Bible Study: Mark 16

July 12, 2002

[Leia este artigo em português]

We began with discussion concerning the last part of the chapter, where the note "the earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20" or a similar notice is given. It was shared that some did not include the last part because they felt this passage was not Mark's original text. Other scholars felt that Mark could have written this part years later, thus explaining an apparent conflicting writing style.
Was the original ending lost? We don't know -- but the account obviously shouldn't end at verse 8! As to the authenticity of verses 9 to 20, we could see that nothing in this passage contradicts the ending in the other gospels. Therefore these should be trustworthy words to us also.
The angel said in verse 7, "But go, tell His disciples and Peter". Why was Peter mentioned separately? We recall that Peter went back to fishing after Jesus' death, ashamed at himself for denying the Lord. Here, it was as if the angel was saying, 'make sure you include Peter!'. It is comforting to know of God's infinite mercy and His willingness to forgive.
After His resurrection, our Lord Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene (v.9). Of all the people He could have appeared first -- His disciples, His mother and father -- He chose Mary the sinner, the one possessed by seven demons until the Lord casted them out of her. Why Mary?
Maybe because Mary Magdalene loved the Lord more than any other at the time. She was the woman who poured the expensive perfume over the Lord's head (14:3-9), she looked on helplessly as Jesus was hung on the cross (15:40), and she was the first one to be at the tomb (John 20:1). In fact, she was there while it was still dark, looking to do something for the Lord, even if there was only His body.
How sad she was when she found the tomb empty! "But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping;" (John 20:11). This truly showed her love for Jesus. And the Lord knew; He appeared first to her, called her name and instructed her to spread the news of His resurrection.
In this we see some lessons. In her deliverance, Mary felt more love and more forgiveness from the Lord, and she responded as best she could. What about ourselves? Often time we feel we are "not that bad" -- does it make us less appreciative of His love? We need to remember that a sinner is a sinner -- no one's a 'bigger' sinner than the other. The other point is that those who pursues the Lord will find Him -- just as Mary did. This means keeping watch, and keep pursuing even if the time spent on the Bible seem to be dry or empty.
"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you." -- Matthew 7:7
"And they went out and preached everywhere," (v.20). In effect, the end of Mark is the beginning of the book of Acts, a book still ongoing with us today. But we hardly go out to preach today, and we don't see signs like those in verses 17 and 18. Why is that?
A brother shared that when he was in Hong Kong years ago, his entire fellowship would go out on the streets on Chinese New Year to pass around evangelical tracts and share with passerbys who would listen. The geography settings and attitudes in Asia did make such 'street preaching' more viable, compared to North America.
'People will think you're crazy if you go out to the street corner and start preaching', someone else shared. The fact is, this North American society has little tolerance for God in the public place, while appearing to be tolerant to everything. This is a society pushed by science and technology, where everything can be calculated and explained scientifically. We are caught up in this attitude of unbelief, when we really need child-like faith.
In DeVern Fromke's book, "Stories that open God's Larger Window", there is an account of a believer being made to drink poison by his communist interrogators, because he refused to discount God's Word, specifically of Mark 16:18. The dog who drank the poison died almost immediately. But this believer got permission to pray for God's will to be done, then drank the entire glass. The officer and the doctor waited for the inevitable. And waited. But nothing happened after several minutes. Stunned, the doctor took his pulse, examined him, but couldn't find any symptoms. The doctor tore up his Party card and proclaimed his faith in the Bible on the spot.
So why don't we see these miracles today? Perhaps it is our purpose for demanding a miracle -- we want something done for ourselves, not for God's glory. We are not to test the Lord, but we are promised of His protection when we do go out to preach. God is always looking for those who are willing -- but do we know what He wants us to do? If we don't, shouldn't we find out?

http://www.tccyf.ca/Meetings/020712.htm

Beloved Numerologist

by Chuck Missler

________________________________________

[Leia este arigo em português]

The numerical structure of the Bible has been studied closely, being the subject of numerous volumes in the past.1 But none are more provocative than the works of Dr. Ivan Panin.2
Ivan Panin was born in Russia on December 12, 1855. Having participated in plots against the Czar at an early age, he was exiled and, after spending some years studying in Germany, he came to the United States and entered Harvard University. After graduation in 1882, he converted from agnosticism to Christianity.

In 1890 he discovered some of the phenomenal mathematical designs underlying both the Greek text of the New Testament and the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

He was to devote over 50 years of his life painstakingly exploring the numerical structure of the Scriptures, generating over 43,000 detailed, hand-penned pages of analysis (and exhausting his health in the process). He went on to be with the Lord in his 87th year, on October 30, 1942.

The Heptadic Structure

The recurrence of the number seven - or an exact multiple of seven - is found throughout the Bible and is widely recognized. The Sabbath on the seventh day; the seven years of plenty and the seven years of famine in Egypt; the seven priests and seven trumpets marching around Jericho; the Sabbath Year of the land are well-known examples.

Also, Solomon's building the Temple for seven years, Naaman's washing in the river seven times, and the seven churches, seven lamp stands, seven seals, seven trumpets, seven bowls, seven stars, and so on in the Book of Revelation, all show the consistent use of the number seven.

But there turns out to be much more below the surface. Ivan Panin noted the amazing numerical properties of the Biblical texts - both the Greek of the New Testament and the Hebrew of the Old Testament. These are not only intriguing to discover, they also demonstrate an intricacy of design which testifies to a supernatural origin!

Vocabulary

One of the simplest - and most provocative - aspects of the Biblical text is the vocabulary used. The number of vocabulary words in a passage is normally different from the total number of words in a passage. Some words are repeated. It is easy, for example, to use a vocabulary of 500 words to write an essay of 4,000 words.

An Example

The first 17 verses of the Gospel of Matthew are a logical unit, or section, which deals with a single principal subject: the genealogy of Christ. It contains 72 Greek vocabulary words in these initial 17 verses. (The verse divisions are man's allocations for convenience, added in the 13th century.)

The number of words which are nouns is exactly 56, or 7 x 8.
The Greek word "the" occurs most frequently in the passage: exactly 56 times, or 7 x 8. Also, the number of different forms in which the article "the" occurs is exactly 7.
There are two main sections in the passage: verse 1-11, and 12-17. In the first main section, the number of Greek vocabulary words used is 49, or 7 x 7.

Why not 48, or 50?

Of these 49 words, the number of those beginning with a vowel is 28, or 7 x 4. The number of words beginning with a consonant is 21, or 7 x 3.
The total numbers of letters in these 49 words is 266, or 7 x 38 - exactly! The number of vowels among these 266 letters is 140, or 7 x 20. The number of consonants is 126, or 7 x 18 - exactly.
Of the 49 words, the number of words which occur more than once is 35, or 7 x 5. The number of words occurring only once is 14, or 7 x 2. The number of words which occur in only one form is exactly 42, or 7 x 6. The number of words appearing in more than one form is also 7.
The number of the 49 Greek vocabulary words which are nouns is 42, or 7 x 6. The number of words which are not nouns is 7. Of the nouns, 35 are proper names, or exactly 7 x 5. These 35 names are used 63 times, or 7 x 9. The number of male names is exactly 28, or 7 x 4. These male names occur 56 times or 7 x 8. The number which are not male names is 7.
Three women are mentioned - Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth. The number of Greek letters in these three names is 14, 7 x 2.
The number of compound nouns is 7. The number of Greek letters in these 7 nouns is 49, or 7 x 7.
Only one city is named in this passage, Babylon, which in Greek contains exactly 7 letters.
And on it goes. To get an indication of just how unique these properties are, try the example in the inset.

Gemetria

There are even more features in the numerical structure of the words themselves. As you may know, both Hebrew and Greek uses the letters of the alphabet for numerical values. Therefore, any specific word - in either Hebrew or Greek - has a numerical value of its own by adding up the values of the letters in that particular word. The study of the numerical values of words is called gemetria.
The 72 vocabulary words add up to a gametrical value of 42,364, or 7 x 6,052. Exactly. If one Greek letter was changed, this would not happen.
The 72 words appear in 90 forms - some appear in more than one form. The numeric value of the 90 forms is 54,075, or 7 x 7,725. Exactly.
We will defer other examples of gametrical properties of the Biblical text for subsequent articles, but it becomes immediately obvious that hidden below the surface are aspects of design that cannot be accidental or just coincidence. Remember, the rabbis say that "coincidence" is not a kosher word!

Other Implications

There are words in the passage just described that occur nowhere else in the New Testament. They occur 42 times (7 x 6) and have 126 letters (7 x 18). How was this organized?
Even if Matthew contrived this characteristic into his Gospel, how could he have known that these specific words - whose sole characteristic is that they are found nowhere else in the New Testament - were not going to be used by the other writers? Unless we assume the absurd hypothesis that he had an agreement with them, he must have had the rest of the New Testament before him when he wrote his book. The Gospel of Matthew, then, must have been written last.

It so happens, however, that the Gospel of Mark exhibits the same phenomenon. It can be demonstrated that it would have had to be written "last." The same phenomenon is found in Luke. And in John, James, Peter, Jude and Paul. Each would have had to write after the other in order to contrive the vocabulary frequencies! You can demonstrate that each of the New Testament books had to have been "written last."

There is no human explanation for this incredible and precise structure. It has all been supernaturally designed. We simply gasp, sit back, and behold the skillful handiwork of the God who keeps His promises.

And we are indebted to the painstaking examinations and lifetime commitment of Dr. Ivan Panin for uncovering these amazing insights.
Isn't God - and His remarkable Word - fun?

This article was originally published in the
February 1995 Personal Update NewsJournal.

________________________________________
**NOTES**
________________________________________

1. McCormack, R., "The Heptadic Structure of Scripture," Marshall Brothers Ltd., London, 1923; E.W. Bullinger, Numbers of the Scriptures; F.W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (7 vols.); Browne, Ordo Saeculoreium, et al.
2. Ivan Panin (various works), "Bible Numerics," P.O. Box 206, Waubaushene, Ontario, L0K 2C0.

