Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Lynn Margulis ‘falou e disse’: toda a panóplia da terminologia neodarwinista é falaciosa e perigosa!
“Toda a panóplia da terminologia neodarwinista reflete um erro filosófico, um exemplo do século XX de um fenômeno que foi bem designado por Alfred North Whitehead como: ‘a falácia da concretude colocada no lugar errado’. A terminologia da maioria dos evolucionistas modernos não é apenas falaciosa, mas também perigosa porque leva as pessoas a pensar que eles sabem sobre a evolução da vida quando na verdade eles estão confusos e desnorteados [sic]”, in Lynn Margulis e Dorion Sagan, “Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species”, p. 29 (Basic Books, 2003), p. 16.
Panóplia era a ‘armadura’ de cavaleiro da Idade Média. Vá saber o que Margulis tinha em mente quando escreveu ‘panóplia da terminologia neodarwinista’. Estaria ela se referindo ironicamente ao poder que uma teoria do século XIX ainda exerce sobre a ciência biológica do século XXI? Darwin nem sabia o que era uma célula!
Nota de esclarecimento e consolo para os ultradarwinistas: Margulis continua evolucionista e acreditando na Teoria Geral da Evolução, apesar de saber tudo isso.
postado por pós-darwinista às 7:59 AM
A KGB da Nomenklatura científica em ação nos Estados Unidos
Esta carta contundente de um professor de biologia, evolucionista, que diz tudo quando se ousa questionar Darwin-ídolo. Por se tratar de um documento pessoal, não irei traduzi-lo. Por quê? Para causar mais impacto e, quem sabe, vergonha em alguns pesquisadores brasileiros que se negam reconhecer e lidar com a existência desse tipo de patrulhamento ideológico em nossas universidades.
Bem-vindos ao mundo orwelliano de ‘1984’ já instalado na maior democracia do mundo: os Estados Unidos!
+++
What it means to be an antidarwinian at the University of Vermont
John A. Davison, Ph.D.
Department of Biology
In 1984 I published the first of a series of papers offering a new hypothesis of organic evolution: "Semi-meiosis as an Evolutionary Mechanism" appeared in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. 1984 also happens to be the title of George Orwell's novel, the significance of which will soon become evident.
I have always enjoyed teaching Introductory Biology and that experience has been instrumental in causing me to question the neo-Darwinian view of the evolutionary process. After leaving the staff of Biology 1 and 2, I introduced a new course designed expressly for non-science majors: Zoology 8 (The Animal World). This course proved to be popular and enjoyed enrollments of around 100 students. The last two lectures were concerned with the mechanism of evolution, and in those lectures I introduced the semi-meiotic hypothesis and contrasted it with the neo-Darwinian view.
Sometime in the fall of 1991 the chairman called a secret meeting of the tenured faculty at which he introduced a petition which served to eliminate Zoology 8 from the departmental offerings. He then exited the room leaving a majority of the faculty to sign the petition. I knew nothing of this until the newspaper appeared and Zoology 8 was missing. I was unable to have the course reinstated. As the course was outside the departmental curriculum, this action was a clear violation of not only my academic freedom but also that of those students who had chosen to study with me.
After the chairman left the university, he was succeeded by a member of the department who was a signatory to the Zoology 8 petition. At that time my salary became fixed and it has remained so ever since. The new chair is also an Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, a precedent which I regard as dangerous. The chair also arbitrarily relieved me of my two advanced courses, Biology 202 (Quantitative Biology) and Biology 255 (Comparative Reproductive Biology). These courses were electives which had been approved by the department and the Graduate College. I was able with some difficulty to get these courses reinstated only to discover that Biology 202 had been deleted from the catalog, resulting in an enrollment of 3 in contrast to 30 the previous year. The chair also capped the enrollment of Biology 255, an action I was able to reverse by informing the registrar. The chair refused to take responsibility for these actions. The chair introduced the hitherto unknown practice of "peer review", in which a colleague enters the classroom unannounced and later reports his impressions to the chair. The peer the chair chose to review me was a signatory of the Zoology 8 petition. You can imagine the rest! The chair also demanded of all faculty that they surrender to her on two weeks' notice copies of course syllabi and examinations. I am happy to report that I refused to comply. By now I hope you will have noted the identity of these policies with those of the dystopian government of Orwell's 1984: the Thought Police, Big Brother is watching you, etc.
In October 1997 a new president was inaugurated at the University of Vermont. Long before her arrival on campus I informed her of all of the foregoing and more, all of which was fully documented. I was confident that these policies would cease. I never received any acknowledgement of my correspondence thus qualifying as an Orwellian unperson.
