
Islamic Creationism In Turkey
by Taner Edis
The December 1992 issue of "Acts and Facts" (of the ICR) describes a
"Creation Conference" in the October of that year in Turkey, featuring Duane
Gish and John Morris, explaining how
Sometime in the mid 1980s, the Turkish Minister of Education, Mr. Vehbi
Dinçerler [. . .] placed a call to ICR. [. . .] he wanted to eliminate the
secular-based, evolution-only teaching dominant in their schools and replace
it with a curriculum teaching the two models[.] As a result, several ICR
books which dealt with the scientific (not Biblical) evidence for creation
were translated into Turkish and distributed to all Turkey's public school
teachers.
Islamic countries, Turkey in particular, are fertile territory for
creationism. The religious-cultural need for a "scientific creationism" is
not confined to conservative Protestantism.
A widely available, low priced booklet (about 90 cents, 118 pages) by a
leading Turkish creationist illustrates the nature of strict creationism in
Turkey. Evolution, a Bankrupt Theory by Adem Tatli (Tatli, 1990), is also
significant in that much of the included material was originally produced
for the Turkish government. The level of reliance on the "creation science"
produced by conservative Christians is striking.
From the Preface by Ubeydullah Küçük, the publisher:
[Western] civilization has turned its back on God and universal truths [. .
.]. Among the demonic hypotheses this fundamentally flawed civilization --
which has removed the concept and belief of the Creator God and replaced it
with the idols of Man and this mortal life -- has cursed humanity with, is
Darwinism and the theory of evolution. Darwinism and Marxism are two false
religions coming into being in the 19th century. [. . .] Finally we are at
the end of the game, Marx is finished, and so is Marxism. . .
Now, it is the turn of its biological sibling Darwinism, the hypothesis of
evolution. This greatest scientific fraud of recent ages will also collapse.
Recent discoveries and progress in the field of molecular biology in
particular, have exposed Darwinism and the atheist theory of evolution as a
lie. But, just as old soldiers among Marxists are insistent on adhering to
their false religion, Darwinists and evolutionists will also adhere to this
pseudo-theory that agrees with their atheistic world view[.] However, it
must be known with certainty that the defenders of Darwinism, transformism
and atheistic evolutionary theory are fighting for a cause that is already
lost.
Darwinism and evolutionary theory have given answers to origin questions
that are unscientific, pessimistic, absurd, not in keeping with human
dignity, and entirely in contradiction with universal absolute truths, and
have thus become the opposite of wisdom.
From the Introduction by Adem Tatli:
At about the middle of the 18th century, the idea that all existent in the
universe was the work of a Creator, and that present forms of life had
continued without change, was widely accepted in the world of science.
[Later], the idea that creatures came into being by chance, and that higher
forms of life had appeared through changes in lower forms found wide
support, led by Darwin. This idea, known later as "Darwinism" or "the theory
of Evolution," began losing its value in the 1970's, or at the least, it was
considered in conjunction with the idea of creation.
The introduction then proceeds to describe how in 1985, the then Minister of
National Education, Vehbi Dinçerler, asked Tatli to prepare an extensive
report on the theory of evolution. Tatli recalls this comment of his to the
Minister: "Darwinism, along with with Marxism and Freudism, constitutes the
basis of materialist philosophy. Your opposition to evolution theory may, I
fear, lose you your position." The Ministers' answer is said to be: "I feel
the spiritual responsibility of 15 million children of the nation on my
shoulders. The faith of our youth is shaken by the one sided presentation of
such a theory. For the truth of this matter to be understood and be set in
its proper course, let not only one, but a thousand Vehbi positions be
sacrificed."
Before discussing the "Evolution Report" of the Turkish Education Ministry,
some political background is necessary. Turkey is still in most aspects a
secular state, though about 98% of the population is said to be at least
nominally Muslim. It may be that "scientific creationism" is a reaction to a
fairly secular cultural environment. In the more traditionally religious and
culturally rural parts of the country, evolution is simply not a concern.