O Deus que Funciona e 3 Comentários

Por Renato Modernell
(Publicado originalmente no site da AOL Brasil em 30/05/2005)

Jornalista e escritor. Autor de “Sonata da Última Cidade”, “Che Bandoneón”, biografia romanceada do músico argentino Astor Piazzolla, e de “Viagem ao Pavio da Vela”, título premiado na Itália que tem Marco Pólo como protagonista.

Pergunta à queima-roupa, e das brabas. Respondo com o que me vem à cabeça: “Não creio na existência de Deus, mas gosto de ver o goleiro do meu time fazer o sinal-da-cruz”. Sim, parece uma contradição, talvez seja, mas vamos em frente. As contradições têm algo de sagrado; são um fogo interior que nos impulsiona; sem elas, nossa vida seria previsível e banal. Aquela frase entre aspas (verdadeira, mas nem tanto, como o leitor verá) me serve para desenvolver algumas idéias que julgo oportunas, porque incômodas, nos parágrafos seguintes.

Em primeiro lugar, quando digo que não acredito na existência de Deus, refiro-me àquele Deus em que me ensinaram a acreditar numa época em que outros, não eu próprio, julgavam saber o que era bom para mim, começando pela marca do xarope que eu devia tomar quando tinha tosse. Aquele era o Deus com D maiúsculo, Dominador, Drástico, pesaDo, do qual eu era um devedor pelo simples fato de ter nascido com o pecado original, como um time já que entrasse em campo perdendo de três a zero. Isso sempre me pareceu injusto, embora dissessem: “Deus é justo”.

As religiões mais poderosas da banda ocidental do mundo – o cristianismo, o judaísmo e o islamismo – brigam entre si a despeito de compartilharem suas raízes, ou talvez mesmo por causa disso. Na base, elas têm o mesmo princípio ativo, a culpa. Isso as diferencia das doutrinas orientais (pelo menos daquelas que conheço melhor, como o zen-budismo, o taoísmo, o hinduísmo e o zoroastrismo, tida como a primeira religião “ecológica”). Estas últimas, em vez da culpa, baseiam-se no autoconhecimento, e por isto as considero mais saudáveis e evoluídas. São algo a meio-caminho entre uma religião convencional, que implica submissão, obediência, dogma, e um sistema de pensamento aberto, oxigenado, que integra a ética e a sensibilidade como ferramentas primordiais para uma existência mais elevada.

Transitei, sem vestir a camisa, por cada uma dessas doutrinas que alguns consideram exóticas. Descobri que sou capaz de acreditar em deus, mas num deus assim, com letra minúscula, que não me cobra nem intimida com o D enorme de sua cateDral, ou de sua cáteDra, sob a qual eu deveria me curvar para receber instruções e segui-las ainda que não as compreenda. Não posso conceber uma divindade tão cruel que, tendo-me dotado de inteligência, me condenasse o uso desse atributo no campo mais nobre da existência, que é o contato com a eternidade e o mistério.

Mas dizem que não, que é pecado pensar. As grandes religiões ocidentais se tornaram enormes máquinas políticas e publicitárias. Tirando partido do desamparo do homem contemporâneo, e valendo-se da platitude da mídia, impõem a idéia de um ser superior que deve ser a mesma para todos, gregos e troianos. Cometem, a meu ver, o que seria o mais pretensioso de todos os pecados: descrever Deus. Dizer aos ingênuos: Deus é assim, Deus é assado, quer isto de você, quer aquilo outro etc.

Abro parênteses para evocar um episódio folclórico, mas instrutivo, do mundo do futebol. Seu protagonista é o Anjo das Pernas Tortas. Mané Garrincha, durante a preleção do treinador antes de um jogo contra a Bélgica, farto de ouvir os detalhes do plano tático, e de como os brasileiros deveriam proceder para envolver os adversários, teria tomado a palavra para perguntar: “Mas vocês já avisaram aos belgicanos?” Esta tirada genial (pela perspicácia, pela ironia, e também pelo fato de ser uma resposta em forma de pergunta) veio de um homem cuja inteligência era considerada inferior. Cito-a porque me lembro dela cada vez que vejo alguém, com ar sapiente, falar de algo que não pertence o seu campo de experiência direta, ou que envolve um grau de abstração tão grande quanto traçar o desdobramento de um jogo sem levar em conta a presença dos adversários. Portanto, quando alguém sobe ao púlpito moderno, ou seja, o rádio e a televisão, e afirma aos quatro ventos: “Deus é assim”, “Deus é assado”, pergunto a meus botões, como Garrincha o fez em voz alta no vestiário: “Será que esse sujeito já avisou Deus para ser assim ou assado?”.

Já disse que, embora não acreditando em Deus, sou capaz de acreditar em deus, mas assim, com minúscula. Porém mesmo isso não é exato. Agora eu colocaria no plural: acredito em deuses. Pronto, vejo leitores torcendo o nariz. Alguns já clicam o mouse para mudar de página, indignados por algo que, à primeira vista, parece blasfêmia, provocação. Parece, mas não é. Peço que me acompanhem pelo menos por mais dois parágrafos, sem clicar, e que compartilhem comigo uma pergunta para a qual não tenho resposta.

Sempre ouço pensadores dizer que, em linhas gerais, a humanidade passou do politeísmo ao monoteísmo, e isso teria representado um salto de qualidade. Bem, nunca entendi por quê. Se seguimos pelo bom caminho, se cumprimos nossa missão, se damos aos outros o melhor de nós, que diferença faz que nosso procedimento ocorra sob a batuta de uma ou mais entidades divinas? Todo o desenvolvimento humano nos últimos séculos, pelo menos desde o Renascimento, tem sido em direção à pluralidade, em vez da unificação. Isso se expressa muito bem, aliás, na divisão clássica do sistema de poder que forma a base da democracia. Se nos assuntos temporais já não queremos mais um soberano autocrático, se um dia até lhe cortamos a cabeça à guilhotina, para dividir suas funções em três entidades distintas a que chamamos “poderes”, por que preferimos, no plano imaterial, dever obediência a um único senhor em vez de vários?

Já disse que sou capaz de acreditar em um deus minúsculo, e por isso grandioso, que está nas pequenas coisas; e posso aceitá-lo também no plural. Vários deuses e semideuses cruzam suas influências numa dimensão que não conheço, e por isso não simplifico. E agora vou mais longe: não penso nos deuses como algo que “existe”, mas que “funciona”.

Se os deuses existissem, da mesma forma como eu próprio creio existir (pelo menos não tenho fortes motivos para duvidar), eu os estaria imaginando à minha semelhança, o que seria uma forma de ingênua presunção. Fora dos domínios da culpa – esse enorme shopping center, cheio de escadas rolantes que sobem e descem – não consigo conceber a divindade de um modo personalizado, como alguém que distribui prêmios e castigos, ou que esteja preocupado com o meu destino individual. No entanto, não me sinto desamparado. Não sou ateu. Creio que precisamos de uma espiritualidade, de um saber transcendente, mas não necessariamente de uma religião que impõe dogmas e regras de conduta padronizadas.

Digo isso num momento de apreensão, no qual vejo esta parte do mundo onde vivo toldar-se de um fundamentalismo primário, como se fôssemos um monte de parafusos, e não espíritos pulsantes. Uma coisa dessas não havia por que renascer das cinzas, senão por imitação temerosa ao impulso totalitário de povos distantes. Esse fenômeno, que envolve multidões manipuladas, ameaça triturar a maior relíquia do Ocidente, que é o pensamento liberal, leigo, autônomo (antes o bafo de Nietzsche; hoje os trovões e relâmpagos de Saramago) e que para nós representa um sopro vital, tão importante quanto o ar que respiramos no interior do Mosteiro de São Bento.
Qualquer coisa nos nutre – menos a culpa. Por isso acredito na divindade (se assim posso chamá-la) como sendo o conjunto de forças que atuam no universo, num plano insondável, mas com o qual, por meio da intuição, podemos estar alinhados ou contrapostos, assim como um velejador em relação ao vento. Vale lembrar: o vento, a rigor, não é uma coisa que existe. Mas funciona. Isto é, passa a existir na medida em que circunstâncias complexas provocam o movimento de algumas coisas que, estas sim, existem o tempo inteiro: as moléculas de ar.
Vou tentar um exemplo menos etéreo. Pensemos no papa e no Papai Noel, figuras paramentadas que pertencem ao nosso acervo de imagens, “ícones” da nossa cultura, para usar o clichê do momento. Pois bem, não se discute que o papa existe, é um ser único, como cada um de nós, embora numa situação especial: está no comando da Igreja. Se o meu vizinho se vestir de papa, e vier bater na minha porta, saberei de imediato que se trata de uma impostura, ou de uma brincadeira, pois não há hipótese de que o sumo pontífice, por algum motivo, venha me procurar pessoalmente. Só existe um papa, eu sei quem é, e ele está em Roma.

Com o Papai Noel, é diferente. Se o vejo na rua, numa loja, onde quer que seja, sei que aquela figura é autêntica, na medida do possível, pois não pode ser cópia de algo que não está em lugar algum, ao contrário do papa. E é este fato, o “não existir”, que permite o “funcionamento” do Papai Noel em tantos lugares ao mesmo tempo, em todo o planeta, e não apenas na Lapônia, onde nasceu essa lenda, se não me engano. O fato de eu, adulto, saber que por trás daquela roupa vermelha e das barbas brancas está um homem comum, como eu, suando (literalmente) para ganhar uns trocados, em nada altera a eficiência daquela figura carismática que se reporta a uma parcela relevante da humanidade, as crianças, ainda distantes dos nossos padrões de racionalidade. Ele funciona, portanto. Funciona porque não existe, como o vento, como deus. Como o deus das pequenas coisas, capaz de estar em todos os lugares e em lugar nenhum.
Se isto é uma contradição, que seja bem-vinda. Estamos bem-acompanhados. Os maiores físicos modernos, que no início do século XX deram um passo além dos místicos e poetas, depararam no interior do átomo com certas partículas que, para usar uma linguagem clara, nunca estavam onde eles as procuravam. Entidades sutis, leves, voláteis, eram capazes de “existir” e “não existir” a um só tempo. E esses cientistas usaram uma expressão interessante: disseram que tais partículas, detectáveis apenas por seus efeitos, tinham um atributo diferente do resto das coisas, uma “tendência a existir”.