I warned the new president that if I should receive a zero raise for the fourth consecutive year, I would do everything in my power to expose the policies of this administration to the intellectual world. That unfortunately has now become necessary, and constitutes the sole motivation for this memorandum. What we are witnessing here is the enormous influence monolithic neo-Darwinism can have in at least one state university.
Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.
-- George Orwell, 1984
________________________________________
Addendum
May 25, 2000
We are now well into the new millennium and my salary remains frozen at the 1995 level. The department launched an inquiry (the Thought Police) into what was being taught concerning the origin of life. I happily supplied the pertinent material from my most recent effort, An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis for Organic Change. No action has as yet been taken but based on my experience, I must anticipate the worst. My chairperson, Judith Van Houten, has denied me the services of the departmental webmaster. Luckily, I was able to find other help for the recent revision of the Manifesto. She also felt it necessary to cancel my course code for the copy machine. I registered a complaint and that has now been rectified.
Being by nature curious, I am interested in the reasons for this special treatment. The following must be considered speculative as I can only base my interpretations on my experience here at the University of Vermont. It seems that chairpersons here are given unbridled authority to deal with their faculty as they choose. In Van Houten's case she is also an Associate Dean in the College of Arts and Sciences so she is in effect her own immediate superior! This raises a serious question as to the function of the academic hierarchy of Chair, Dean, Provost, President, the Board of Trustees and the Governor who is ex officio a member of that board. Is there really any need for this bureaucracy to exist? What is its function?
The issue resolves into a failure to understand what university life is supposed to be all about. A university should foster freedom of thought and make life as pleasant as possible for the faculty, the students and the community it serves. The University of Vermont has failed to implement those ideals. Quite the contrary, it has chosen to treat its faculty as if they were employees. I am reminded of the following anecdote. A few years before running for the presidency of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower was appointed president of Columbia University. In his opening speech to the faculty he addressed them as "the employees of Columbia University". A member of the faculty rose and interrupted him with the following: "Mr. Eisenhower, we are not the employees of Columbia University. We are Columbia University."
Of course, to be perfectly objective about this I really cannot place all the blame on Van Houten. It may well be that others in the bureaucracy are responsible for the intolerance that has come to prevail here. I can only say that, in my personal experience, it is of relatively recent origin. In any event, if there really is some sort of chain of command (I see no evidence that there is) then the responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of each member of that chain as follows: Joan Smith, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences; Geoffrey Gamble, Provost; Judith Ramaley, President; the Board of Trustees; and Howard Dean, Governor of the State of Vermont.
It is painful for me to have to report that orthodoxy still reigns supreme here at the University of Vermont. The people of this great state deserve better from their educational servants.
John A. Davison
postado por pós-darwinista às 7:18 AM
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Max Planck ‘falou e disse’: a única saída para se livrar da Nomenlatura científica é a ‘solução biológica natural’!
“Max Planck, ao passar em revista a sua carreira no seu Scientific Autobiography, observou tristemente que ‘uma nova verdade científica não triunfa convencendo seus oponentes e fazendo com que vejam a luz, mas porque seus oponentes finalmente morrem [sic] e uma nova geração cresce familiarizada com ela’ (citado por Thomas S. Kuhn, “A Estrutura das Revoluções Científicas” [1962], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, 1996, pp.150-151. Na tradução brasileira “A Estrutura das Revoluções Científicas”, São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1998, 5ª. ed., p. 191)”.
Planck via somente na ‘solução biológica natural’ para que as novas verdades científicas se livrassem finalmente do poder dos guardas-cancelas da Nomenklatura científica. Todavia, Darwin, muito antes de Planck, também tinha esta esperança de a ‘velha guarda’ passar pela ‘solução biológica natural’: “... minha esperança se volta confiantemente para o futuro, para os jovens naturalistas em formação, capazes de enxergar com imparcialidade [sic] ambos os lados da questão”, in “Origem das Espécies”, Belo Horizonte: Villa Rica, 1994, p. 347.
A Teoria do Design Inteligente é ‘uma nova verdade científica’ e nós, teóricos e proponentes da TDI acolhemos a indicação de Darwin e Planck: vamos aguardar pacientemente a ‘solução biológica natural’ da atual Nomenklatura científica. Terei o maior prazer de carregar o caixão dessa turma.
Que venha a nova geração de ‘jovens naturalistas em formação’ para julgar imparcialmente entre Darwin e o Design Inteligente!
