HIGH-QUALITY FODDER SUPPLIED TO NINOTSMINDA FROM TBILISI
NONOTSMINDA, MAY 4, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. Since April 30,
high-quality fodder has been supplied from Tbilisi to Ninotsminda at
the cost of 60 tetri per kilogram. NT was informed from Javakhk-Info
that this agreement with Georgia’s agriculture ministry was reached
thanks to efforts of the governor of Samthkhe-Javakhk Gevorg Khachidze
and deputy of the Georgian parliament Henzel Mkoyan.
HAPPY WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY — DON’T BE ASHAMED TO CRY
By Mark Fitzgerald
Editor & Publisher
May 3 2007
May 3 dawns on a world where censorship by murder is a global
phenomenon, and an increasing one. And the free press is on the run.
CHICAGO (May 03, 2007) — Born in 1982, Selvarajah Rajivarnam didn’t
live to see today, May 3, World Press Freedom Day 2007.
Instead, his family buried the young reporter for a Tamil-language
newspaper April 30 on the beautiful and violent and appropriately
tear-shaped island of Sri Lanka.
Rajivarnam died the way too many journalists die in Sri Lanka and
Colombia and Pakistan and Mexico and other nations with warm climates
and cold-hearted enemies of the press. Someone on a motorcycle passed
by him, pausing only long enough to shoot him dead.
Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) says on April 29 Rajivarnam
was riding his bike in the northern city of Jaffna. He might have
been on his way to work or just leaving. It’s not clear.
But when he was murdered, when the Doppler effect of the motorcycle
arriving and departed was silent to the living like the dead,
Rajivarnam was close to the offices of Uthayan, the daily that had
employed him for the past six months.
So he missed this 14th anniversary of the proclamation of World Press
Freedom Day by the United Nations General Assembly. Unesco, the UN
agency that organizes the annual event, chose a particularly apt theme
for 2007, which follows one of the bloodiest years for journalists
in modern memory: "Press Freedom, Safety of Journalists, and Impunity."
But Rajivarnam’s murder actually did fall on an anniversary — in fact,
two anniversaries.
Selvarajah Rajivarnam was chosen to die to mark the first anniversary
of the murder of two other Uthayan journalists. And he also fell dead
from his bike on the second anniversary of the murder of Tamilnet.com
editor Sivaram Dharmeratnam.
"The people who murder journalists in Sri Lanka feel so well protected
that they carry out fresh murders to mark the anniversaries of their
preceding ones," RSF said.
Rajivarnam was killed in an area secured by the army. Jaffna
journalists tell RSF they suspect the pro-government militia known as
EPDP has struck against a journalist — again. EPDP’s beef against
Uthayan is that it supports Tamil nationalism, RSF reports. If the
suspicions are correct, Rajivarnam is the fourth Uthayan journalist
assassinated by EPDP.
Censorship by murder is a global phenomenon, and an increasing
one, free-press organizations agree. Their count of the dead might
vary, their judgment of its effect does not. For the murder, the
disappearances, the violence comes on top of efforts by even supposedly
democratic governments to intimidate, co-opt, muzzle the press.
It works. Mexican reporters fear to write about the cocaine cartels.
Russian reporters shy away from covering allegations of government
human right abuses. Haitian journalists no longer report on partisan
street gangs. And anything that can even vaguely be described as an
independent news organization has disappeared from the Horn of Africa.
And those are just a few examples.
Earlier this week, Freedom House — estimating that just 18% of the
people alive today live in a place with a free press — concluded
liberty of the press is on the wane, and that it is not only we
journalists who should mourn that doleful fact.
"The fact that press freedom is in retreat is a deeply troubling sign
that democracy itself will come under further assault in critical parts
of the world, " Freedom House Executive Director Jennifer Windsor said.
As part of World Press Freedom Day, Unesco honors a courageous
journalist with an award named for Guillermo Cano, the editor of the
Bogota, Colombia newspaper El Espectador murdered on orders of the
Medellin cocaine boss Pablo Escobar.
This year’s recipient is Anna Politkovskaya, the Russian journalist
who kept reporting on human rights abuses in the war in Chechnya
despite the ever-louder death threats and the near-complete climate
of self-censorship in the nation’s media.
