Criar um Site Grátis Fantástico

Criacionismo - Raoult - Royal

Criacionismo - Raoult - Royal

O Raoult começa bem , mas depois fala que o criacionismo não está sofrendo reformulações como o evolucionismo está. Com todo respeito que tenho por ele , mas só uma pessoa muito ( não pouco) analfabeta em criacionismo falaria isso. Isso só demonstra que ele não está acompanhando a evolução do criacionismo. Quanto ao que ele fala que evolucionismo modifica, isso é parcialmente verdadeiro, porque apesar das provas contrárias, eles ficam é  justificando.

Comment Vol 372 December 20/27, 2008 2095 injections of antenatal corticosteroids. Single-course therapy is of considerable benefi t, but we should be aware of the potential dangers of giving too much of a good thing. *John P Newnham, Karen Simmer School of Women’s and Infants’ Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6008, Australia (JPN); and Neonatal Clinical Care Unit, King Edward and Princess Margaret Hospitals, Perth, WA, Australia (KS) We declare that we have no confl ict of interest. 1 Murphy KE, Hannah ME, Willan AR, et al, for the MACS Collaborative Group. Multiple courses of antenatal corticosteroids for preterm birth (MACS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008; 372: 2143–51. 2 Crowther CA, Haslam RR, Hiller JE, Doyle LW, Robinson JS, for the Australasian Collaborative Trial of Repeat Doses of Steroids (ACTORDS) Study Group. Neonatal respiratory distress syndrome after repeat exposure to antenatal corticosteroids: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006; 367: 1913–19. 3 Peltoniemi OM, Kari MA, Tammela O, et al. Randomized trial of a single repeat dose of prenatal betamethasone treatment in imminent preterm birth. Pediatrics 2007; 119: 290–98. 4 Aghajafari F, Murphy K, Matthews S, Ohlsson A, Amankwah K, Hannah M. Repeated doses of antenatal corticosteroids in animals: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: 843–49. 5 Dunlop SA, Archer MA, Quinlivan JA, Beazley LD, Newnham JP. Repeated prenatal corticosteroids delay myelination in the ovine central nervous system. J Matern Fetal Med 1997; 6: 309–13. 6 Moss TJ, Doherty DA, Nitsos I, Sloboda DM, Harding R, Newnham JP. Eff ects into adulthood of single or repeated antenatal corticosteroids in sheep. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 146–52. 7 French NP, Hagan R, Evans SF, Mullan A, Newnham JP. Repeated antenatal corticosteroids: eff ects on cerebral palsy and childhood behaviour. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190: 588–95. 8 Liggins G. Premature parturition after infusion of corticotrophin or cortisol into foetal lambs. J Endocrinol 1968; 42: 323–29. 9 Liggins GC, Howie RN. A controlled trial of antepartum glucocorticoid treatment for prevention of the respiratory distress syndrome in premature infants. Pediatrics 1972; 50: 515–25. 10 Roberts D, Dalziel S. Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; 3: CD004454. 11 Ikegami M, Jobe AH, Newnham J, Polk DH, Willet KE, Sly P. Repetitive prenatal glucocorticoids improve lung function and decrease growth in preterm lambs. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 156: 178–84. 12 Johnson JW, Mitzner W, London WT, Palmer AE, Scott R. Betamethasone and the rhesus fetus: multisystemic eff ects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979; 133: 677–84.

Creationism—remember the principle of falsifi ability The question that Michael Reiss,1 from the UK’s Royal Society, posed about teaching creationism as an alternative scientifi c theory should be examined carefully to avoid an evolutionist–creationist front-to-front war. Basically, we need to examine the frontier between science and belief (faith) to evaluate where creationism can be taught. This question has become especially important because the former Republican vice-presidential candidate in the USA, Sarah Palin, proposed that creationism be taught in schools. One of the current problems is not to fall into scientism, the religion of science. If we defend scientifi c theories with faith and Darwin as a prophet, we will rehabilitate the confl ict of evolutionism versus creationism.