The secular character of the state has been diluted, however, as in the
right-wing military dictatorship period of 1980-83 and its aftermath, there
was more state entanglement with Islam. Religious instruction, in an
orthodox Sunni (the main branch of Islam) sense, was constitutionally
mandated for middle and high-school education. A 1983 report of the State
Planning Organization, on the subject of a national cultural policy,
endorsed the idea of a "Turkish-Islamic synthesis." Along with pseudohistory
about the pre-Islamic culture of central Asian Turks, the report includes
attacks against Darwin as an apostle of materialism (DPT, 1983:539):
Prominent among naturalist ideas that reduce humans to nature, count them as
part of it, and deny human spiritual superiority that does not exist in
nature, and cannot be derived from it, is Darwin [sic.]. This biological
hypothesis has declared humans to be of monkey origin, and asserted that the
mechanistic workings of nature are completed with the last stage of
evolution progressing from monkey to human.
The idea of national unity and internal peace being ensured by a relatively
tame Islam was first put into action by the dictatorship, but the party that
won the less-than-free elections of 1983 continued similar policies. One of
its main factions was the religious conservatives, analogous to the
Christian Right in the US, and they were given the Education Ministry. This
party, which was regularly praised in the US press for its "pro-Western"
policies, remained in power until 1991. The success of a more explicitly
Islamicist party in the 1994 local elections means that the influence of
religious conservatism in politics will continue.
In this context, here is the statement of the Minister, and a summary of the
following "Report on the Theory of Evolution":
Dear Educator,
As is known, the concept evolution (transformation -- development) is a
general way of thought. It is applied to all areas. The "Origin of Species"
hypothesis that Lamarck (1744--1829) and Darwin (1809--1882) have propounded
is an advanced application of this general idea to living beings. However,
this hypothesis has caused extensive controversy in the world and in Turkey
in the past two hundred years. It is the case that:
a. It has not been possible for the theory to acquire law status until this
day. (For example, we refer to the law of gravity, not to the theory of
gravity.)
b. Opposing research and arguments intended to refute the theory have
progressed beyond efforts to prove the theory.
c. Arguments and research to develop alternate theories continues.
The setting of such arguments in Turkey has in effect been in secondary and
even primary education, related and supervisory institutions connected to
these, and parents with children in secondary education. Experience has
shown that discussion of the theory at this level has been divisive,
misleading, undermining of trust in science or even having effects of
implying an idea of conflict between science and religious opinions. In
these aspects, these discussions have at the least not been of use to
anyone.
And furthermore, that it would not be objective and scientific to exclude
contrary opinions to "a theory that has not been able to become a law for
120 years" from textbooks, has been an issue that even our common citizens
have given close attention to.
The following report advocates the inclusion in the curriculum of the
shortcomings of this theory and opposing opinions. Please study the report,
and relate all opinions in favor or against to the Training and Education
Council [the body that decides textbooks and curriculum].
M. VEHBi DiNÇERLER
Minister of National Education, Youth and Sports
THE SUMMARY OF THE REPORT:
According to Darwinism or the theory of evolution in its general meaning, a
living creature has been formed by chance from unliving material, the
various life forms of today have descended from that, and finally humans
have come from monkeys.
Is there credible evidence for these claims? There is nothing but some
interpretations and guesswork (p. 1-5).
Taking this into account, evolutionists proposed Neo-Darwinism. But it has
been seen that this was not very different than its predecessor and has not
been able to solve the problems (p. 5-8).
The evidence that evolutionists propose for evolution; mutation, embryologic
evidence and vestigial organs, has been discovered to be without a serious
basis and unable to produce a new kind (p. 8-16).
With both higher and lower organisms, fossil material demonstrating descent
relations that evolutionists claim is nonexistent, as expressed by
evolutionists themselves (p. 16-20).
It has been exposed by publications in this field that materials claimed to
be related to human ancestors have been structured on fraud and speculation,
and that no trustworthy fossil is in existence (p. 20-31).
The one-sided and insistent defense, in spite of all these shortcomings, of
the theory of evolution, is understood by efforts to use the theory for
materialist philosophy, as explained by scientists who are authorities in
this field themselves (p. 31-35).
To present this theory, whose incomplete and inconsistent aspects have been
demonstrated by a large majority of scientists who are authorities about
evolution, as a law, is at least not in keeping with the ideas of objective
science.