We don’t know — for sure, anyway — who killed Anna Politkovskaya
last Oct. 7 outside her apartment door.
But we know why.
We know who killed Hrant Dink on an Istanbul street last January. And
we know why. Like Selvarajah Rajivarnam, a Tamil in Sri Lanka, Dink
wrote for a newspaper in a minority language, Armenian, in a nation
suspicious of its biggest minority.
The global media reported that Dink was killed by an extremist
individual, another lone nut, as we say here in America. And that’s
true as far as it goes.
But Dink was also murdered in a country that accused him of breaking
the law by "insulting Turkishness."
"Other murders of journalists elsewhere have not attracted as much
attention," as Dink and Politskayava, International PEN notes dryly,
"but they too serve to warn others against reporting on sensitive
issues."
In his short career, Selvarajah Rajivarnam witnessed first-hand —
and then experienced — censorship by murder in all its horror.
Just before joining Uthayan, RSF tell us, he worked for the newspaper
Namathu Eelanadu, another newspaper with a Tamil nationalist bent.
Its managing editor, Sinnathamby Sivamaharajah, was murdered last
August.
Before that, Rajivarnam wrote for the daily Yarl Thinakural. One of
its journalists, Subramaniam Ramachandran, disappeared in February,
and hasn’t been seen since.
Confronted with the murder of Selvarajah Rajivarnam and, by RSF’s count
so far this year, the murder of a dozen other journalists and four
of the "media assistants" so necessary to their work — interpreters,
drivers, guides — an understandable feeling of helplessness paralyzes
those of us in the relatively coddled nations with a free press.
What, really, can we do?
The answer is, say their names.
Tell the stories of their murders. Demand the capture of their killers,
and especially of the evil men who ordered their killing.
Protest impunity. Report. And raise hell like journalists always
should.
But most important, say the names of the dead, the imprisoned, the
threatened, the censored.
Print the names. Broadcast them. Post them.
Say them.
Because that’s what they most fear, the enemies of the press: the
death squads of the right and left, the dictators, the corrupt cops
and bureaucrats, the drug cartels, the poachers, and the smugglers.
They fear truth. A light shone. Their sins told. THEIR names named.
That’s why they murder not only journalists who make a big noise in
their countries, the ones we in the U.S. might actually hear about,
like Anna Politkovskaya or Hrant Dink — but why they also assassinate
that radio talk show host deep in the interior of Colombia who reports
on a corruption in a municipality you’ve never heard of, and on a
low -powered station listened to, so we might think, by nobody.
This profound dread is why a predator of the press ordered the murder
of a 25-year-old riding his bike. A cub reporter, really. Someone,
RSF tells us, who was still taking journalism classes at night.
His name was Selvarajah Rajivarnam.
HEALTH STATE OF AN AZERBAIJANI WOUNDED BY ARMENIANS ESTIMATED AS HALF-GRAVE
Trend News Agency, Azerbaijan
May 3 2007
Russia, Moscow/ Trend , corr. R. Aghayev/ The state of health of a
22-year-old Azerbaijani student, studying in Moscow, Aghali Alyshev
is fairly serious, Trend Correspondent to Moscow reported from
Hospital 64 of Moscow City, where Alyshev was sent on May 1. The
Azerbaijani student was immediately operated after a fight which
occurred between Azerbaijani and Armenian youths during the festive
event in Moscow-based Russian University of Friendship of People.
During the meeting with the Chief Physician of the Moscow Hospital,
Jamil Sadykhbayov, the Vice-President of the Federal National and
Cultural Autonomy of Azerbaijanis of Russia, stated that Aghali
Alyshev was wounded from an air gun, and the bullet, was lodged in
a muscle on his hip was removed yesterday.
Referring to physicians of the Hospital, Jamil Sadykhbayov said
that the state of health of the wounded Azerbaijani was estimated as
fairly serious and he would be discharged from hospital within three
or four days.
According to Alyshev, he felt good and was very satisfied with the
treatment he received from the medical personnel of the Hospital,
as well as the constant attention from the Azerbaijan’s Embassy to
Russia, as well as Azerbaijani Diaspora Organization, particularly,
"AzerRos", Coordination Council of Azerbaijani Youth, etc.