Com essa idéia, voltemos aos nossos deuses mínimos. Eles tendem a existir cada vez que alguém se supera; ou se abre ao inesperado; ou destrava sua inteligência rendida a pregadores baratos, que atuam por catarse e intimidação. Nada deve ser cobrado de ninguém, no teatro de seu foro íntimo. Até porque uma coisa me parece clara: a fé não depende da vontade. Os profetas obtêm-na por revelação; os simples, pela submissão; os sensitivos, por aquele “sentimento oceânico” a que Freud se referiu, lamentando não ser capaz de experimentá-lo. Mas e o restante da humanidade, que não conta com tais situações privilegiadas, como túneis secretos de acesso à fé que todos gostaríamos de poder usar?

Ainda que eu acreditasse naquele Deus com D maiúsculo, em letras góticas, aquele que distribui prêmios e castigos de forma justa, não acharia plausível que esse ser superior me cobrasse pela fé na mesma medida em que cobra outros homens aos quais se revelou de modo mais intenso e definitivo. Seria injusto. Fora dessas situações especiais, a fé é uma construção lenta, uma empreitada para toda a vida. Lenta e dolorosa. Deus precisa morrer, para que os minúsculos deuses – os que não existem, mas tendem a existir – comecem a surgir nas pequenas coisas, muito longe do púlpito, do altar e do andor. E sobretudo da TV.

Em outras palavras, eu diria que os deuses dependem de nós. São construções mínimas, íntimas, intransferíveis, e por isso eficientes como o Papai Noel. Mesmo o Deus maiúsculo e soberano, aquele da primeira frase, existe para quem acredita – nisto, creio sinceramente. Portanto, se a mim não foi dada a vantagem de ter fé, ao menos me consola ver o goleiro do meu time fazer o sinal-da-cruz. E que o faça logo, antes do atacante adversário. Pois a hora do pênalti já é um pouco como a hora da morte.

***

Comentários:

_________________________________________________

Cesar
(Sumidouro)

30/05/2005 - 22:38 PM

Ainda bem que é um Jornalista

Ainda bem que o Sr.Renato Modernell é um jornalista pouco letrado na história, na filosofia e na teologia. Mas, achei interessante sua concepção, apesar da "morte de Deus" ser pouco original como idéia. Ofereço uma correção: "Pensar nunca foi pecado, já que ninguém (a não ser "Deus") sabe o que pensamos. Quanto a revelar o que se pensa, aí já é outra estória!

_________________________________________________

xtox
(Santa Catarina)

31/05/2005 - 00:13 AM

QUE INTELIGÊNCIA...

Agora que terminei de ler a coluna do sr. Renato, estou estupefato com a grande erudição, com a autoridade, a competência, o despojamento, a disponibilidade, a magnitude, e ainda com a imensa humildade, a capacidade de carregar tamanha quantidade de belezas do raciocínio humano. É um ser divino, é um ser que ao escrever desperta em todos o grande senso de grandeza, seus escritos são tão imensamente profícuos, tão magistralmente honoráveis, que não se pode conceber o mundo antes dele, não se pode entender como o mundo se privou de tamanhas conclusões, e certamente suas sagradas letras serão o benefício para a humanidade daqui para os próximos milênios, pois o conteúdo libertador que passa é algo, é o ALGO que todos precisamos. Suas palavras refinadíssimas de desprezo e de afronta ao deus ou Deus, ou deuses que ele julga em sua eterna cabeça, pois certamente ele existe já desde sempre. Desde há muito estávamos procurando senão a explicação para tudo que há, pelo menos alguém que nos fornecesse uma pista, algo de concreto e bom, e sempre é bom que não se perca a esperança, pois eis que surge aqui, sim aqui, bem em nosso tempo e no site da AOL, este SER, este que é o iniciador, o escolhido, o Messias, o Profeta, o que vai nos conduzir mesmo que tão humildemente não queira conduzir ninguém e por esta razão mais devemos ser-lhe gratos e submissos, vamos então comprar-lhe os livros, pelo menos assim ficará com mais dinheiro, pois não sabemos se deseja ser rico. O altruísmo, a verdade, a vida, o caminho tem um nome, Rogério é o nome... Quantos séculos mais durarão suas exortações... não podemos nem imaginar, quantas maravilhas vai realizar, provavelmente deve haver por aí escrituras anunciando seu nascimento, seu local de nascimento, sua vida, seu ministério, sua morte e sua ressurreição, e no futuro uma nova religião haverá... o Rogerianismo, sim agora sim... Estamos diante de uma grande líder mundial, o Rogério é simplesmente fantástico em seus escritos, todos devem adorá-lo, nós os que ousamos crer em um Criador, que não somos pessoas despreparadas, desprovidas de bom senso, nós os que ousamos acreditar na Bíblia, apenas porque ela cumpre todas as suas profecias, só porque na Bíblia temos todos os fatos históricos comprovados, só porque na Bíblia temos a explicação para a desgraça do ser humano, por ele mesmo ter escolhido seguir sem Deus, só porque nós acreditamos na Bíblia que nos promete a volta para Deus através das ações dEle mesmo, prometendo e cumprindo tudo que disse a respeito de Cristo, em cada detalhe, somos pessoas religiosas e fanáticas apenas por crer em tudo que a história apenas comprova, somos uns mal esclarecidos em acreditar que Jesus ressuscitou, embora não haja qualquer documento antigo que mencione dúvida sobre isso, e que em todos os documentos do primeiro século, documentos esses não cristãos, apenas confirmam este fato da ressurreição, somos uns mal esclarecidos em acreditar nisso, ao invés disso deveríamos crer no Rogério, o Grande, e suas grandes teorias sobre a validade de acreditar nos nossos criativos deusinhos pessoais, e ainda mais quando tem jogo... estamos todos pasmados diante de tamanha sabedoria ! ! !

________________________________________________

Allan Ribeiro
(Teresina - PI)

31/05/2005 - 11:50 AM

Caramba!

E eu ia comentar o texto do Modernell!
Caramba, comentário é esse que fez Xtol, e o do Cesar acima também. Calo a boca!
Só uma coisinha...
Renato,
cara, eu fui católico também. Eu sei o que você quer dizer com culpa e falta de sentido. É assim mesmo que a gente se sente. Eu fui ateu, Renato. Não agüentei a barra de ser católico. Virei Positivista, assim mesmo, com maiúscula. Mas a Ciência foi um deus infiel e fraco. Virei agnóstico. Um dia comecei a ouvir a Palavra. Pessoas pregando, pessoas dando testemunhos, coisas assim. Ai, Renato, eu pensei: "se Deus existir deve ser como essas pessoas (esses fanáticos) dizem. Eles não são muito inteligentes, mas a mensagem deles é coerente, faz sentido, é... racional!"

Que choque! Racional? Mas como? Todo mundo não sabe que ser religioso é ser irracional? Que fé e razão não se misturam?

Foi aí que eu eliminei os intermediários. Peguei a Bíblia que eu tinha ganho e comecei a ler. Veja bem, Renato, eu não fui atrás de ler "Totem e Tabu" do Freud, ou "O Anticristo" de Nietszche ou os comentários de Feuerbach sobre Deus, ou "Deus e os Homens" de Voltaire para saber o que eu deveria pensar sobre Deus. Eu fui direto à fonte. Claro que você vai dizer que existem também o Corão e o Veda que podem ser considerados "fontes". Eu comecei pela Bíblia e, se você não quiser perder tempo pode começar também. Na minha primeira leitura eu não entendi muita coisa, mas as coisas que eu entendi me fizeram tentar de novo. Foi bem aí que as coisas começaram a acontecer. Foi aí que eu comecei a entender Deus. Como Jó disse, eu conhecia Deus de ouvir falar, mas passei a vê-lo com meu próprio entendimento. Minha fé é inteiramente racional. Fui racional no momento em que aceitei Jesus e continuo sendo racional a cada vez que eu ouço meu pastor pregar e comparo o que ele diz com o que está escrito na Bíblia. Ele já errou, a Bíblia nunca!

Renato, futebol é legal, mas não vai durar para sempre. Uma vez eu ouvi uma frase que me deixou pasmo e me fez entender o mundo melhor. É assim "O universo está em expansão (sic) e não há nada que você possa fazer a respeito". Eu quero deixar você com uma no mesmo sentido, mas mais profunda: cara, você tem um espírito imortal e não há nada que você possa fazer a respeito! Já que o seu espírito vai viver para sempre cabe a você decidir onde, (esta a beleza do livre arbítrio). Veja o raciocínio de Blaise Pascal:

1) Se Deus não existe eu não tenho com o que me preocupar.
2) Mas se Ele existe e eu não creio Nele e existe um inferno, para onde irão os que não fizerem uma decisão por Ele, eu tenho tudo a perder.
3) Se eu creio Nele e Ele não existe, eu não tenho nada a perder.
Mas se Ele existe...

Eu simplifiquei para você entender, mas é mais ou menos assim. Foi este mesmo raciocínio que me levou a aceitar Jesus dez anos atrás. Eu decidi dar a Deus 6 meses. Uma espécie de estágio probatório. Se Ele não me decepcionasse nesse período eu continuaria crente. Nesse tempo todo eu decepcionei Deus muitas vezes, mas Ele sempre me acolheu e perdôou todas as vezes que eu pedi e eu não sinto mais culpa, somente gozo. Nunca me arrependi de ter escolhido crer.