It is our conviction that, in textbooks, it is necessary to provide all of
the evidence in favor of and against the theory of evolution, and to leave
the decision to the reader, in order for our youth to gain the habit of
objective and scientific thinking.
The body of the report contains depressingly familiar creationist arguments.
Emphasis of mere chance, statistical impossibility claims, out of context
quotations, assertions of the lack of transitional fossils, bogus taxonomy,
conspiracy theories supported by Piltdown and Nebraska Man, condemnations of
dogmatic materialism -- an impressive display of the worst of creationism is
packed into the report. The person presented throughout as an authority on
evolution is, of course, Duane T. Gish of the ICR.
The concluding section attacks Turkish biology textbooks of 1979 (just
before the military coup) for daring to support human evolution, declaring
that life had "with a large probability" originated without outside
intervention, explaining that new species more often arise from less
specialized forms rather than highly adapted species, describing skeletal
changes in hominid evolution, and similar intellectual crimes. These are
said to be claims based on preconceived notions, without evidence, as seen
by the confessions of researchers themselves.
The final recommendation, curiously enough, is a form of equal time. This is
likely accounted for by the observation that the authors' dependence on
Christian creationist sources is so extensive as to unquestioningly adopt
their strategy also. The conditions in just post-military rule Turkey were
such that this compromise was unnecessary; biology textbooks could be
watered down so as not to contradict the creationism appearing in the
religion courses. The 1979 text does not reflect the present situation.
Though an extreme example, in the late 80's Turkey had a biochemistry
textbook used in a state medical school that took time out from reactions to
become reactionary: urging students to live a properly Islamic life,
describing the "respect, worship, faith and prayer centers of the human
brain," etc. (Yegin, n.d.:118)
The list of 90 footnotes is illuminating. Twenty two are to fairly well
known "scientific creationist" sources, such as "Gish, D.T.; Evolution: The
Fossils Say No!; translated by Adem Tatli, 1984", "Field, A.N.; The
Evolution Hoax Exposed, 1971; translated by H. Avanoglu, 1976", "Macbeth,
N.; Darwin Retried [in English], 1971" and such.
The few (about 5) Turkish references are to old biology-related textbooks
where the authors appear to have expressed creationist-like convictions.
Most of the rest are to semipopular or technical scientific literature, in
many cases clearly identifiable as being out of context, others being out of
date by decades -- many from the 1920's to the 1950's. In fact, it is fairly
obvious that these references themselves are obtained through the Western
creationist literature.
Following the Ministerial Report, the creationist book includes a Gish
article, "Creation, Evolution, and Public Education," which was officially
translated by the same ministry.
The third and final part of the book is a collection of seven articles by
Dr. Tatli (there is no information within as to Dr. of what); presumably
previously published in the popular religious press, to which Tatli
contributes regularly. Some highlights:
1. "Biology Textbooks Must Be Rewritten. . . ": Controversy about details of
human evolution is used to give the impression that new hominid fossils have
disproved evolution. The confessions of evolutionists are paraded;
manufactured, as usual, through context-free quotations.
2. "The Evolution Scandal": An argument from fraud, claiming evolution is a
pseudoscience.
Of course, scientific evidence was needed for this claim [that there is no
Creator and all is a product of nature and chance]. The duty of finding the
necessary evidence was given to the theory of evolution. All similarities
between living beings, all organs with unknown functions, all creatures with
uncertain structure were harnessed for evolutionary theory. And it labeled
all these as "evidence for evolution." But unbiased scientific work, and
research without ideological and preconceived conclusions, did not support
the claim of evolution theory. This is because every creature, like a
letter, is written by a pen of divine power with the elements in the
universe. Those who desire to conceal the author of these letters used fraud
as a last resort.
The Piltdown fraud is mentioned, and Peking Man claimed to be fraudulent.
Archaeopteryx is called a hoax, but curiously, the basis for this is a
reference to a 1987 article in Punch, not Hoyle and Wickramasinghe.
3. "Darwin Must Rely On Luck": Some recent ideas on the role of sheer luck
("survival of the luckiest") in evolution is used to ridicule the theory.