INTERVIEW OF THE FOUNDER OF THE ARMENIAN DIASPORA RESEARCH CENTER IN FRANCE JEAN-CLOD KEBAJYAN TO ARMINFO
Karina Manukyan, ArmInfo, May 3, 20007
2007-05-03 13:24:00
Creation of Joint Armenian-Turkish Commission will Help Modern Turkey
to Get Rid of the ‘Complex of Guilt’
How do you treat Turkey’s proposals about creation of a joint
commission to study the Armenian Genocide, as well as the repeated
accusations of the Armenian Government of the alleged neglect of
this proposal?
The mere fact that the Government of Armenia treats this initiative
with distrust, is very curious. It seems the Armenians are afraid of
discussion on a big arena. The issue arouses if we doubt in our right
and in our position on this issue, especially as the Genocide is an
incontestable historical fact? I think, the historical discussion
within the frames of the created joint commission could not only
save the modern Turkey from the "complex of guilt", but emphasize
the responsibility of the influential powers of the last epoch for
the imperialistic role they had played in the Armenian Genocide. Not
forgiving the Genocide authors and not looking for the attenuating
circumstances of this crime, it is necessary to accept the proposal of
official Ankara about creation of a joint commission. The Genocide is
a Genocide and no circumstances can excuse the authors of this crime.
How do you think, if the initiative of creating a joint commission
is the desire of official Ankara to conceal the true facts of the
Genocide?
Undoubtedly, if we are weak in our argumentation, Turkey will make
use of it. At the same time, if we are objective, we shall be able
(I emphasize, not forgiving the murderers) to work over the new
version of the past history: the Genocide is an absolute collective
misfortune for both Armenia and Turkey.
At the same time, the borders between Armenia and Turkey remain closed
since 1992…
I think, the Armenian-Turkish border cannot be open without the
Genocide recognition. Unfortunately, this is a hardly-explainable
reality for many and Armenia should use the concept of the "calm
diplomacy" here, having completely refused from the aggressive
policy. In its turn, the unwillingness of Turkey to recognize the fact
of Genocide affected the formation of democratic principles in this
country, since recognition if its implication in this crime requires
political will from official Ankara.
In your opinion, if recognition of the Genocide by official Ankara is
possible based on the situation in Turkey (institution of criminal case
against the Nobel Prize laureate on literature, a writer Orhan Pamuk,
who refused to conceal the murders of the Armenians and the Kurds;
the murder of the "Agos" newspaper Editor Hrant Dink)?
Of course, not, as the Government of Turkey did not completely free
itself from the influence of the western interests, which facilitated
its ultranational conservatism during the Cold War. That is why, it is
urgent to hold a historical discussion to be covered both in Armenia
and Turkey calmly and without aggression. A "velvet revolution",
stretched for years, should be carried out in Turkey for the Genocide
recognition, completely ruling out its possible use by anyone in the
own interests. Undoubtedly, Armenia must play the decisive role here,
and the Diaspora has to completely revise its strategy. I think, the
more diplomatic and more pedagogical policy of the Armenian Diaspora
would make this process more efficient.
How do you perceive the statements of Azerbaijan about the necessity
to resort to the power methods of the conflict solution.
Unlike Armenia, Azerbaijan does not feel isolated. In order to block
any solution of the Karabakh issue and put continuous military pressure
on Armenia, it enjoys Turkey’s support and the influence of the western
"oil" interests.
I think, it is possible to break the situation, having put the issue
of the Genocide and its consequences (human, national and territorial)
before the world community. For me personally, the Karabakh conflict
solution is directly connected with the Genocide recognition by
Turkey, that will immediately take off all the artificial arguments
from Azerbaijan and make NKR an integral historical, political and
respected "individual". Moreover, the NKR status recognition by Turkey
and Azerbaijan is the minimum reparation of damages for the former
feudal-imperialistic policy, which is unacceptable today.
How do you appreciate the level of cooperation of the Armenian Diaspora
of different countries with Armenia’s Government?
