Destaquei aqui neste blog a posição dos cientistas brasileiros que afirmaram em entrevista numa conferência na Unisinos em 2009, e afirmam hoje de pés juntos (cruz, credo!) que aceitar o relato de Darwin e o relato da religião (o relato de criação de Gênesis também???) sobre a origem e evolução das espécies é 100% compatível, très rationell et chic, sacou? Nada mais controverso! E polêmico!
O nome disso é oxímoro, duas ideias antípodas. O mesmo que dizer: Lula é um intelectual da Sorbonne! Os darwinistas ortodoxos, fundamentalistas, xiítas, pós-modernistas, neoateus chiques e perfumados a la Dawkins dizem o contrário dos darwinistas acomodacionistas, oops, compatibilistas: o relato da origem e evolução das espécies de Darwin é sim incompatível com os relatos de criação de textos sagrados.
Eis uma pequena coletânea de frases de líderes da Nomenklatura científica darwiniana que, como este blogger (eu prometi a Darwin que não iria permitir e denunciaria este sacrilégio epistêmico evolutivo), defendem a ortodoxia de Darwin nesta questão:
Jerry Coyne:
"The pro-religion stance of the NCSE is offensive and unnecessary—a form of misguided pragmatism. . . . The directors of the NCSE are smart people. They know perfectly well—as did Darwin himself—that evolutionary biology is and always has been a serious threat to faith. But try to find one acknowledgment of this incompatibility on their website. No, all you’ll find there is sweetness and light. Indeed, far from being a threat to faith, evolution seems to reinforce it! Is it disingenuous to be a personal atheist, as some NCSE officials are, and yet tell others that their faith is compatible with science? I don’t know. But the NCSE’s pragmatism has taken it far outside its mandate. Their guiding strategy seems to be keep Darwin
“Attempts to reconcile God and evolution keep rolling off the intellectual assembly line. It never stops, because the reconciliation never works.” (Jerry Coyne, “Seeing and Believing,” The New Republic (February 4, 2009).
“The ‘new atheists’ are against religion because it is inimical to rational thought.” (Jerry Coyne, “Mooney and Kirshenbaum self-destruct at last” (August 11, 2009).
"Scientists divide into two schools of thought over the best tactics with which to face the threat [of religion]. The Neville Chamberlain ‘appeasement’ school focuses on the battle for evolution. Consequently, its members identify fundamentalism as the enemy, and they bend over backwards to appease ‘moderate’ or ‘sensible’ religion … Scientists of the Winston Churchill school, by contrast, see the fight for evolution as only one battle in a larger war: a looming war between supernaturalism on the one side and rationality on the other. For them, bishops and theologians belong with creationists in the supernatural camp, and are not to be appeased." (Richard Dawkins, “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God,” The Huffington Post (October 23, 2006).
Larry Moran: “I don’t like the fact that NCSE cozies up to theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins while, at the same time, actively distancing itself from vocal atheist scientists like Richard Dawkins” (Larry Moran, “The Trouble with NCSE,” Sandwalk Blog (April 22, 2009).
Sean M. Carroll: "accomodationism" is “the rhetorical strategy on the part of some pro-science people and organizations to paper over conflicts between science and religion so that religious believers can be more comfortable accepting the truth of evolution and other scientific ideas.” in
“Science and Religion are Not Compatible,” Discover Magazine Blogs Cosmic Variance (June 23, 2009).
Jason Rosenhouse: “By all means read Miller, Haught, Ruse and all the others on this subject. They have shown quite successfully that traditional Christianity is not flatly refuted by evolution, or by anything else in science. Coyne and the New Atheists have never claimed otherwise. The trouble is simply that their attempted reconciliations seem terribly implausible, to me and to a lot of others.” In “Mooney on Dover
Daniel Dennett: "evolution demolishes the best reason anyone has ever suggested for believing in a divine creator.” Daniel Dennett quoted in “The Kitzmiller Decision,” Butterflies and Wheels Blog (January 25, 2008.
E. O. Wilson: “If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural selection, genetic chance and environmental necessity, not God, made the species.” (On Human Nature, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978, p. 1.)
Darwin e Deus são compatíveis. Marx e o Capital (dos capitalistas, não o livro) são compatíveis. Feijoada e Cuisine française são compatíveis. A companhia de ballet Bolshoi é compatível com o baile funk. Ladrões e Políticos em Brasília são compatíveis (ah, isso são. Ô, gente, toda regra tem sua exceção...)
Darwin, cara, estão deformando a sua ideia que é a maior ideia que a toda a humanidade já teve. E nenhum darwinista tupiniquim estrila? Eu vou continuar fiel a você Darwin, duela a quien duela!!!
Darwin, cara, estão deformando a sua ideia que é a maior ideia que a toda a humanidade já teve. E nenhum darwinista tupiniquim estrila? Eu vou continuar fiel a você Darwin, duela a quien duela!!!