Then, to bear witness that "in all in existence, signs of infinite
knowledge, will, power and capability are seen", and to object to
"scientists explaining these with luck and chance," two recent Western books
are discussed: the French biologist Remy Chauvin's Dieu des Fourmis, Dieu
des Etoiles (The God of Ants, The God of Stars), and the Australian Michael
Denton's Evolution: A Theory In Crisis.
4. "The Creation Model": Explanation of creationist "kinds" and how in the
creation model variation is confined to "the genetic potential" of each
kind. Based entirely on Duane Gish's Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, and
W.E. Lammerts' "the Galapagos Islands Finches" in the book Why Not Creation?
of 1970.
5. "Why the Dogmatism of Evolution?": Quotes creationists A.N. Field and G.
McCready Price, and biologists from the 1920's and 30's, on how evolution
has become the orthodoxy through propaganda. It is claimed that Turkish
scientific circles also treat evolution as an untouchable truth; which is
not the case today.
6. "Evolution and Ideology": This starts out with "Darwinism and
Neo-Darwinism have been used to serve capitalism and racism in the past
century."
For example, The Englishman Herbert Spencer, who was an influential
evolutionary philosopher and sociologist, strongly defended the idea of
Social Darwinism [applied by robber barons and imperialists]. In Germany,
the racist evolutionism of persons such as Haeckel, Nietzsche and Bismarck
later gave birth to Adolf Hitler's Nazism.
However, the Islamic religious right is much more anti-communist than
anti-capitalist. So the bulk of the article is devoted to showing the
connection of evolution to Godless Communism, with references to sources
such as the International Socialist Review and Marxism Today.
[Marxists] paid respect to Darwinism because it gave scientific
respectability to naturalistic and atheistic opinions. But what they wanted
was not a slowly progressing evolution, but in contrast, a change that took
place faster.
Eldredge and Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium is then brought up,
with the implication that this surfaced to cater to the need of communism
for rapid change! It turns out that this bizarre form of Red-baiting is also
inspired by American creationism; a reference is made at the end of this
section to "H. Morris, Evolution in Turmoil."
7. "Modern Life in Ancient Societies": Evolution being seen as a general
philosophy beyond biology, social evolution is the topic. By misrepresenting
current criticism of older, simplistic linear cultural evolution notions, it
is asserted that no evidence exists that humans ever had anything but rather
modern social features.
The creationist view of cultural development is given as:
Creationists accept that humans are created as humans and with a high
intelligence, and wide ranging ability and capacity. Doubtless humans have
not come into a world with built cities and a developed technology in all
its aspects. But the Lord God has given him an ability to use and develop
the resources of the earth, and equipped him according to the purpose he was
sent to the world.
[Humankind has progressed,] [b]ut it should not be forgotten that the
foundations of this culture and civilization have been laid by the miracles
of the prophets [of God].
The existence of religious belief itself is brought to count against
evolution:
When evolving humans from animals, it must not be forgotten that they have,
in contrast to animals, concepts of morality, idealism and religion. How
will evolution explain the moral values that come from the created nature of
humans? How has the emotion of faith developed in humans? [. . . Human]
differences show that they are perfectly created with their own special
nature and for a purpose.
The booklet ends with an advertisement for another, full color, illustrated
and detailed creationist book, "dealing a death blow to modern atheism."
Perhaps the most striking feature of this example of Turkish creationism is
the extent of almost total dependence on Christian creationists. Perhaps
this should be expected, as Turkish intellectual life tends to lag behind
the West in general. The weak state of Turkish science (Turkey has been
reported to have 12 thousand scientists, the most of any Islamic country,
said to have a total of only 45 thousand overall, out of a population of
about a billion (Yildirim, 1993)) may have a connection with the prevalence
of imported pseudoscientific beliefs. But probably the major factor is that
a segment of society has more recently felt the need and the possibility to
respond to the pressures of secularism, and not by retreating into a
traditionalist isolation. Islamic fundamentalism, like its Christian cousin,
is a product of modernity in its very reaction to it.
Christian creationism was there, accessible, and easily adaptable. The
religions are remarkably similar, as far as the Creation mythology is
concerned. Differences exist between the literal creation stories of the
Qur'an and Genesis, but these are details that very rarely come up in the
creationist literature, if at all. The usual vague "creation model" is fully
compatible with Islam.