Unfortunately, the peculiar bias to Diaspora, inherited from the
Soviet epoch, impedes us to carry out our projects in Armenia. To
talk evenly, Armenia assists us rather by its existence than by
the politically active and courageous actions. Our organization is
also a bright example of the "national Armenian mess". Day by day,
during 16 years, I have been fighting for preservation of the Center
and its rich archives (several thousand documents, photo- and video
materials, as well as the stories of witnesses on audio-carriers)
without assistance of not only the Diaspora and its organizations,
but of the modern Armenia as well. I think, the republic should display
itself more open and less suspicious with respect to its own Diaspora,
thus, opening the way for implementation of big economic and cultural
projects in the country.
Your Center was periodically holding the events in the territory of
France, in which the attention was focused on the Armenian Question. If
their number has increased since the beginning of the Year of Armenia
in France?
Generally speaking, the Â"restraintÂ", with which the Armenian Genocide
is presented within the frames of the Year of Armenia in France, is ,
in my opinion, a great mistake, closely connected with the world and
security of Armenians, living not only in Armenia and NKR, but in
the territory of Turkey as well.
Once this Year is finished, we risk to go back to the political debates
and keep away from the democratic and scientific debates, which touch
on the moral, territorial (NKR), economic and strategic consequences of
the Genocide. As for our organization, a large exhibition-installation
"Memoires Armeniennes" was held in autumn, 2006, in Paris, in Villet
park, dedicated to the history of Armenia and the Genocide, that also
included a demonstration of feature and documentary films. Moreover,
the map of the Armenian settlements in Turkey prior to 1915 events was
presented on 15 big screens . We also organized several Round Tables,
dedicated to the history of crimes against Humanity in XX Century. I
would like to note that we plan to organize such events in other French
countries within 2007 and 2008. Our Center has already provided the
archive documents for the exhibition to be opened in a month in Monte
Matre museum. It will be dedicated to the famous Armenian movement,
organized in France by a well-known poet Arshak Chobanyan after the
slaughter of Armenians in 1894 in Sasoun (Turkey).
The Armenian Diaspora in France is the biggest in the territory of
the Western Europe. How many people does it count?
About 450,000 Armenians. I would also note that the tragic fortune of
the Armenian people together with the denial of the facts of the own
history by modern Turkey cannot arouse sympathy for Armenia. Thus, one
may say with confidence that there are millions of "Frenchmen-Armenians
by heart" living in France, who sympathize with Armenia.
–Boundary_(ID_XPSg40TUYbB/M+95+wenwA)–
MONUMENT SYMBOLIZING FRANCE’S EVIL-DOINGS ERECTED IN ISKENDERUN
Noyan Tapan
Armenians Today
May 02 2007
ISKENDERUN, MAY 2, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. The authorities
of the city of Iskenderun erected a monument that symbolizes the
evil-doings committed against Turkey by France in the past – in protest
of the French parliament’s decision to recognize the Armenian Genocide.
According to "Marmara", the mayor of Iskenderun Mete Aslan opened the
monument. In his speech he noted that the problems between the Turks
and Armenians should be solved by the states representing the two
peoples and expressed his resentment, saying that France shouldn’t
interfere in this issue and erect an Armenian monument in France.
It is noteworthy that deputy state minister of Azerbaijan Valied
Hajbey participated the monument opening ceremony.
BUSH VETOES BILL ON WITHDRAWAL OF U.S. TROOPS FROM IRAQ
PanARMENIAN.Net
02.05.2007 14:48 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ U.S. President George W Bush has vetoed a
Congressional bill that would have linked war funding to a timetable
for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Speaking in Washington after
signing the veto, Mr Bush said setting a deadline for withdrawal
would be "setting a date for failure" in Iraq.
He said the funding was needed to give time for the new strategy of
a surge of reinforcements in Baghdad to succeed.
Mr Bush said he would seek a compromise with Congressional leaders.
It is only the second time since taking office that Mr Bush has used
the presidential veto.
Earlier on Tuesday, leaders of the Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress
signed the controversial bill agreeing to $100bn (£50bn) in further
funding on condition US combat troops begin to withdraw this year.
The president wants a blank cheque; the Congress is not going to give
it to him
The Senate last week voted 51 to 46 in favor of the legislation,
which said the pull-out must start by 1 October and sets a target of
completion by 31 March 2008.
Mr Bush will now meet congressional leaders on Wednesday to try to
reach a compromise on a revised funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan, BBC reports.