Meu desejo sincero é de que você não feche sua mente, não tenha medo do desconhecido.
Tente, Renato, tente!

Halloween - An Invitation to the Occult?

by Chuck Missler

________________________________________

[Leia este artigo em português]

This is always a difficult time for Christians, especially those with children. It has been suggested that for a Christian to be asked to celebrate Halloween is like asking a Holocaust survivor to celebrate Hitler's birthday!

It is also a dangerous time for some, since many of the seemingly "harmless" involvements associated with Halloween can also be "entries" for the occult, and can prove very tragic for the unwary.

Pagan Background

In ancient Britain and Ireland, the Celtic festival of Samhain was observed on October 31, the end of summer. November 1 was the new year for both Celtic and Anglo-Saxon calendars and was one of the most important and yet sinister calendar festivals of the Celtic Year.
Settling in northern France and the British Isles, the Celtic people engaged in occultic arts and worshiped nature, giving it supernatural, animistic qualities. (Much like our Federal government is attempting to enforce today.)

The ancient Druids were the learned priestly class of the Celtic religion. Many of their beliefs and practices were similar to those of Hinduism, such as reincarnation and the transmigration of the soul, which teaches that people may be reborn as animals. The Druids believed that on October 31, the night before their New Year and the last day of the old year, Samhain, the Lord of Death, gathered the souls of the evil dead who had been condemned to enter the bodies of animals.

The Druids also believed that the punishment of the evil dead would be lightened by sacrifices, prayers and gifts to the Lord of Death. (This begins to reveal the strange link between this holiday and the non-Biblical concept of purgatory.)

The souls of the dead were supposed to revisit their homes on this day, and the autumnal festival acquired a sinister significance, with ghosts, witches, hobgoblins, black cats, fairies, and demons of all kinds said to be roaming about. It was the time to placate the supernatural powers controlling the processes of nature.

And, on October 31, 1517, Martin Luther drove a stake into the heart of many of the prevailing non-Biblical concepts by nailing his famous 95 theses to the Castle Church door in Wittenberg, Germany, which started the movement known today as the Reformation-the single most important event in modern history.1 Appropriately, he did this on Halloween.

Modern Halloween Traditions

In early American history, Halloween was not widely practiced until the 20th century, when it was introduced by the Irish Catholic settlements. Gradually, Halloween became a secular observance, and many customs and practices developed. The carved pumpkin may have originated with the witches' use of a skull with a candle inside to light the way to coven meetings.

Since 1965 UNICEF, an agency of the United Nations, has attempted to incorporate into the Halloween observance the collection of money for the United Nations Children's Fund. This exploitation by the ungodly United Nations of this pagan holiday seems strangely appropriate.

The Occult is Increasingly Popular

Halloween is, for many, a "crossover" involvement in which innocent games can lead to serious entanglement with real witches, neo-pagans, New Agers, and other occultists.2 A common pastime is the use of a Ouija board to attempt to contact ghosts or spirits that are believed to be roaming about. This can lead to serious consequences including demon possession.3 Demons have a vested interest in Halloween because it supports the occult, and it also offers novel and unexpected opportunities to control and influence people.

Forms of the occult can include mediums, channelers, clairvoyants, psychics, spiritists, diviners, mystics, gurus, shamans, psychical researchers, Yogis, psychic and holistic healers, astral travel, astrology, mysticism, Ouija boards, Tarot cards, contact with the dead, UFOs, and thousands of other practices which almost defy cataloging.

Occultism includes Satanism, astrology, Kabbalah, Gnosticism, theosophy, witchcraft and many forms of serious magic. It includes activities seeking the acquisition of "hidden" things-which are expressly forbidden by God in the Bible.

The Biblical View

Halloween practices can open the door to the occult and can introduce forces into people's lives that they are not equipped to combat.4 There is genuine power in the occult, but it is demonic power.5

Any serious study of Biblical demonology will reveal Satan as the power behind false religion, witchcraft, idolatry and the occult.6 The Word of God makes it clear that these are all to be shunned as dangerous. There were many superstitions and false concepts in ancient Israel about which the Bible is silent. However, occultism, in any form, was punishable by death! Why?
The spiritual power and reality behind idols involves demons.7 The Bible commands us to shun occult practices. Mediums and spiritists are expressly prohibited.8 Nowhere are such practices acceptable.

A Halloween Project?

Every year, many people are perplexed as to how to deal with the children's celebrations surrounding Halloween. On the one hand, participating in the perpetuation of the usual pagan (and occultic) rituals are hardly the enterprise of a Biblical Christian. On the other hand, creating constructive alternatives can be challenging.

Many churches and families organize a "Harvest" festival with games, prizes, etc., as an alternative party opportunity. These are gaining widespread interest and are to be encouraged.
Organizing a drama event to involve the older children is an alternative candidate; such an effort could include Saul and the Witch of Endor, from 1 Samuel 28, as a play.

[The winning scripts resulting from a play-writing contest held a few years ago are available through K-House.]

Your Protection

Intellect alone is insufficient. "If it were possible, it would deceive the very elect." This is another example of the necessity to truly understand the Armor of God as outlined in Ephesians 6. This brief review was excerpted from our featured briefing package, Halloween: Invitation to the Occult?

* * *

Sources:
Missler, Chuck, Signs in the Heavens, The Mysteries of the Planet Mars Halloween: Invitation to the Occult? (briefing packages), Koinonia House, 1991-6.
Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, The Facts on Halloween, Harvest House, Eugene OR, 1996. A key reference for this article.
Sykes, Egerton, Who's Who in Non-Classical Mythology, J.M. Dent, London, 1993.
Patten, Donald Wesley, Catastrophism and the Old Testament, Pacific Meridian Publishing Co., Seattle WA, 1995.
Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs, Harvest House, Eugene OR, 1996.
Also the video, Halloween: Trick or Treat, Jeremiah Films, Hemet CA
This article was originally published in the
October 1997 Personal Update NewsJournal.
For a FREE 1-Year Subscription, click here.

________________________________________

**NOTES**
________________________________________

1. Manuscript by his son D. Paul Luther preserved in the library at Rudolstadt, quoted by F.W. Boreham in A Bunch of Everlastings or Texts That Made History, Judson Press, Philadelphia, 1920, p.20.
2. See Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs, Harvest House, Eugene OR, 1996.
3. The case studies underlying William Blatty's The Exorcist indicate that the trouble all began with a child playing with a Ouija board.
4. Russ Parker, Battling the Occult, Inter-Varsity Press, Downer's Grove IL, 1990, p.35.
5. Isa 47:9; Mt 24:24; Acts 8:7; 13:6-11; 16:16-19; 19:18-20; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 6:7-11, 22; 2 Tim 3:8.
6. Deut 32:16,17; Ps 106:35-40; Acts 16:16-19; 1 Cor 10:19-21; 2 Thess 2:9, 10; 1 Tim 4:1f.
7. 1 Cor 10:20; Ps 106:37.
8. Lev 19:31; Deut 18:10, 11, 14 2 Chr 33:6.

What Holds the Universe Together?

by Lambert Dolphin

________________________________________

Is our universe expanding or static? If it is expanding, is there sufficient mass to cause it all to collapse back in upon itself under gravity's influence? If the universe is static and not now expanding, is it stable?

What holds it all together-if anything?

These are questions gaining more attention these days as our knowledge data base in astronomy and astrophysics increases, and old theories are brought into question. There is much that can be said about these questions from the Biblical revelation.

New Testament References

Several separate passages in the New Testament make reference to the creation of the universe. For example, John's gospel speaks of an earlier state of existence than is described in Verse 1 of Genesis:

"In the beginning was the Word, [logos] and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; [i.e., before creation] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." John 1:1-3

This passage teaches that Jesus was eternally existent with God the Father prior to the creation of "all things." There was a time when our material and spiritual universe did not exist. It had a definite beginning. But before that, God was. In fact, God is-because time itself was created by God.

Chapter One of Paul's Epistle to the Colossians gives a further description of the role of Jesus in creation, consistent with that of John's gospel:

[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born [prototokos] of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities [these words in Greek refer to the hierarchical angelic powers]-all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1:15-17

The Holy Spirit, in giving us this inspired passage of Scripture, explains that all things (both visible and invisible) in the entire universe were created through this same Jesus, the eternal Word. We may think of the universe and its intricate design as being conceived in the mind of the Father, then spoken into existence by the Son (who makes the invisible, visible). The Holy Spirit is the One who energizes and supplies life to the creation, not only at the time of creation but also moment by moment after that.

We are also told that all things were created for Jesus. He is "the heir of all things." That means that we are house guests in Someone Else's universe! This implies a future accountability for all of us-history is headed somewhere-at the end of the road stands Jesus, to whom all power and authority has already been given (see John 5:22-29).

A. W. Tozer, Pastor at Moody Bible Church in Chicago some 50 years ago, once wrote of this as follows:

The teaching of the New Testament is that now, at this very moment, there is a Man in heaven appearing in the presence of God for us. He is as certainly a man as was Adam or Moses or Paul; he is a man glorified, but his glorification did not de-humanize him. Today he is a real man, of the race of mankind, bearing our lineaments and dimensions, a visible and audible man, whom any other man would recognize instantly as one of us.

But more than this, he is the heir of all things, Lord of all lords, head of the church, firstborn of the new creation. He is the way to God, the life of the believer, the hope of Israel, and the high priest of every true worshiper. He holds the keys of death and hell, and stands as advocate and surety for everyone who believes on him in truth. Salvation comes not by accepting the finished work, or deciding for Christ; it comes by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, the whole, living, victorious Lord who, as God and man, fought our fight and won it, accepted our debt as his own and paid it, took our sins and died under them, and rose again to set us free. This is the true Christ; nothing less will do.

All Things "Hold Together"

One of the key words in the Colossians passage above ("...and in Christ all things hold together") is the Greek word sunistemi which means "to stand-together," "to be compacted together," "to cohere," "to be constituted with."