Islamic creationists are more likely to be day-age, Old Earth creationists;
accepting Genesis only as a corrupted version of the original message of God
to the Hebrews. The Qur'an account is relatively vague, even as to the
number of days of creation: while most have the conventional six, one
ambiguous passage adds up to eight. Also, in various verses the "days of
God" are taken to be a thousand (Al-Hajj 47, As-Sajdah 5) or even fifty
thousand (Al-Ma`arij 4) years in length, though these are in different
contexts than creation. So forcing the text into a day-age interpretation is
somewhat easier for the Islamic case. They also don't have to worry as much
about the stated order of creation in the Genesis story, as little is said
about this matter in the Qur'an.
Contemporary Islam in general has a greater tendency towards literalism than
Christianity regarding its sacred texts. The Qur'an is taken by almost all
Muslims, conservative and liberal, as being the direct and unaltered word of
their God. The historical conditions being such that many Muslims feel
culturally threatened by a powerful and intrusive West that is more
technologically advanced, there may be less of an opportunity at the present
to develop analogues to nonliteral modernist theologies. Since science is
indispensable in order to emerge from backwardness relative to the cultural
competitor, and religious identity is nonnegotiable to large degree,
creationism can be an attractive compromise. Science must validate, not
threaten, the revealed truth.
The popularity of all kinds of pseudoscience in Turkey is remarkable, but
this has not spawned any generalized skeptical movement in response. The
limited opposition to creationism takes place in the context of an overall
criticism of Islam. In recent years the Islamic religion has increasingly
been a basis for political action, so its critique also has a political
flavor. Leftists who see a strengthening orthodox religion as a barrier to
progressive change are among the foremost Turkish critics of Islamic
creationism, treating it as yet another sign of the unscientific character
of Muslim belief.
While I have seen a reference to a book called Science and Creationism (by
title alone; perhaps the one edited by A. Montagu, 1984) as having been
translated into Turkish, more accessible anti-creationist sources are
articles and sections of books by critics of Islam. There have been a number
of books critical of religion published recently, some by socialists who
were political prisoners in the early 1980's and had access only to
religious material in the prison libraries. Unfortunately, they tend to
successfully address already culturally modernist segments of society only,
and reinforce the religious right's identification of evolution with
atheism.
A recent example is the book The Truth About Islam by such a self-described
ex-prisoner of conscience, Erdogan Aydin (Aydin, 1992). Its second volume is
an exercise in confronting literalist Islam's blatant contradictions with
present scientific understanding. One chapter is devoted to an examination
of creationism. On the politics of creationism:
The American New Right in the 80's, through reactionary institutions such as
the Institute for Creation Research etc., produced widespread publications
aiming to present the myth of creation as a serious claim and spread doubt
about evolution; with direct support of the US and satellite states, this
antiscientific effort was [promoted relentlessly]. What Muslim ideologues
have done at this point (without neglecting to attack Christianity), is to
[depend upon] Christian researchers on the subject, translate them directly
or steal their claims without feeling the need to provide citations. [. .
. ]
[. . .] This antiscientific tendency was met with opposition by the most
respected US scientists and institutions, the science-cloaked new claims of
the creationists were refuted once more, and it was underlined that creation
claims could not appear at any level in science education. In the following
process, the American Supreme Court decided to stop the practice of the
imposition of creation theory on schools.
Without a doubt, the same will not take place in our country as easily as in
the USA. Even though a strong institutional counter-rationality is present
as a reflection of the dominance of [Big Business], institutions of science
have also acquired [significant power]. Unfortunately, the same cannot be
said for our country! Furthermore, our democratic [sources of power] are
vanishingly weak, and in contrast, archaic judgements and institutions are
extremely potent. [. . .]
Aydin's defense of evolutionary concepts does not provide anything novel,
and it is partially out of date. It is clear that he has not been able to
follow the evolution side of the Western creation/evolution controversy.
Most of the creationist claims he responds to are taken from the Islamic
apologist H. Nurbaki's book Ayet's from the Qur'an and Scientific Truths
(Nurbaki, n.d.). Nurbaki is one of the Islamic creationists particularly
difficult to take seriously, with statements like
The guesses about the time of our worlds creation can never go beyond being
mere claims. Therefore such information is not a theory, or even a
hypothesis. Of course it is possible that these years are very many.
