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

O Convite de Darwin

Enézio E. de Almeida Filho

Quando Darwin publicou "A Origem das Espécies", em 1859, os cientistas desconheciam a complexidade da célula, a herança genética e minimizavam as dificuldades encontradas no registro fóssil. As idéias confusas e não muito originais de Darwin revolucionaram a ciência e as concepções filosófico-religiosas - o homem evoluiu de uma forma simples através da seleção natural ao longo de bilhões de anos.

Sem apoio das evidências, Darwin conseguiu a adesão da comunidade científica tão ignorante desses fatos quanto ele. Contudo, admitiu existir objeções a sua teoria e que poderia haver visões extremas da evolução: "Estou bem a par do fato de existirem neste volume pouquíssimas afirmativas acerca das quais não se possam invocar diversos fatos passíveis de levar a conclusões diametralmente opostas àquelas às quais cheguei. Uma conclusão satisfatória só poderá ser alcançada através do exame e confronto dos fatos e argumentos em prol deste ou daquele ponto de vista, e tal coisa seria impossível de se fazer na presente obra".

Esse convite gera debates apaixonantes. As objeções não são feitas unicamente por religiosos fanáticos. Sóbrios e renomados cientistas ainda questionam por motivos científicos.

O sociólogo Edgar Morin, no livro "Os Sete Saberes Necessários à Educação do Futuro" para a Unesco, afirmou e sugeriu: "As ciências permitiram que adquiríssemos muitas certezas, mas igualmente revelaram, ao longo do século 20, inúmeras zonas de incerteza. A educação deveria incluir o ensino das incertezas que surgiram nas ciências físicas, nas ciências da evolução biológica e nas ciências históricas." A LDB 9394/96 estabeleceu as bases da educação nacional para aprimorar o educando pelo desenvolvimento de sua autonomia intelectual e do pensamento crítico. Isso ocorrerá quando algumas "zonas de incertezas" nas ciências biológicas forem abordadas:

1. A origem da vida: a teoria da evolução química não goza mais de respeitabilidade científica, mas a experiência de Urey-Miller "demonstra" como a vida surgiu.
2. A "explosão cambriana": os principais filos aparecem no registro fóssil há mais de 540 milhões de anos, sem intermediários, plenamente funcionais, contrariando a evolução gradual. Segundo Darwin, uma "objeção fatal, mas omitida nos livros-texto de Biologia".
3. Homologia: semelhança devido à ancestralidade comum é evidência de ancestralidade comum. Tautologia, argumento circular que nada diz em ciência.
4. Embriões vertebrados: há mais de um século os biólogos sabem que os embriões vertebrados não são semelhantes no estágio inicial e os desenhos que os mostram assim foram "forjados" para "apoiar" a teoria.
5. Melanismo industrial: a foto de mariposas "camuflando-se" nos troncos das árvores como evolução em ação é falsa. Desde 1980 os biólogos sabem: não descansam nos troncos das árvores e foram "coladas" nos troncos para apoiar o "fato da evolução"!
6. Os tentilhões de Darwin: explicam a origem das espécies por meio da seleção natural, quando nenhuma megaevolução ocorreu. Os tentilhões, apesar da variedade de bicos e costumes alimentares, continuam tentilhões.
7. A origem humana: macacos-antropóides ilustram nossos ancestrais. Os paleoantropólogos discordam sobre quais foram nossos ancestrais e como pareciam. Os cladogramas aqui "supõem" como esta relação filogenética teria ocorrido. Não há um "elo perdido", mas toda uma "corrente perdida".

A ciência é a expressão de curiosidade. Por causa do convite de Darwin, da sugestão de Morin e da proposta da LDB, você pode e deve questionar o neodarwinismo, pois a melhor inferência às evidências é o Design Inteligente.

Enézio E. de Almeida Filho

Estudioso de História da Ciência. Membro da Sociedade Internacional para Complexidade, Informação e Design. Coordenador do Núcleo Brasileiro de Design Inteligente, Campinas - SP (em organização).

Galileu Edição 145 – Agosto de 03. Editora Globo