–Boundary_(ID_ELVXLw2Iq1UzHEPjyL+1yQ)–
AZERBAIJANI DEPUTY OFFERS TO BAN TRIPS OF REPRESENTATIVES OF AZERBAIJANI NGO TO ARMENIA
Arminfo Agency
2007-05-02 12:23:00
Yesterday, at the Parliament session, the Azerbaijani parliamentarian,
President of NGO National Forum Azay Guliyev offered to pass a Law
banning the trips of NGO representatives to Armenia until Karabakh
conflict settlement. As the Day.az reports, the deputy grounded his
proposal by the fact that the state policy of Azerbaijan envisages
refusal from any kind of cooperation with Armenia until the conflict
settlement.
"The next group of NGO representatives is going to visit the summer
camp in Armenia in a month. The Armenians profit by these trips and
declare to the whole world that the Azerbaijanians and Armenians may
calmly live in peace with each other without the Karabakh conflict
settlement. We cannot ban these trips since there is no a relevant
legislation. Therefore, we have to settle this issue by legislative
means", he said. The deputy explained that his proposal relates to
the citizens of Armenia only and does not concern the communication
with Armenians for NKR, as they are legally considered the citizens
of Azerbaijan.
MORE DETAILS ON VANADZOR ASSASSINATION
A1+
[03:24 pm] 30 April, 2007
On April 26, at about 9:45 p.m., Hrant Hakobyan (b. in 1964), a
resident of Vanadzor city, was taken to N1 hospital with injuries.
The investigative group immediately arrived at the hospital, and the
doctors informed them that Hrant Hakobyan was unable to speak.
Hakobyan died during the operation on April 27.
A law suit started (Penal Code, Article 104) against Samvel Diloyan,
a resident of Vanadzor. The Prosecutor’s Office of Lori Marz is in
charge of the investigation. The forensic examination revealed that
Hakobyan had got 15 stabs in the back and in the leg.
The preliminary examination revealed that the conflict between Hakobyan
and Diloyan started over an everyday issue. Both of them are Vahram
Baghdasaryan’s Headquarters co-workers who is a candidate for the
parliamentary elections. Afterwards, the conflict turned into a real
fight in the area of "Tej Ler", near the former Vanadzor fur factory.
According to A1+ data, Hakobyan was formerly prosecuted and had been
registered in Lori Marz Psycho-Nerologic Clinic starting from 1982.
His accomplice A. Hovhannisyan has been suffering from schizophrenia
since 1998.
The police are in search for S. Diloyan and other participants of
the stripping.
Investigation is ongoing.
OSCE/ODIHR PUBLISHES ITS INTERIM REPORT
Panorama.am
20:06 28/04/2007
Boris Frlets, head of observation mission of OSCE/ODIHR, voices his
assurance in an interview with RFE/RL that "legal field is in place
for free and fair elections." "Decent implementation of the legislation
is needed at this phase," he said.
Long-term observation mission published its interim
report yesterday. The full text may be found at
odihr/announcements/2007/04/25/idihr-report2.
Spe aking about the advertisement rates in the media, the authors
deliver the concern of some political forces which cannot afford such
rates. The monitoring of the media unveiled "large-scale coverage of
government activities." Kentron TV demonstrated "clear preference for
Prosperous Armenia Party," the report says. Public TV provided 43%
of prime time to government and government issues were covered 57%
of time monitored in H2.
Speaking about the comment by president Robert Kocharyan that what
Baghdasaryan did was a "betrayal" Frlets, said, "If the meeting was
banned, the country could not be called democratic."
ory_id=9036706 < m?story_id=9036706>
Evolution and religion
In the beginning
Apr 19th 2007 | ISTANBUL, MOSCOW AND ROME
The debate over creation and evolution, once most conspicuous in America, is fast going global
THE "Atlas of Creation" runs to 770 pages and is lavishly illustrated
with photographs of fossils and living animals, interlaced with
quotations from the Koran. Its author claims to prove not only the
falsehood of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection,
but the links between "Darwinism" and such diverse evils as communism,
fascism and terrorism. In recent weeks the "Atlas de la Création"
has been arriving unsolicited and free of charge at schools and
universities across French-speaking Europe. It is the latest sign of
a revolt against the theories of Darwin, on which virtually the whole
of modern biology is based, that is gathering momentum in many parts
of the world.
