Darwin y Noé

Los artistas Chinos Dai Dudu, Li Tiezi, y Zhang An pintaron en 2006 un cuadro en el que se representan algunas  personas destacadas de la humanidad.  Cada  retrato del cuadro  se corresponde con un personaje histórico que se identifica inmediatamente al colocar el cursor sobre el rostro retratado.

Pero, el cuadro contiene sorpresas,…….

Por ejemplo:

1. Al hacer click en el rostro del camello se abre una página en la que aparecen personas cuyos retratos recuerdan el rostro de un camello: Pau Gasol, Paris Hilton, Andy Dick y otros….

2.  El personaje que conduce al camello enmedio del cuadro se corresponde excepcionalmente no con uno sino con dos celebridades que vienen así a confundirse y que son :  Charles Darwin y……..Noé.

Tomen aliento antes de responder a estas preguntas:

¿Qué curiosos mecanismos cerebrales han llevado a los autores a identificar a Noé, que salvó a su familia y a los animales del Diluvio Universal, con Charles Darwin?  ¿Sugiere la fusión de ambos personajes históricos en uno cierta proximidad entre las funciones sociales de ambos?


Blogalaxia: ~ Technorati: ~ AgregaX:

Related posts:

  1. Charles Darwin y la reapertura del expediente Galileo
  2. Desmontando a Darwin: Entrevista a Máximo Sandín
  3. Locomotora a la luna: Finalidad social de la obra de Darwin revelada en el Historical Sketch en la sexta edición del Origen de las Especies. Primera parte: ¿De qué hablo el cura en el sermón?
  4. Seminario organizado por AET: El Traje Nuevo de Darwin
  5. La ambigüedad, característica fundamental en Darwin. Ejemplo: significado de la palabra Natural

Si te gustó esta entrada anímate a escribir un comentario o suscribirte al feed y obtener los artículos futuros en tu lector de feeds.


¡Hombre, pues claro!

El darwinismo es una religión.

Mira esto y verás:


Darwinism as a Religion

When Eiseley used the word “cult” I think we can safely assume that he was thinking more of a “cult of personality” rather than some kind of malign religious organisation. Yet according to Professor Stephen Jay Gould, there really is a genuinely religious dimension, of sorts, to this matter:

“… all theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and … Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists …”2

Yes he does.
The symbol below, available as a lapel badge, T-shirt logo, etc., from numerous sites online, takes the icthys (fish) design used by the early Christians – adds legs (to indicate evolution) and inserts Darwin’s name.
People who approve of these changes often argue that it is merely a statement – roughly speaking, “rational science evolving from irrational superstition”. This is rather less than credible, however, given the substantial number of people who are involved with science and hold conventional religious beliefs.

Whatever the symbol may have started out as, to give its origin the benefit of the doubt, one can’t help suspecting that it may now have become little more than another indication of the struggle between two basic religious viewpoints – one which upholds the existence of an original creator (commonly referred to as ‘God’), and one that struggles to discredit any kind of belief in a supreme being. Creationism and evolutionism.

Given that Gould made his observation back in 1978, it is worth noting that time has done nothing to moderate this view. At the turn of the centiry, evolutionist Michael Ruse wrote:

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint – and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it – the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”3

Or as Michael White put it, a couple of years later:

“Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher.”4

Professor Brian Goodwin throws a truly revealing light on this aspect of evolutionism – and on Darwinism in particular – when he draws our attention to the underlying metaphors used by neo-Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins:

“Dawkins’ description of the Darwinian principles of evolution can be summarized as follows.

1. Organisms are constructed by groups of genes whose goal is to leave more copies of themselves. The hereditary material is basically ‘selfish’.

2. The inherently selfish qualities of the hereditary material are reflected in the competitive interactions between organisms that result in survival of fitter variants, generated by the more successful genes.

3. Organisms are constantly trying to get better (fitter). In a mathematical/geometrical metaphor, they are always trying to climb up local peaks in a fitness landscape in order to do better than their competitors. However, this landscape keeps changing as evolution proceeds, so the struggle is endless.

4. Paradoxically, humans can develop altruistic qualities that contradict their inherently selfish nature, by means of education and other cultural efforts.

Are these metaphors beginning to look familiar?
Here is a very similar set.

1. Humanity is born in sin; we have a base inheritance.

2. Humanity is therefore condemned to a life of conflict and …

3. … Perpetual toil

4. But by faith and moral effort humanity can be saved from its fallen, selfish state

So we see that the Darwinism described by Dawkins, whose exposition has been been very widely (but by no means universally) acclaimed by biologists, has its metaphorical roots in one of the deepest cultural myths, the story of the fall and redemption of humanity.”5

In short, in terms of its underlying metaphors, Darwinism a la Dawkins looks suspiciously akin to fundamentalist Christianity minus God. This interpretation would certainly explain Dawkins’ language when he was being interviewed about a recent (January, 2006) TV series:

“Thanks to science, we now have such an exciting grasp of the answers to [profound] questions, it’s a kind of blasphemy not to embrace them.”6

According to the dictionary on my desk:

blasphemy … 1 irreverant talk or treatment of a religious or sacred thing. 2 instance of this.7

Are we to believe that Dawkins didn’t understand what he was saying when he made this remark? Or can we accept this as a concrete demonstration of Goodwin’s interpretation of Dawkins’ basically “religious” outlook?

Seven different books on Darwin sit on the table beside me as I write these words. Is it pure coincidence, I wonder, that of the seven, just one book cover shows him when he was comparatively young (40 years old). Each of the other six cover photos show the rather sad-expression, balding pate, wrinkled brow, white-hair and long white beard of Darwin in his final years – not at all unlike the figure of God the Father as depicted on the ceiling of the Cistene Chapel.
Coincidence? Or is there an element of ‘brand imaging’ here?

Could this be a none too subtle suggestion that it would be impudent, even verging on blasphemy, to question the life and work of such a venerable old fellow?
And if it is, why do we need to be manipulated thus?

Not all scientists in the relevant fields of study are quite so keen to deify Darwin, it must be said. But even those who are (seemingly) less than comfortable with the situation sometimes find it hard to swim against the tide. Witness the comment by geneticist C.D. Darlington:

“… there is a natural feeling (among scientists) that one of the greatest of our figures should not be dissected, at least by one of us.”8

That qualifying phrase “at least” surely carries the implication that it might be entirely appropriate for someone from outside the scientific community to carry out the task.

But there is an even more compelling reason to suppose that Darwinism has moved from the scientific arena to become a quaisi-religion. And that “reason” is Gregor Mendel.




Responsable del tratamiento: FUNDACIÓN PARA EL CONOCIMIENTO MADRIMASD con domicilio en C/ Maestro Ángel Llorca 6, 3ª planta 28003 Madrid. Puede contactar con el delegado de protección de datos en dpd@madrimasd.org. Finalidad: Contestar a su solicitud. Por qué puede hacerlo: Por el interés legítimo de la Fundación por contestarle al haberse dirigido a nosotros. Comunicación de datos: Sus datos no se facilitan a terceros. Derechos: Acceso, rectificación, supresión, oposición y limitación del tratamiento. Puede presentar una reclamación ante la Agencia Española de Protección de datos (AEPD). Más información: En el enlace Política de Privacidad..