Da srie: Esse cientista no disse isso...

Diversos criacionistas atribuem a frase abaixo ao prmio nobel George Wald:

H apenas duas possibilidades no que toca origem da vida: uma a gerao espontnea eme
ndo para a evoluo, e a outra a actividade criativa sobrenatural de Deus; no h tercei
ra opo. A gerao espontnea que diz que a vida surgiu de matria-morta foi cientificamen
e refutada 120 anos atrs por Louis Pasteur e outros. Isto deixa-nos apenas com um
a concluso: a vida surgiu como resultado da activida criadora de Deus. Eu no vou a
ceitar isso filosficamente porque eu no quero acreditar em Deus. Portanto, eu esco
lho em acreditar naquilo que cientificamente impossvel, nomeadamente, gerao espontne
a dando emergindo para a evoluo. (Dr. George Wald, evolucionista, Professor Emrito
de Biology na Universidade at Harvard, Prmio Nobel em Biology.)
A fonte nunca est disponvel, mas abaixo a disponibilizamos. Vamos analisar:
Wald, G. 1954. The Origin of Life. Scientific American August: 44-53.
Agora com a fonte, vamos ver a citao completa:
" The great idea emerges originally in the consciousness of the race as a vague
intuition; and this is the form it keeps, rude and imposing, in myth, tradition
and poetry. This is its core, its enduring aspect. In this form science finds it
, clothes it with fact, analyses its content, develops its detail, rejects it, a
nd finds it ever again. In achieving the scientific view, we do not ever wholly
lose the intuitive, the mythological. Both have meaning for us, and neither is c
omplete without the other. The Book of Genesis contains still our poem of the Cr
eation; and when God questions Job out of the whirlwind, He questions us.
Let me cite an example. Throughout our history we have entertained two kinds of
views of the origin of life: one that life was created supernaturally, the other
that it arose "spontaneously" from nonliving material. In the 17th to 19th cent
uries those opinions provided the ground of a great and bitter controversy. Ther
e came a curious point, toward the end of the 18th century, when each side of th
e controversy was represented by a Roman Catholic priest. The principle opponent
of the theory of the spontaneous generation was then the Abbe Lazzaro Spallanza
ni, an Italian priest; and its principal champion was John Turberville Needham,
an English Jesuit.
Since the only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation is a belief in
supernatural creation, and since the latter view seems firmly implanted in the
Judeo-Christian theology, I wondered for a time how a priest could support the t
heory of spontaneous generation. Needham tells one plainly. The opening paragrap
hs of the Book of Genesis can in fact be reconciled with either view. In its fir
st account of Creation, it says not quite that God made living things, but He co
mmanded the earth and waters to produce them. The language used is: "let the wat
ers bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.... Let the earth
bring forth the living creature after his kind." In the second version of creati
on the language is different and suggests a direct creative act: "And out of the
ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air.
..." In both accounts man himself--and woman--are made by God's direct intervent
ion. The myth itself therefore offers justification for either view. Needham too
k the position that the earth and waters, having once been ordered to bring fort
h life, remained ever after free to do so; and this is what we mean by spontaneo
us generation.
This great controversy ended in the mid-19th century with the experiments of Lou
is Pasteur, which seemed to dispose finally of the possibility of spontaneous ge
neration. For almost a century afterward biologists proudly taught their student
s this history and the firm conclusion that spontaneous generation had been scie

ntifically refuted and could not possibly occur. Does this mean that they accept
ed the alternative view, a supernatural creation of life? Not at all. They had n
o theory of the origin of life, and if pressed were likely to explain that quest
ions involving such unique events as origins and endings have no place in scienc
e.
A few years ago, however, this question re-emerged in a new form. Conceding that
spontaneous generation doe not occur on earth under present circumstances, it a
sks how, under circumstances that prevailed earlier upon this planet, spontaneou
s generation did occur and was the source of the earliest living organisms. With
in the past 10 years this has gone from a remote and patchwork argument spun by
a few venturesome persons--A. I. Oparin in Russia, J. B. S. Haldane in England-to a favored position, proclaimed with enthusiasm by many biologists.
Have I cited here a good instance of my thesis? I had said that in these great q
uestions one finds two opposed views, each of which is periodically espoused by
science. In my example I seem to have presented a supernatural and a naturalisti
c view, which were indeed opposed to each other, but only one of which was ever
defended scientifically. In this case it would seem that science has vacillated,
not between two theories, but between one theory and no theory.
That, however, is not the end of the matter. Our present concept of the origin o
f life leads to the position that, in a universe composed as ours is, life inevi
tably arises wherever conditions permit. We look upon life as part of the order
of nature. It does not emerge immediately with the establishment of that order;
long ages must pass before [page 100 | page 101] it appears. Yet given enough ti
me, it is an inevitable consequence of that order. When speaking for myself, I d
o not tend to make sentences containing the word God; but what do those persons
mean who make such sentences? They mean a great many different things; indeed I
would be happy to know what they mean much better than I have yet been able to d
iscover. I have asked as opportunity offered, and intend to go on asking. What I
have learned is that many educated persons now tend to equate their concept of
God with their concept of the order of nature. This is not a new idea; I think i
t is firmly grounded in the philosophy of Spinoza. When we as scientists say the
n that life originated inevitably as part of the order of our universe, we are u
sing different words but do not necessary mean a different thing from what some
others mean who say that God created life. It is not only in science that great
ideas come to encompass their own negation. That is true in religion also; and m
an's concept of God changes as he changes."
E a concluso: mais um texto manipulado e fora de contexto.
https://www.facebook.com/evoacademy/photos/a.150179885136997.32701.1282954706587
72/299884390166545/