المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة أمَة الرحمن
لا حاجة للإستئذان، أخي الفاضل. انقل الموضوع و انشره حتى يتبيّن لاخوتنا المغرّر بهم مدى تغوّل هؤلاء الماديين الملاحدة بالخرافات الفكرية.
و خذ اقتباسات أخرى تؤكد مدى ايمان هؤلاء الملاحدة بالخرافات التي تكفر بأبسط بديهيات العقلانية (أخبرني ان احتجت أن أترجم هذه الاقتباسات):
George Wald, a Nobel Prize winner in medicine and physiology, said:
“When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!”
,Thomas Nagel
a New York University Professor of Philosophy and leading atheist philosopher, said
“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that… My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.”
In The Altenberg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry, Oxford University and University of Massachusetts-Amherst Professor of Biology Lynn Margulis (winner of the U.S. Presidential Medal for Science) discusses the persistence of neo-Darwinian theory, despite its deteriorating scientific basis, with journalist Susan Mazur:
Margulis: “If enough favorable mutations occur, was the erroneous extrapolation, a change from one species to another would concurrently occur.”
Mazur: “So a certain dishonesty set in?”
Margulis: “No. It was not dishonesty. I think it was wish-fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.”
Mazur: “But a whole industry grew up.”
Margulis: “Yes, but people are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of ‘truth’ – scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders.”
Robert Jastrow, the astronomer, physicist and founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, discusses how many atheist physicists react to the scientific proof that the universe had a beginning (thereby ruling out the atheist preference for an uncreated, eternally existing universe):
“Theologians are generally delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind—supposedly a very objective mind—when the evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.”
Bookmarks