This passage can be applied to the structure of the atom, for example. The nucleus of every atom is held together by what physicists call "weak" and "strong" forces.
[Physicists today are familiar with four basic forces in the natural world: gravity and electrical forces, plus a "strong" and a "weak" nuclear force. The first two forces decrease in strength inversely with the square of the distance between two objects; the latter two forces act only at very short ranges.]

The nucleus of the atom contains positively charged and neutral particles-to use a simplistic model. Mutual electrostatic repulsion between the like-positive protons would drive the nucleus apart if it were not for the "strong force" which binds the nucleus together.

There is thus an active force imposed on the universe, which actively holds the very atoms of the material world together moment by moment, day by day, century by century.

Similarly, accelerated electrons circling the nucleus should quickly radiate all their energy away and fall into the nucleus unless there exists an invisible energy source to counteract this.

The third New Testament creation-related passage which talks about atomic structure and physics is found in the Apostle Peter's Second Epistle:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise [rhoizedon, a rushing roar] and the elements [stoicheion, atoms] will be dissolved with fire and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. 2 Peter 3:10 The Greek word translated "elements" in the above mentioned passage from Colossians (and in 2 Peter also) is stoicheion, which can mean "the building blocks of the universe," or "the ordered arrangement of things." It can also mean the "atomic elements." The word translated "dissolved" in 2 Peter 3:10 is literally (in Greek) luo, meaning "unloosed." This language suggests that there will come a time in the future when God lets go of the nuclear forces which hold the atom together. This passage, like the one in Colossians, strongly suggests that the active power of God is behind the mysterious strong force that holds every atomic nucleus together. If this is so, all the other fundamental forces of nature are likewise forces that originate with Christ and His sustaining direction of the old creation.

Sustaining the Universe

If God "sustains the universe by His mighty word of power," moment by moment, were He to merely relax His grasp on the universe, every atom would come apart "by fire" (that is, by nuclear fire). It is inescapable that the Bible claims that God dynamically sustains the universe, including the very atoms themselves. Atoms, it would seem, are "stable" only because force and energy are being supplied into their physical nuclear binding fields from "outside" the system.
Whatever we may think of God and physics, the Bible leaves us with no room to doubt that God does care about the sparrow that falls to the ground, the widow, the orphan, and the homeless. He does not lose track of His children and watches over them with infinite, patient, intimate Fatherly care. Not only does He sustain the universe by His mighty word of power, God also alters the status quo from time to time and, in response to prayer, frequently changes the course of entire nations. In a future day his intrusive reinterven-tion will be very radical indeed.
Another important claim of Scripture about the old creation is that God is the present Sustainer of the universe. That is, He is not uninvolved, remote, detached and impersonal-leaving things to run by themselves by any means.

Among secular scientists today there are many who acknowledge that God exists. But He is usually considered as only a First Cause-the One who brought the universe into existence and set it into motion. But most of these same scientists assume God was not involved after the initial act of creation.

This is contrary to clear statements in the Bible that God is very much involved in every event that takes place in the ongoing history of the entire universe. Causality links everything together, because God "works (Gr: energizes) all things according to the counsel of His will." (Ephesians 1:11.)

The opening verses of the Letter to the Hebrews give us another New Testament picture of God's role in the creation:

[But] in the last of these days He has spoken to us in [the person of a] Son, Whom He appointed Heir and lawful Owner of all things, also by and through Whom He created the worlds and the reaches of space and the ages of time-[that is] [He made, produced, built, operated, and arranged them in order]. He is the sole expression of the glory of God-[the Light-being, the out-raying or radiance of the divine],-and He is the perfect imprint and very image of [God's] nature, upholding and maintaining and guiding and propelling the universe by His mighty word of power..." Hebrews 1:2-3 (Amplified Bible)

A fifth great New Testament passage concerning Jesus and His place in creation is found in Revelation Chapter 1:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. I John, your brother, who share with you in Jesus the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet... When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades." Revelation 1:8-10,17-18

Here Jesus is called "the Alpha and Omega," "the First and the Last." Not only is Jesus the Son of God to be found at the beginning of history, He also stands at the end of history and at the end of every life. He is the Judge of all, and He is the heir of all things.

Science and the Bible

Truth from science must in the long run agree with Biblical revelation-if the Bible is true. If the Bible "says what it means and means what it says" (to quote Chuck Missler) then it is Jesus who holds the universe in his hands just as the old American folk spiritual says.

Our moment-by-moment existence depends on His gracious sustenance of every electron, every atom, every molecule and every spiritual entity as well. We are safe when we place our trust in Him and put our whole lives into His hands! Can we not then stand in awe of our great God and Creator, along with the Psalmist who wrote:

"O come, let us sing to the LORD; let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation! Let us come into his presence with thanksgiving; let us make a joyful noise to him with songs of praise! For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods. In his hand are the depths of the earth; the heights of the mountains are his also. The sea is his, for he made it; for his hands formed the dry land. O come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker! For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. O that today you would hearken to his voice!" Psalm 95:1-7

Next month, God willing, we'll look further at this subject in a discussion of theories of the vacuum, and the interaction between the material creation and the invisible, intangible (but very real) spiritual world which God has also created around us and within which the material world is embedded.

This article was originally published in the
January 1997 Personal Update NewsJournal.

What Bush did not do for New Orleans

Prof. Gerardus D. Bouw

[Leia este artigo em Português]

In case you aren't familiar with how our government is SUPPOSED to work: The chain of responsibility for the protection of the citizens in New Orleans is:
1. The Mayor
2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security (a political appointee of the Governor who reports to the Governor)
3. The Governor
4. The Head of Homeland Security
5. The President

What did each do?

1. The mayor, with 5 days advance, waited until 2 days before he announced a mandatory evacuation (at the behest of the President). Then he failed to provide transportation for those without transport even though he had hundreds of buses at his disposal.
2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security failed to have any plan for a contingency that has been talked about for 50 years. Then he blames the Feds for not doing what he should have done. (So much for political appointees)
3. The Governor, despite a declaration of disaster by the President 2 DAYS BEFORE the storm hit, failed to take advantage of the offer of Federal troops and aid until 2 DAYS AFTER the storm hit.
4. The Director of Homeland Security positioned assets in the area to be ready when the Governor called for them.
5. The President urged a mandatory evacuation, and even declared a disaster State of Emergency, freeing up millions of dollars of federal assistance, should the Governor decide to use it.
6. Oh and by the way, the levees that broke were the responsibility of the local landowners and the local levee board to maintain, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The disaster in New Orleans is what you get after decades of corrupt (democrat) government going all the way back to Huey Long.
Funds for disaster protection and relief have been flowing into this city for decades, and where has it gone, but into the pockets of the politicos and their friends.
Decades of socialist government in New Orleans has sapped all self reliance from the community, and made them dependent upon government for every little thing.
Political, multicultural correctness and a lack of will to fight crime have created the single most corrupt police force in the country, and has permitted gang violence to flourish.
The sad thing is that there are many poor folks who have suffered and died needlessly because those that they voted into office failed them.

For those who missed item 5 (where the President's level of accountability is discussed), it is made more clear in a New Orleans Times-Picayune article dated August 28:
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - In the face of a catastrophic Hurricane Katrina, a mandatory evacuation was ordered Sunday for New Orleans by Mayor Ray Nagin.

Acknowledging that large numbers of people, many of them stranded tourists, would be unable to leave, The city set up 10 places of last resort for people to go, including the Superdome.
The mayor called the order unprecedented and said anyone who could leave the city should. He exempted hotels from the evacuation order because airlines had already canceled all flights.
Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.
The ball was placed in Mayor Nagin's court to carry out the evacuation order. With 5-day heads-up, he had the authority to use any and all services to evacuate all residents from the city, as documented in a city emergency preparedness plan. By waiting until the last minute, and failing to make full use of resources available within city limits, Nagin and his administration messed up.

Mayor Nagin and his emergency sidekick Terry Ebbert have displayed lethal, mind boggling incompetence before, during and after Katrina.
As for Mayor Nagin, he and his profile in pathetic leadership police chief should resign. That city's government is incompetent from one end to the other. The people of New Orleans deserve better than this crowd of clowns is capable of giving them.

If you're keeping track, these boobs let 569 buses that could have carried 33,350 people out of New Orleans-in one trip-get ruined in the floods. Whatever plan these guys had, it was a dud. Or it probably would have been if they'd bothered to follow it.
As for all the race-baiting rhetoric and Bush-bashing coming from prominent blacks on the left, don't expect Ray Nagin to be called out on the carpet for falling short. You want to know why? Here's why:

It's more convenient to blame a white president for what went wrong than to hold a black mayor and his administration accountable for gross negligence and failing to fully carry out an established emergency preparedness plan.

To hold Nagin and his administration accountable for dropping the ball amounts to letting loose the shouts and cries of "Racism!". It's sad, it's wrong, but it's standard operating procedure for the media and left-wing black leadership.

Some more Comments from UNREPORTED NEWS

On Friday night before the storm hit Max Mayfield of the National Hurricane Center took the unprecedented action of calling Nagin and Blanco personally to plead with them to begin MANDATORY evacuation of NO and they said they'd take it under consideration. This was after the NOAA buoy 240 miles south had recorded 68' waves before it was destroyed.
President Bush spent Friday afternoon and evening in meetings with his advisors and administrators drafting all of the paperwork required for a state to request federal assistance (and not be in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act or having to enact the Insurgency Act). Just before midnight Friday evening the President called Governor Blanco and pleaded with her to sign the request papers so the federal government and the military could legally begin mobilization and call up. He was told that they didn't think it necessary for the federal government to be involved yet. After the President's final call to the governor she held meetings with her staff to discuss the political ramifications of bringing federal forces. It was decided that if they allowed federal assistance it would make it look as if they had failed so it was agreed upon that the feds would not be invited in.