The mass distribution of a French version of the "Atlas" (already
published in English and Turkish) typifies the style of an Istanbul
publishing house whose sole business is the dissemination, in many
languages, of scores of works by a single author, a charismatic
but controversial Turkish preacher who writes as Harun Yahya but
is really called Adnan Oktar. According to a Turkish scientist who
now lives in America, the movement founded by Mr Oktar is "powerful,
global and very well financed". Translations of Mr Oktar’s work into
tongues like Arabic, Urdu and Bahasa Indonesia have ensured a large
following in Muslim countries.
In his native Turkey there are many people, including devout Muslims,
who feel uncomfortable about the 51-year-old Mr Oktar’s strong appeal
to young women and his political sympathies for the nationalist
right. But across the Muslim world he seems to be riding high. Many
of the most popular Islamic websites refer readers to his vast canon.
In the more prosperous parts of the historically Christian world,
Mr Oktar’s flamboyant style would be unappealing, even to religious
believers. Among mainstream Catholics and liberal Protestants,
clerical pronouncements on creation and evolution are often couched
in careful-and for many people, almost impenetrable-theological
language. For example, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury
and leader of the world’s 80m Anglicans, has dismissed literal readings
of the Creation story in Genesis as a "category mistake". But no such
highbrow reticence holds back the more zealous Christian movements
in the developing world, where the strongest religious medicine seems
to go down best.
In Kenya, for example, there is a bitter controversy over plans to put
on display the most complete skeleton of a prehistoric human being
ever found, a figure known as Turkana Boy-along with a collection
of fossils, some of which may be as much as 200m years old. Bishop
Boniface Adoyo, an evangelical leader who claims to speak for 35
denominations and 10m believers, has denounced the proposed exhibit,
asserting that: "I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything
like it."
Richard Leakey, the palaeontologist who unearthed both the skeleton
and the fossils in northern Kenya, is adamant that the show must go
on. "Whether the bishop likes it or not, Turkana Boy is a distant
relation of his," Mr Leakey has insisted. Local Catholics have
backed him.
Rows over religion and reason are also raging in Russia. In recent
weeks the Russian Orthodox Church has backed a family in St Petersburg
who (unsuccessfully) sued the education authorities for teaching only
about evolution to explain the origins of life. Plunging into deep
scientific waters, a spokesman for the Moscow Patriarchate, Father
Vsevolod Chaplin, said Darwin’s theory of evolution was "based on
pretty strained argumentation"-and that physical evidence cited in
its support "can never prove that one biological species can evolve
into another."
A much more nuanced critique, not of Darwin himself but of secular
world-views based on Darwin’s ideas, has been advanced by Pope Benedict
XVI, the conservative Bavarian who assumed the most powerful office
in the Christian world two years ago. The pope marked his 80th
birthday this week by publishing a book on Jesus Christ. But for
Vatican-watchers, an equally important event was the issue in German,
a few days earlier, of a book in which the pontiff and several key
advisers expound their views on the emergence of the universe and
life. While avoiding the cruder arguments that have been used to
challenge Darwin’s theories, the pope asserts that evolution cannot
be conclusively proved; and that the manner in which life developed
was indicative of a "divine reason" which could not be discerned by
scientific methods alone.
Both in his previous role as the chief enforcer of Catholic doctrine
and since his enthronement, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has
made clear his profound belief that man has a unique, God-given role
in the animal kingdom; and that a divine creator has an ongoing role
in sustaining the universe, something far more than just "lighting
the blue touch paper" for the Big Bang, the event that scientists
think set the universe in motion.
Yesterday America, today the world
As these examples from around the world show, the debate over creation,
evolution and religion is rapidly going global. Until recently, all
the hottest public arguments had taken place in the United States,
where school boards in many districts and states tried to restrict
the teaching of Darwin’s idea that life in its myriad forms evolved
through a natural process of adaptation to changing conditions.
Darwin-bashers in America suffered a body-blow in December 2005,
when a judge-striking down the policies of a district school board
in Pennsylvania-delivered a 139-page verdict that delved deeply into
questions about the origin of life and tore apart the case made by
the "intelligent design" camp: the idea that some features of the
natural world can be explained only by the direct intervention of a
ingenious creator.