However, we can never know the speed time flowed in those times. With this
opportunity, we would like to remind our readers that ideas about the time
of creation of the earth and the universe can never contradict the Qur'an.
Among all this, there still are some religious leaders who think an
accommodation with evolutionary theory may be reached. The influential
theological moderate Süleyman Ates interprets certain ambiguous verses of
the Qur'an to mean that evolutionary theory does not contradict the religion
or scripture. "The Qur'an, which points to the origin of humanity in various
places, shows that this creation was made subject to development. . . How
this development takes place only God knows." In his book This is True
Religion (Ates, 1991:228) he begins by interpreting the days of creation as
ages. The argument is rather forced, and ignores verses (e.g. Ha Mim
As-Sajdah 9; "day" is sometimes translated as "span" in English versions
that assume a day-age harmonization) in which the shortness of time might
emphasize the greatness of God. However, scriptural interpretation is always
vague, so there is at least room for a more accommodating view.
There are also those that claim a form of directed evolution ("Evolutionary
Creation") as being Islamically acceptable, relying mainly on
interpretations of Islamic philosophical speculations in the 9th to 11th
centuries (Bayrakdar, 1987). While this is contrasted to modern evolutionary
theories that are non-teleological, it provides a basis for a high degree of
acceptance of descent by modification.
But the hope that Islamic versions of theologies that are not directly
hostile to evolution can be popularly accepted must remain dim. Science does
get respect, in its technological aspects -- engineers in particular are
prominent among culturally conservative leaders (this is also true where
Arab countries are concerned (Sivan, 1985:81)). But the traditional
understanding of the religion sees evolution as reducing humans to animals,
so "scientific" creationism serves a vital religious function. The general
framework of a "cultural traditionalist" group with leadership provided by
conservatives within the sociological "New Class" broadly serves in the
Turkish case as well as the US, to analyze creationism (Eve and Harrold,
1991).
Creationism also has to be understood in the context of the general
apologetic activity directed against Western secular influences. Islam is
pronounced to be a "scientific religion" in all its details, and those such
as the French surgeon Maurice Bucaille who claim that the Qur'an is the only
scripture in full agreement with modern science (Bucaille, 1982) get a lot
of attention. The harmonization of scripture and science goes to the lengths
of claiming "Qur'anic miracles," with certain verses interpreted as having
anticipated modern science in the 7th century (Moore, 1986), an activity
reminiscent of the exegeses of Nostradamus. It is not surprising that the
same sources would also take easily to "theory but not fact" rhetoric to
preserve the perceived scientific integrity of the Qur'an.
It would seem that Turkish creationism can be held in check only with the
support of some liberal form of religion; a mode of argument that is
scientific alone, with no reference to religious belief, will probably not
be sufficient in the current political context. But the prospects of this
taking place are not good, particularly with the rising political and
cultural force of orthodox religion; and modernist intellectuals have been
bemoaning the resistance of Islam to any reform for more than a century now.
Whatever the fortunes of Christian creationism, the Islamic world will be
increasingly important in the future for creationist pseudoscience.
References
Ates, Süleyman 1991. Gerçek Din Bu vol. 1. Istanbul: Yeni Ufuklar Nesriyat.
Aydin, Erdogan 1992. Islamiyet Gerçegi vol. 2. Istanbul: Güney Yayincilik.
Bayrakdar, Mehmet 1987. Islam'da Evrimci Yaradilis Teorisi. Istanbul: insan
Yayinlari.
Bucaille, Maurice 1982. The Bible, The Qur'an and Science. Paris: Seghers.
DPT (Devlet Planlama Teskilati) 1983. Milli Kültür Raporu. Ankara.
Eve, R. and F. Harrold 1991. The Creationist Movement in Modern America.
Boston: Twayne Publishers.
Moore, Keith L. 1986. "A Scientist's Interpretation Of References To
Embryology In The Qur'an." The Journal of IMA, Vol. 18, p.15.
Nurbaki, Haluk n.d. Kur'an'dan Ayetler ve ilmi Gerçekler vol. III. (Aydin
does not provide publication information)
Sivan, Emmanuel 1985. Radical Islam: Medieval Theology and Modern Politics.