Saturday before the storm hit the President again called Blanco and Nagin requesting they please sign the papers requesting federal assistance, that they declare the state an emergency area, and begin mandatory evacuation. After a personal plea from the President Nagin agreed to order an evacuation, but it would not be a full mandatory evacuation, and the governor still refused to sign the papers requesting and authorizing federal action. In frustration the President declared the area a national disaster area before the state of Louisiana did so he could legally begin some advanced preparations. Rumor has it that the President's legal advisers were looking into the ramifications of using the insurgency act to bypass the Constitutional requirement that a state request federal aid before the federal government can move into state with troops - but that had not been done since 1906 and the Constitutionality of it was called into question to use before the disaster.

Throw in that over half the federal aid of the past decade to NO for levee construction, maintenance, and repair was diverted to fund a marina and support the gambling ships. Toss in the investigation that will look into why the emergency preparedness plan submitted to the federal government for funding and published on the city's website was never implemented and in fact may have been bogus for the purpose of gaining additional federal funding as we now learn that the organizations identified in the plan were never contacted or coordinating into any planning - though the document implies that they were.

The suffering people of NO need to be asking some hard questions as do we all, but they better start with why Blanco refused to even sign the multi-state mutual aid pack activation documents until Wednesday which further delayed the legal deployment of National Guard from adjoining states. Or maybe ask why Nagin keeps harping that the President should have commandeered 500 Greyhound busses to help him when according to his own emergency plan and documents he claimed to have over 500 busses at his disposal to use between the local school busses and the city transportation busses - but he never raised a finger to prepare them or activate them.

This is a sad time for all of us to see that a major city has all but been destroyed and thousands of people have died with hundreds of thousands more suffering, but it's certainly not a time for people to be pointing fingers and trying to find a bigger dog to blame for local corruption and incompetence. Pray to God for the survivors that they can start their lives anew as fast as possible and we learn from all the mistakes to avoid them in the future.

At

Speed of Light Slowing Down?

by Chuck Missler
________________________________________

[Leia este artigo em português]

The field of physics worships at the altar of c, the velocity of light. It is widely regarded as the inviolate constant which affects all things: from our knowledge of astronomy to the very behavior of subatomic particles. Even the basic relationship between mass and energy is known by every schoolboy as E = mc2.

For many years, and in many of our previously published materials, we have made allusions to the very controversial view, held by some, that the speed of light (usually designated mathematically by "c") has been slowing down.[1] We have, naturally, received a number of adverse reactions from those who have difficulties dealing with this possibility.

Evidence suggesting that the velocity of light, c, has been slowing down throughout history was first reported by Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman for some years.[2] Now two physicists-Dr. Joao Magueijo, a Royal Society research fellow at Imperial College, London, and Dr. Andreas Albrecht, of the University of California at Davis-are proposing that, immediately after the universe was born, the speed of light may have been far faster than its present-day value of 186,000 miles per second.[3] They now believe that it has been slowing down ever since. The effects predicted by their theory are to be published in the prestigious scientific journal, Physical Review. "If it's true, it would be a very big leap forward that will affect our perception of the universe and much of theoretical physics," said Dr. Magueijo.

One mystery that it seems to be able to explain is why the universe is so uniform -why opposite extremes of the cosmos that are too far apart to have ever been in contact with each other appear to obey the same rules of physics and are even at about the same temperature. It would only be possible for light to cross from one side to the other if it traveled much faster than today moments after the universe was created, between 10 billion and 15 billion years ago. Their hypothesis suggests it was so fast that it could have been travelling at 186,000 miles a second multiplied by a figure with 70 zeroes after it!

Calculations based on the theory also give the most elegant explanation for the speed at which the universe appears to be expanding, which is thought to be just fast enough to avoid an eventual collapse to a big crunch. Instead, the universe would simply grow forever-though at a decreasing rate-and its ultimate fate, it is suggested, would be a slow, lingering death as all the stars burn out and every particle of matter within it separates.

"It is remarkable when you can find one simple idea that has so many appealing consequences," said John Barrow, professor of astronomy and director of the Astronomy Centre at the University of Sussex, who has collaborated with Magueijo and Albrecht.
It is disturbing that with this view continuing to gain credibility in some quarters, acknowledgment of the contributions of Setterfield, Norman, and others is conspicuous by its absence.

Historical Background

Greek philosophers generally followed Aristotle's belief that the speed of light was infinite.[4] Even Kepler (1600 A.D.) maintained the majority view that light was instantaneous.[5] Descartes (who died in 1650) strongly held to a belief in the instantaneous propagation of light. He strongly influenced the scientists of the period and following.

It wasn't until 1677 that a Danish astronomer named Olaf Roemer announced that the anomalous behavior of the eclipse times of Jupiter's inner moon, Io, could be accounted for by a finite speed of light. It took another half century for that notion to be accepted. It wasn't until 1729 that James Bradley's independent confirmation finally ended the opposition to a finite value for the speed of light. Roemer's work, which had split the scientific community for 53 years, was finally vindicated. This emotional inertia concerning the velocity of light seems to continue to haunt the dogmas of physics.

The speed of light has been measured 163 times by 16 different methods over the past 300 years. However, Australian physicist Barry Setterfield and mathematician Trevor Norman, reexamining the known experimental measurements to date, have suggested a highly controversial discovery: the speed of light appears to have been slowing down!

1657: Roemer 307,600. +/- 5400 km/sec
1875: Harvard 299,921. +/- 13 km/sec
1983: NBS (laser method): 299,792.4358 +/- 0.0003 km/sec

The speed of light is now measured as 299,792.4358 kilometers per second.[6] (This is approximately 186,000 miles/second; or one foot per nanosecond.) The Canadian mathematician, Alan Montgomery, has reported a computer analysis supporting the Setterfield/Norman results. His model indicates that the decay of velocity of light closely follows a cosecant-squared curve, and has been asymptotic since 1958. If he is correct, the speed of light was 10-30% faster in the time of Christ; twice as fast in the days of Solomon; four times as fast in the days of Abraham, and perhaps more than 10 million times faster prior to 3000 B.C.
Needless to say, this view is highly controversial and the majority of physicists intensely reject this hypothesis. Some confirmatory trends have been reported in 475 measurements of 11 other atomic quantities by 25 methods in dynamical time. But it could again, as it did in the days of Roemer, take fifty years before it is resolved. But there is another most disturbing discovery that strangely may prove to support the Setterfield view.

The Shift of Tifft

Ever since Edwin Hubble formulated his theory that the "red shift" observed in the spectra of stars was a form of the "Doppler Effect," astronomers have built upon the assumption of an "expanding universe." The universe itself-the space between the galaxies-may be expanding. Matter is now viewed as a distortion in space-time. Gravity is the influence of gravitational forces from curvature of space-time: "space tells matter how to move; matter tells space how to curve." As light travels through expanding space, it is "stretched" to longer wavelengths, that is, to the red. There are a number of Biblical passages that also seem to suggest this possibility.[7]
Some scientists worry that there may be yet other explanations for the red shift and that too much reliance may have been placed on Hubble's Law. Halton Arp, an American astronomer based in Germany, has collected "discrepant" red shifts which appear to be in conflict with traditional views. Some galaxies are even moving towards us, such as the Andromeda Galaxy.
Furthermore, William Tifft, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, has been collecting data on red shifts for about 20 years, and it now appears that the universe might not be expanding. Tifft has discovered that galaxies exhibit only certain discrete values, rather than the more random distribution one would expect if the shifts were distance related. The red shifts appear to be quantized.

Strangely, this may prove to vindicate the Setterfield hypothesis concerning the decay of c. These red shifts appear in discrete quantum levels, similar to the energy states of subatomic particles in quantum physics. Specific values of c govern the quantization of the emitted wavelengths, and quantized red shifts would result.[8]

It will take some time for the Setterfield Hypothesis to be proven acceptable, but it is extremely provocative and would dramatically alter our concepts concerning the physical universe.
Fracture of Reality in Genesis 3?

There appears to be some Scriptural basis for assuming an original close coupling between the spiritual and physical world. The highly venerated Onkelos translation of Genesis 1:31 emphasizes that originally "...it was a unified order." The suggestion has been advanced that current physics, including the entropy laws ("the bondage of decay"[9] ), were a result of the fall of man recorded in Genesis Chapter 3.[10]

The entropy laws reveal a universe which is "winding down." It had to have been initially "wound-up." This windup-the reduction of entropy, or the infusion of order (information)-is described in Genesis 1 in a series of six stages. The terms used in this progressive reduction of entropy (disorder) are erev and boker, which have led to their being translated "evening" and "morning."[11] Evening-and-mornings constituted the principal stages of creation. Six "evenings" and "mornings" became the "days" constituting the creation "week." However, what we presently know about the physical universe is derived only from observing the universe after the upheavals of Genesis 3.

Some of us suspect that the ostensible decay of c, the slowing velocity of light, was one of the results of the upheavals of Genesis Chapter 3.

* * *

Sources:
See also Lambert Dolphin's excellent website.
Missler, Chuck, Beyond Time and Space
Missler, Chuck, Cosmic Codes: Hidden Messages From the Edge of Eternity, Koinonia House.
This article was originally published in the
January 1999 Personal Update NewsJournal.