Intelligent design, the judge found, was a religious theory, not a
scientific one-and its teaching in schools violated the constitution,
which bars the establishment of any religion. One point advanced in
favour of intelligent design-the "irreducible complexity" of some
living things-was purportedly scientific, but it was not well-founded,
the judge ruled. Proponents of intelligent design were also dishonest
in saying that where there were gaps in evolutionary theory, their
own view was the only alternative, according to the judge.
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which has spearheaded the
American campaign to counter-balance the teaching of evolution,
artfully distanced itself from the Pennsylvania case, saying the
local school board had gone too far in mixing intelligent design with
a more overtly religious doctrine of "creationism". But the verdict
made it much harder for school boards in other parts of America to
mandate curbs on the teaching of evolution, as many have tried to
do-to the horror of most professional scientists.
Whatever the defeats they have suffered on home ground, American foes
of Darwin seem to be gaining influence elsewhere. In February several
luminaries of the anti-evolution movement in the United States went
to Istanbul for a grand conference where Darwin’s ideas were roundly
denounced. The organiser of the gathering was a Turkish Muslim author
and columnist, Mustafa Akyol, who forged strong American connections
during a fellowship at the Discovery Institute.
To the dismay of some Americans and the delight of others, Mr Akyol
was invited to give evidence (against Darwin’s ideas) at hearings
held by the Kansas school board in 2005 on how science should be
taught. Mr Akyol, an advocate of reconciliation between Muslims and
the West who is much in demand at conferences on the future of Islam,
is careful to distinguish his position from that of the extravagant
publishing venture in his home city. "They make some valid criticisms
of Darwinism, but I disagree with most of their other views," insists
the young author, whose other favourite cause is the compatibility
between Islam and Western liberal ideals, including human rights and
capitalism. But a multi-layered anti-Darwin movement has certainly
brought about a climate in Turkey and other Muslim countries that makes
sure challenges to evolution theory, be they sophisticated or crude,
are often well received.
America’s arguments over evolution are also being followed closely
in Brazil, where-as the pope will find when he visits the country
next month-various forms of evangelicalism and Pentecostalism are
advancing rapidly at the expense of the majority Catholic faith. Samuel
Rodovalho, an activist in Brazil’s Pentecostal church, puts it simply:
"We are convinced that the story of Genesis is right, and we take
heart from the fact that in North America the teaching of evolution
in schools has been challenged."
Even in the United States, defenders of evolution teaching do not
see their battle as won. There was widespread dismay in their ranks
in February when John McCain, a Republican presidential candidate,
accepted an invitation (albeit to talk about geopolitics, not science)
from the Discovery Institute. And some opponents of intelligent design
are still recovering from their shock at reading in the New York
Times a commentary written, partly at the prompting of the Discovery
Institute, by the pope’s close friend, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn,
the Archbishop of Vienna.
In his July 2005 article the cardinal seemed to challenge what most
scientists would see as axiomatic-the idea that natural selection
is an adequate explanation for the diversity and complexity of life
in all its forms. Within days, the pope and his advisers found they
had new interlocutors. Lawrence Krauss, an American physicist in the
front-line of courtroom battles over education, fired off a letter
to the Vatican urging a clarification. An agnostic Jew who insists
that evolution neither disproves nor affirms any particular faith, Mr
Krauss recruited as co-signatories two American biologists who were
also devout Catholics. Around the same time, another Catholic voice
was raised in support of evolution, that of Father George Coyne,
a Jesuit astronomer who until last year was head of the Vatican
observatory in Rome. Mr Krauss reckons his missive helped to nudge
the Catholic authorities into clarifying their view and insisting
that they did still accept natural selection as a scientific theory.
But that was not the end of the story. Catholic physicists, biologists
and astronomers (like Father Coyne) insisted that there was no reason
to revise their view that intelligent design is bad science. And they
expressed concern (as the Christian philosopher Augustine did in the
4th century) that if the Christian church teaches things about the
physical world which are manifestly false, then everything else the
church teaches might be discredited too. But there is also a feeling
among Pope Benedict’s senior advisers that in rejecting intelligent
design as it is understood in America they must not go too far in
endorsing the idea that Darwinian evolution says all that needs to be,
or can be, said about how the world came to be.