A scientifi c theory is a way to understand the world according to current knowledge. Such theory allows the creation of new data, in accordance with the theory, to evolve (ie, to integrate unpredicted data), and that such data should be falsifi able. A scientifi c theory should lead to experiences that provide new data predicted by the theory. As for any biologist, most of my scientifi c work is based on the Darwinian theory of evolution.2 The Mendelian revolution, the discovery of the genetic code, and massive genomic sequencing have largely confi rmed many aspects of the theory. The dramatic similarity between genomes of human beings and apes, predicted by the theory, is indeed very convincing evidence. On the other hand, science evolves and scientifi c theories have to change according to new observations3 and concepts.4 It would be unscientifi c to consider any single word of Darwin as defi nitively true and to study this like the Bible. By defi nition, if a theory is totally valid and uncontradicted after a long time, it is probably not a scientifi c theory. Many genomic data have not been predicted by Darwinian theory. The role of environment on the modulation of gene expression, the result of the confl ict of genes inherited from mother and father in the phenotype of human beings,5 genome reduction associated with specialisation, and the selfi sh DNA theory6 promote the idea that species are fi nally bags of genes grouped for a moment, to be conveniently duplicated together. Other exceptions to Darwinian theory are genetic manipulation by human beings (directed versus natural evolution), and selection of genes rather than species (for antibiotic resistance, some genes allow a resistance jump from one species to another).7 Moreover, demonstration that Mendelian theory is incomplete (it excludes lateral gene-transfer) and that natural selection cannot explain all evolution (neutral evolution) makes this theory scientifi c as it continues to live and Comment 2096 Vol 372 December 20/27, 2008 evolve. These exceptions to the general rule are showing that we are not speaking of a faith but of a scientifi c theory that will change to interpret new data. Finally, a scientifi c theory should be falsifi able. Falsifi ability has been the great contribution of Karl Popper in delineating science from religion.3 If you cannot imagine data that can convince you that your theory is wrong, you are are not being scientifi c. Interestingly, Popper had diffi culty in his early time to see Darwinism as a scientifi c theory, because it was not testable at that time. However, now, if somebody reported the genome of a 1-million-year-old humanoid fossil and found that it is exactly the same as that of a contemporary human being, the theory of evolution of species would be completely changed. If the sequence of a contemporary animal has no similarity with other living animals, we need to change the theory that predicts a common ancestor of animals. Therefore the theory of evolution is indeed falsifi able. Creationism does not predict any new fi ndings, is not evolving (according to new fi ndings), and is not falsifi - able. I doubt that creationists can design any study that could eventu ally lead to a change in their belief. If such a con cept cannot apply, if nothing can change your theory, you are, by consequence, in the area of belief, taut ology (in its logical sense), faith, or religion, what ever you want to name it. As a consequence, creationism should be taught among religions but not among sciences, as it is not refutable by any fact or experience—but please do not teach evolution as a religion. Didier Raoult Université de la Méditerranée, Faculté de Médecine, Marseille Cedex 05, France I declare that I have no confl ict of interest. 1 Anon. ‘Creationism’ biologist quits job. BBC News Channel Sept 16, 2008. (accessed Oct 6, 2008). 2 Darwin C. On the origin of species. New York: Harvard College Library, 1859. 3 Popper K. The logic of scientifi c discovery. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2002. 4 Kuhn TS. The structure of scientifi c revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. 5 Burt A, Trivers R. Genes in confl ict. Cambridge: Belnap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006. 6 Dawkins R. The selfi sh gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976. 7 Fournier PE, Vallenet D, Barbe V, et al. Comparative genomics of multidrug resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii. PLoS Genet 2006; 2: e7. Voting opens for paper of the year 2008 Readers are invited to vote online from Dec 19, 2008, to Jan 12, 2009, for The Lancet’s paper of the year 2008. Six fi nalist papers (panel) were selected by the editors from 23 nominations made by members of our International Advisory Board and from staff at The Lancet. Profi les of an author from each of the shortlisted papers are published today in the Paper of the Year Shortlist section of the journal, and give a fl avour of the personal and scientifi c events behind the research. Introduced in 2003,1 the selection of the paper of the year is intended to draw attention to outstanding research and the teams whose cooperation and eff ort make such advances possible.2 Many of the papers are remarkable not only for their contribution to health care, but also for the manner in which diverse stakeholders combined expertise to address common important issues. We seek a publication, from 2008, that epitomises the spirit of science and that will be a major infl uence on future research or clinical practice. The editors believe that any one of the shortlisted papers has this potential. The fi nalists represent a range of research, from bench to bedside to borough. Christos Karapetis and co-workers See Editorial page 2087 See Paper of the Year Shortlist pages 2103–08 For the chance to vote see Getty Images Karl Popper