________________________________________
**NOTES**
________________________________________

1. Personal UPDATE, March 1993, p.12-26; March 1995, p.10-14; Beyond Time and Space, p.11-12; Genesis and the Big Bang, p. 8-13.
2. Setterfield, B., and Norman, T., The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, Invited Research Paper, SRI, August 1987.
3. Steve Farrar, Science Correspondent. "Speed of light 'slowing down'", London Sunday Times, November 15 1998.
4. There were exceptions: Empedocles of Acragas (c. 450 B.C.); also Moslem scientists Aviecenna and Alhazen (1000 A.D.) both believed in a finite speed for light.
5. Again there were exceptions: Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon (1600 A.D.) both believed in a finite speed of light.
6. A dynamical second is defined as 1/31,556,925.9747 of the earth's orbital period and was standard until 1967. Atomic time is defined in terms of one revolution of an electron in the ground state orbit of the hydrogen atom.
7. "The stretching of the heavens": Isa 40:22; 42:5; 44:27; 45:12; 51:13; Jer 10:12; 51:15; Zech 12:1; the heavens as a scroll: Isa 34:4; Rev. 6:14.
8. Setterfield, Barry, Atomic Quantum State, Light, and the Red Shift, in publication (received by private correspondence).
9. Romans 8:21.
10. Heb 11:3; Rom 8:19-23; Psa 102:25-27; Prov 16:33; Eph 1:11; Heb 1:2-3; Col 1:16,17.
11. Erev initially referred to darkness, obscurity, randomness; maximum entropy. As darkness envelopes our horizon, we lose the ability to discern order or patterns. The darkness was originally "without form and void." From this term we derive the current sememe for "evening," when the encroaching darkness begins to deny us the ability to discern forms, shapes, and identities. Boker refers to the advent of light, where things begin to become discernible, visible; order begins to appear. This relief of obscurity, and the attendant ability to begin to discern forms, shapes, and identities has become associated with dawn or "morning," as the early twilight begins to reveal order and design.

The Human Genome

by Carol Loeffler
________________________________________

The announcement of the completion of human genome mapping has brought some interesting - if not amusing and contradictory - responses from the scientific community about what the map tells us. These differences reveal the growing chasm in the scientific community over the subject of origins and the "end of science." More and more, scientists are being confronted by the fact that science has failed to answer core questions regarding the origins of the universe and life, and the evidence is contradicting much of what has been traditionally believed about Darwinism.

Two articles, which appeared on February 16, 2001, were directly contradictory to each other. They both featured scientists reacting to the genome-mapping project.
The first article, entitled "Darwin Vindicated," was written by Dr. Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. The professor asserts that "the genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right - mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors. Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true. The response to all those who thump their Bible and say there is no proof, no test and no evidence in support of evolution is, 'The proof is right here, in our genes.'" 1

From reading the article, one would be sure that science had once and for all proven the Bible wrong. However, Professor Caplan did not work on the genome project. On the same day, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article entitled, "Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine." It featured an interview with Gene Myers, who was the computer scientist at the Maryland headquarters of Celera Genomics, who actually worked out the genome mapping. Myers said, "We're deliciously complex at the molecular level...We don't understand ourselves yet, which is cool. There's still a metaphysical, magical element." He went on to say, "What really astounds me is the architecture of life...the system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed."2 As to whether this implicated a designer Myers said, "There's a huge intelligence there. I don't see that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me."

The contradiction between these two views is really a clash between two worldviews. Dr. Caplan seized upon the similarities in genetic code as proof that humans and so-called simpler life forms descended from a common ancestor. In his eagerness to affirm evolution, he excluded the possibility that an intelligent creator may have used the same functional coding system for more than one species.

Ironically, many of the same scientists who deny the complex coding system of the DNA molecule as evidence of intelligent design also support the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project, which searches the far reaches of the galaxy for the signs of non-random, non-periodic radio signals as signs of alien intelligence. Their bias against God has blinded them to other possible explanations for the scientific data collected.

While the Human Genome Project has successfully produced a map of the human genome, it has yet to map the proteins encoded by our genes. Only one-third of the genes in the human body have been identified by function. 3 Furthermore, just over a third of the human genome contains repetitive sequences that scientists label "junk DNA" because, at the moment, they don't appear to have any function.4 What we do know about the DNA code is that it is digital, error-correcting, redundant, and self-replicating. For all the new advances made in genetics, we are constantly discovering how complex the DNA really is and how much more we have to learn. What has been called "the Book of Life" is more like a library.5 The field is so complex that President Bush is considering a proposal to hire a biotechnology coordinator to act as coordinator among government agencies and scientists in this rapidly changing field.6

The Battle for Minds

There are numerous admissions emerging in the technical literature about serious "problems" with random chance accounting for such complex DNA design, but it goes virtually untold by the gurus of the pop science culture of evolution and their publications.7 Few people outside the scientific disciplines read the actual literature, and the gurus aren't about to tell the public that their prize theory is in real trouble. A new book by Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, is a bold exposé on the fraudulent support for evolution, which continues to be published in school textbooks and taught as fact. For example, "...evidence for Darwin's theory: peppered moths. Before 1820, most peppered moths were light colored, but during the industrial revolution they became mostly dark colored. In theory, the shift occurred because light colored moths were more visible against pollution-darkened tree trunks and thus were eaten by predatory birds. Textbooks typically illustrate this story with photographs of peppered moths on tree trunks. In the 1980s, however, biologists discovered that peppered moths in the wild don't rest on tree trunks. The textbook photographs were staged-often by gluing or pinning dead moths in place."8

In reality, the current battle of Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design seems more a matter of philosophical debate than evaluation of scientific evidence. The Darwinists are beginning to show the classic, desperate signs of a failing philosophy as their arguments become more and more irrational in an attempt to prop up something that is quickly being refuted. As the dispute rages in the future, keep in mind that making those arguments are brilliant minds: minds capable of analyzing complex data, imagining, theorizing and extrapolating. Those minds are obviously a triumph of random chance...not!

This article was originally published in the
April 2001 Personal Update NewsJournal.

________________________________________
**NOTES**
________________________________________

1. Caplan, Arthur, "Darwin Vindicated!" MSNBC, February 21, 2001.
2. Abate, Tom, "Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine," San Francisco Chronicle.com February 19, 2001.
3. Patrizio, Andy, "Genome Effort Hits Home," Wired News, February 17, 2001.
4. Belsie, Laurent, "The Short, Simple Human Gene Map," Christian Science Monitor, February 13, 2001.
5. Jasny, Barbara R. and Kennedy, Donald, "The Human Genome," Science Magazine, February 16, 2001.
6. Rosenberg, Ronald, "Bush May Hire Biotech Coordinator," The Boston Globe, February 21, 2001.
7. Meyers, Dr. Steve, Interview with Dr. Meyers, Director of the Center for Renewal in Science and Culture, Seattle, on the Steel on Steel Radio Program, www.steelonsteel.com, March 10, 2001.
8. Wells, Jonathan, "Let's Change Science Standards And Let Students Do Real Science," Philadelphia Inquirer, December 11, 2000.

Girafas, mariposas e anacronismos didáticos

Isabel Rebelo Roque (*)

[Leia mais]

É bem possível que alguns leitores, independentemente de terem seguido esta ou aquela carreira depois de adultos, ainda se lembrem de algumas coisas de caráter mais pitoresco que estudaram nas aulas de Ciências e de Biologia.

Ao aprendermos sobre evolução, dificilmente teremos deixado de ver estampados nos livros didáticos dois exemplos clássicos: primeiro, o da explicação de Lamarck para o tamanho do pescoço das girafas atuais e seu contraponto darwiniano; segundo, o da seleção natural ocorrida em populações de mariposas dos bosques da Inglaterra durante a Revolução Industrial, que foi alvo de uma série de experimentos realizados na década de 1950 pelo cientista Bernard Kettlewell.

Ocorre que ambas as histórias têm protagonizado, nos últimos anos, calorosas polêmicas na mídia científica internacional, enquanto aqui nada é dito a respeito. Ambos os assuntos abrem, também, complexa discussão que envolve interesses e responsabilidades da comunidade científica sobre o modo como divulga – ou deixa de divulgar – seus estudos e conclusões. Em se tratando de divulgação com fins didáticos, então, a questão torna-se ainda mais delicada.
Por exigência de meu trabalho (sou editora de livros didáticos), precisei pesquisar esses temas, e foi então que constatei a absoluta falta de informações, seja em meio eletrônico ou impresso, em âmbito nacional. Ao que tudo indica, eles não parecem ser suficientemente relevantes para que a comunidade científica brasileira deles se ocupe. Afinal, não é por este ou outro equívoco ou por um ou outro livro didático ou curso desatualizado que a ciência haverá de parar.

Enquanto isso, vão se mantendo, incólumes e imutáveis, as referências às girafas de Lamarck/Darwin e às mariposas de Kettlewell em aulas de Ciências e de Biologia, em exames vestibulares, em inúmeros livros didáticos e em sites e portais de educação para o Ensino Fundamental e Ensino Médio, que pululam na internet.

Tentarei explicar aos leitores, em linhas gerais, do que se trata, dedicando-me, neste primeiro artigo, ao mais simples e (aparentemente) menos polêmico: as girafas de Lamarck. Em outra edição deste Observatório tratarei do caso das mariposas Biston, tema que recentemente mereceu artigo no jornal The New York Times.

Um exemplo clássico

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, naturalista francês evolucionista, lançou seu livro Philosophie zoologique no mesmo ano do nascimento de Charles Darwin, 1809. Em sua explicação para a evolução dos seres vivos, elaborou duas hipóteses: a do uso e desuso e a da transmissão dos caracteres adquiridos. Segundo essas idéias, os seres vivos seriam capazes de se adaptar a pressões impostas pelo ambiente, para isso utilizando algumas partes do corpo mais intensamente que outras. As partes mais utilizadas se desenvolveriam mais; as menos utilizadas tenderiam a se atrofiar ou mesmo desaparecer. Daí o nome "uso e desuso".
Lamarck ia além, afirmando que essas modificações sofridas pelos seres vivos em resposta a uma imposição do meio seriam transmitidas a sua descendência. Cabe lembrar que até então nada se sabia sobre o papel da herança genética na transmissão de características de geração a geração; Gregor Mendel, que lançou as bases da genética, só viria a nascer em 1822.