Yale University Press.
Tatli, Adem 1990. Evrim, iflas Eden Teori. Istanbul: Bedir Yayinevi.
Yegin, M. Münip 
et.al
. n.d. Biyokimya I. Ankara: Atatürk Üni. Yayinlari No:
653. Discussed in Vecihi Timuroglu, Türk-Islam Sentezi, Ankara: Basak
Yayinlari, 1991.
Yildirim, Emin 1993; study described in the newspaper Cumhuriyet Hafta of
Feb. 11, 1993.
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gianfranco Bruno
 San Demetrio nei V. (L'Aquila) ITALY
      Numero di Fax: 06 233 183 17
 
www.geocities.com/gbruno_2000
 
www.university.it/000/notizie/notizierisult.asp?Id=166
 
www.sibioc.it/links/hotlink.html
http://batteriologia.go.to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Allora vediamo di mettere in chiaro un par di cose:
A)Questo documento NON è affatto interessante
B)NON me ne può fregare di meno se ti è caro l'argomento del marxismo
(questo è un NG di biologia!)
C)il creazionismo è una dottrina ormai superata e obsoleta, semmai il
dibattito può essere se l'evoluzione è dovuta alla selezione naturale o alla
deriva genica....ma come al solito la verità sta in mezzo.
Se te la sei presa con Darwin in questo modo ti consiglio un buon
psichiatra.

Originally published in Creation/Evolution, 34:1 (1994).
E già questo dice tutto sulla credibilità della rivista .......
A pare che spedire un messaggio di ben 556 righe è decisamente fuori
da ogni regola di netiquette, ma ti dovremmo prima spiegare cos'è
AleX


Eh, Bruno, Bruno... Sei come uno di quei giocatori di tennis un po'
imbolsiti che più di due scambi non reggono e si ostinano a giocare ed
ogni volta bisogna ricominciare dal servizio. Lo sapevi che si
sarebbero arrabbiati, vero? Che altro potevi pretendere presentando un
documento che si basa sul Corano? Tra Islam e scienza da qualche
secolo i rapporti sono davvero pessimi, perché la scienza si rifiuta
pervicacemente di sottomettersi alle parole del Profeta, la blasfema.
I musulmani sono quelli che si rifiutano di credere che gli americani
siano sbarcati sulla luna, e non perché ritengano le prove adotte
insufficienti, che sarebbe un punto di vista onorevole, ma perché
Mohammed da qualche parte ha detto che non era possibile, e questo è
davvero intollerabile per chi non ha fede in Lui. E siamo in tanti.
Adesso potrai gongolarti esclamando "Guardate che reazioni isteriche!"
e, poiché l'avversario ha sbattuto la racchetta per terra e se ne è
andato masticando cose irripetibili, sostenere di aver vinto il
confronto. Ognuno si riconsola come può. Peccato, perché il batti e
ribatti poteva andare avanti ancora, anche con cattiveria ma con un
minimo di rispetto reciproco. Invece finirai filtrato.
Nanni
Ps
... I dieci miliardi...
N.

Il Darwinismo è una teoria scientifica basata su fatti, esperimenti,
ossservazioni, misure e simulazioni al calcolatore non una dottrina
politica. Infatti è universalmente accettata da scienziati di ogni
opinione politica. La tua critica si basa su criteri ideologi e quindi
è errata nei suoi fondamenti assolutamente ascientifici prima ancora
che nella dialettica e nelle supposte prove contro.
Il fatto che puoi tu sbandieri un esempio del sistema educativo della
Turchia -Paese noto per le gravi e sistematiche violazioni dei diritti
umani e per il tentato genocidio dei Curdi- la dice lunga su quanto
liberali siano le tue vedute.
Alessandro Cellerino
Sent via Deja.com 
http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 compare il darwinismo seguirà a ruota.........
    Ma scusa, da qunado in qua ci sono delle analogie tra darwinismo e
marxismo?? Ma non senti la puzza delle stron***e che dici? Leggiti il Capitale
di Marx, poi L'Origine delle Specie di Darwin. Quando, tra 10 o 15 anni avrai
finito, allora se ne potra' discutere.
    E basta parlare di politica, per favore!
    So Long!
    Stefano.