E qual o exemplo clássico utilizado para explicar a teoria lamarckista? É o do pescoço das girafas. Nos livros didáticos, costumamos ler que, segundo Lamarck, os ancestrais das girafas teriam pescoço curto. A necessidade de alcançar as folhas das árvores, principalmente em épocas de escassez de alimento, quando só restavam as folhas mais altas, teria provocado o constante exercício de esticar o pescoço. A característica "pescoço alongado" seria, então, transmitida à descendência. O resultado, após milhares de anos de uso intensivo do pescoço e transmissão da característica à prole, teria sido o que vemos hoje: que as girafas têm pescoço longo e musculoso.
Em geral, nos livros, é apresentado o contraponto darwiniano a essa explicação: espécimes diferentes nasceriam com comprimentos de pescoço ligeiramente diferentes. Os indivíduos "privilegiados" nesse quesito apresentariam vantagem sobre os demais na hora de alcançar as folhas mais altas. Em épocas de escassez, essa diferença seria decisiva para definir quem sobreviveria e quem não. Os sobreviventes, com a característica "pescoço mais longo" ("de nascença"), conseguiriam transmiti-la à prole.

Belo e didático exemplo, não? Sim. Seria perfeito, não fossem alguns senões. O primeiro deles é que Lamarck jamais deu a esse exemplo o destaque que ele tem recebido há quase 200 anos.

Achar o fio da meada

O estranho caminho seguido pelo exemplo da elongação do pescoço da girafa – de um mero parágrafo escrito por Lamarck, até sua transformação em "carro-chefe" da teoria lamarckista – é examinado em detalhe em ensaio assinado pelo paleontologista e divulgador científico Stephen Jay Gould, morto recentemente. Intitulado The tallest tale (uma alusão à expressão "tall tale", história cujos detalhes são difíceis de engolir), o ensaio foi publicado originalmente na Natural History Magazine, em 1996.

Em seu texto, permeado do humor sarcástico que o caracteriza, Jay Gould tenta retomar o fio da meada. Observa que, na Philosophie zoologique, Lamarck ocupa-se das girafas somente em um parágrafo, dentro de um capítulo em que figuram muitos outros exemplos a que ele possivelmente atribuiu maior importância.

Quanto a Darwin, em sua primeira edição da Origem das espécies (1859) ele não faz qualquer referência ao pescoço da girafa, mas sim, em outro contexto, à sua cauda!

Jay Gould especula que o exemplo do pescoço da girafa teria assumido importância na literatura científica graças a St. George Mivart, que, em 1871, publicou uma crítica ao darwinismo: The genesis of species. Mivart centrou sua argumentação no pescoço da girafa, e, como sua finalidade era atacar o darwinismo, revestiu sua argumentação de um caráter caricatural.

Darwin, em reação ao ataque de Mivart, acrescentou à sua sexta e última edição da Origem das espécies (1872) um capítulo em que discorre extensivamente sobre o assunto. É essa edição que tem servido de base às versões subseqüentes, e não a primeira, de 1859, em que ele não faz qualquer menção ao pescoço da girafa.

E assim essa história ganhou os livros escolares e em muitos deles perdura até hoje. O agravante é que – a par do fato histórico de que Lamarck jamais deu ao pescoço da girafa tanta relevância – dados subseqüentes, resultantes da observação de girafas em seu hábitat (a África), derrubam de vez o "conto" das folhinhas mais altas em tempos de escassez.

Na verdade, a importância do tamanho e da robustez do pescoço da girafa não se resume a alcançar ou não as folhas mais altas. Entre os machos, por exemplo, o pescoço é uma importante "arma" usada para garantir a dominação e também a preferência das fêmeas, por meio de verdadeiros duelos nos quais às vezes o perdedor acaba perdendo também a vida.
As girafas também têm no comprimento do pescoço uma verdadeira "torre de observação", com a qual podem manter controle sobre a aproximação de predadores, por exemplo. Por si sós, esses dois usos do pescoço – na disputa entre machos e na observação do ambiente – já constituem, segundo os cientistas, fatores bastante relevantes para a importância de seu comprimento.

Jay Gould termina seu artigo especulando sobre as possíveis razões de continuarmos a aceitar o velho "conto" do pescoço esticado para alcançar folhinhas. Talvez porque adoremos uma linda história, ainda que falsa; talvez também porque não estejamos habituados a questionar pretensas autoridades – neste caso, a dos livros.

Mais lenha na fogueira

No mesmo ano em que Jay Gould publicou seu artigo (1996), os zoólogos Robert Simmons e Lue Scheepers publicaram, na American Naturalist, o artigo "Winning by a neck: sexual selection in the evolution of giraffe" ("Vencendo por um pescoço: seleção sexual na evolução da girafa"). Nele, a dupla põe mais lenha na fogueira ao afirmar que, durante a estação seca, as girafas alimentam-se dos arbustos, e que é na estação de chuvas que elas se voltam para o alto das acácias, situação em que nenhuma competição é esperada.

Outro aspecto observado por Simmons e Scheepers é que as fêmeas passam metade de seu tempo alimentando-se com o pescoço em posição horizontal (comportamento tão típico que é útil para identificar o sexo do animal a distância). Além disso tudo, ambos os sexos alimentam-se mais freqüentemente com o pescoço curvado para baixo. Tudo isso, segundo eles, sugere que o tamanho do pescoço não teria evoluído especificamente em decorrência da busca de alimento em locais mais elevados.

Para refutar a possível objeção de que a competição entre machos não explicaria o comprimento do pescoço das fêmeas, Simmons e Scheepers argumentam que ele seria um resultado da correlação genética entre os sexos, e que outras espécies exibem correlações similares entre sexos – ou seja, no caso das fêmeas, o pescoço longo teria vindo como uma espécie de "brinde".
Outro artigo sobre o assunto, assinado pelo professor Steve Rissing, do Departamento de Evolução, Ecologia e Biologia dos Organismos da Ohio State University, foi publicado na Columbus Dispatch em fevereiro de 2001. Em seu texto, ele se refere ao "conto" das girafas como tema favorito dos "cartunistas da arca de Noé" e "ícone" dos textos científicos sobre a seleção natural de Darwin. Mas analisa que a derrubada da história tal qual a vemos nos livros não significa a morte do darwinismo. O fato de se haver concluído que o comprimento do pescoço da girafa é um exemplo de seleção sexual, e não de seleção natural, não invalida a teoria darwinista, já que Darwin, em sua teoria, considerou também a existência de outros mecanismos na evolução dos seres vivos. Mas ele é categórico quanto à necessidade de se atualizar os textos. "That’s OK; that’s science; that’s how we learn", diz ele.

Muito barulho por nada?

Afinal, qual é a importância de tudo isso? O lamarckismo, seja quando se refere (ou não) a pescoços de girafa, seja quando recorre a qualquer outro exemplo, já não foi devidamente nocauteado? Sim, é um fato. Acontece que não se trata, neste caso, apenas de preservar a memória de um cientista, atribuindo a "César o que é de César" e a Lamarck o que é de Lamarck. Para usar uma expressão bastante popular, "o buraco é mais embaixo".
Quando falamos em atualizar as informações nos materiais de divulgação científica, nos cursos e nos livros didáticos, falamos em colocar em evidência um problema bem maior: o da "cristalização" de determinados conceitos, em ciência como também em outros campos do conhecimento. E também do problema crônico da não-ventilação das informações a que têm acesso professores e autores de material didático, os quais, em geral, são também professores – com formação superior na área, mas não cientistas.

Falamos do risco de apresentar a ciência como algo sagrado e fechado, que permanece imutável, a salvo de reavaliações, e ao mesmo tempo – como a história das girafas mostrou – tão suscetível a ponto de cair em "armadilhas" de reedições.
Falamos, ainda, do comodismo de nos agarrar a "modelos" científicos que constituiriam excelentes confirmações de teorias "oficiais" – não fossem eles inconsistentes como modelos e não fossem elas apenas teorias.

Contrapor a suposta explicação de Darwin para o tamanho do pescoço da girafa à de Lamarck, à luz dos conhecimentos genéticos atuais, acaba por cumprir uma infame e nem um pouco inocente função: desmoralizar e ridicularizar o também evolucionista Lamarck, sem levar em conta o momento histórico em que viveu, e oficializar a visão de Darwin, omitindo do leitor o fato de que suas idéias sobre seleção natural a cada dia encontram menos consenso na comunidade científica – o que, bem explicado, não tem nada que ver com endossar o criacionismo, mas apenas com a necessidade de levar em conta outras possibilidades para explicar a história da vida na Terra.

Ou seja, estampar num livro, lado a lado, a explicação lamarckista e a darwiniana para o tamanho do pescoço da girafa produz como efeito imediato a adesão do leitor à teoria darwiniana, sem lhe dar oportunidade para reflexão, por absoluta falta de maiores subsídios. É, em outras palavras, manipulação.

Assim, à conclusão de Jay Gould de que adoramos uma linda história pode-se acrescentar que "acima de nós" existe um bocado de gente que "adora" o fato de adorarmos uma linda história.
No caso específico da realidade brasileira, deparamos com outro agravante: a morosidade com que se dá, aqui, a divulgação das vozes dissonantes publicadas lá fora. Bastam como exemplos os próprios textos que cito neste artigo: todos publicados na mídia americana de divulgação científica, sem terem sido traduzidos ou sequer comentados pela mídia brasileira, e dois deles nem tão recentes assim, de seis anos atrás.

No próximo artigo, em que falarei da controvérsia envolvendo outro "conto" – o das mariposas de Kettlewell –, acrescentarei à discussão mais um aspecto do corporativismo no meio científico: a manipulação de dados na experimentação.

Referências
JAY GOULD, Stephen. "The tallest tale". Natural History Magazine, maio 1996, p. 18-27.
RISSING, Steve. "Giraffe story shows why science sticks its neck out". The Columbus Dispatch, 4 fev. 2001, p. 7C.
SIMMONS, Robert E. & SCHEEPERS, L. "Winning by a neck: sexual selection in the evolution of giraffe". The American Naturalist, 148 (1996), p. 771-86.

(*) Editora de livros didáticos