The net result has been the emergence of two distinct camps among the
Catholic pundits who aspire to influence the pope. In one there are
people such as Father Coyne, who believe (like the agnostic Mr Krauss)
that physics and metaphysics can and should be separated. From his new
base at a parish in North Carolina, Father Coyne insists strongly on
the integrity of science-"natural phenomena have natural causes"-and
he is as firm as any secular biologist in asserting that every year
the theory of evolution is consolidated with fresh evidence.
In the second camp are those, including some high up in the Vatican
bureaucracy, who feel that Catholic scientists like Father Coyne
have gone too far in accepting the world-view of their secular
colleagues. This camp stresses that Darwinian science should not
seduce people into believing that man evolved purely as the result
of a process of random selection. While rejecting American-style
intelligent design, some authoritative Catholic thinkers claim to see
God’s hand in "convergence": the apparent fact that, as they put it,
similar processes and structures are present in organisms that have
evolved separately.
As an example of Catholic thinking that is relatively critical of
science-based views of the world, take Father Joseph Fessio, the
provost of Ave Maria University in Florida and a participant in a
seminar on creation and evolution which led to the new book with papal
input. As Father Fessio observes, Catholics accept three different ways
of learning about reality: empirical observation, direct revelations
from God and, between those two categories, "natural philosophy"-the
ability of human reason to discern divine reason in the created
universe. That is not quite intelligent design, but it does sound
similar. The mainly Protestant heritage of the United States may be
one reason why the idea of "natural philosophy" is poorly understood
by American thinkers, Father Fessio playfully suggests. (Another
problem the Vatican may face is that Orthodox Christian theologians,
as well as Catholic mystics, are wary of "natural philosophy": they
insist that mystical communion with God is radically different from
observation or speculation by the human brain.)
The evolution of the anti-evolutionists
Whatever they think about science, there is one crucial problem
that all Christian thinkers about creation must wrestle with: the
status of the human being in relation to other creatures, and the
whole universe. There is no reading of Christianity which does not
assert the belief that mankind, while part of the animal kingdom,
has a unique vocation and potential to enhance the rest of creation,
or else to destroy it. This point has been especially emphasised by
Pope Benedict’s interlocutors in the Orthodox church, such as its
senior prelate Patriarch Bartholomew I, who has been nudging the
Vatican to take a stronger line on man’s effect on the environment
and climate change.
For Father Coyne, belief in man’s unique status is entirely consistent
with an evolutionary view of life. "The fact we are at the end of
this marvellous process is something that glorifies us," he says.
But Benedict XVI apparently wants to lay down an even stronger line
on the status of man as a species produced by divine ordinance,
not just random selection. "Man is the only creature on earth that
God willed for his own sake," says a document issued under Pope John
Paul II and approved by the then Cardinal Ratzinger.
What is not quite clear is whether the current pope accepts the
"Chinese wall" that his old scientific adviser, Father Coyne, has
struggled to preserve between physics and metaphysics. It is in
the name of this Chinese wall that Father Coyne and other Catholic
scientists have been able to make common cause with agnostics, like Mr
Krauss, in defence of the scientific method. What the Jesuit astronomer
and his secular friends all share is the belief that people who agree
about physics can differ about metaphysics or religion.
Critics like Father Fessio would retort that their problem was not with
the Chinese wall-but with an attempt to tear it down by scientists
whose position is both Darwinist and anti-religious: in other words,
with those who believe that scientific observation of the universe
leaves no room at all for religious belief. (Some scientists and
philosophers go further, dismissing religion itself as a phenomenon
brought about by man’s evolutionary needs.)
The new book quoting Pope Benedict’s contributions to last year’s
seminar shows him doing his best to pick his way through these
arguments: accepting that scientific descriptions of the universe are
valid as far as they go, while insisting that they are ultimately
incomplete as a way of explaining how things came to be. On those
points, he seems to share the "anti-Darwinist" position of Father
Fessio; but he also agrees with Father Coyne that a "God of the
gaps" theory-which uses a deity to fill in the real or imagined
holes in evolutionary science-is too small-minded. Only a handful of
the world’s 2 billion Christians will be able to make sense of his
intricate intellectual arguments, and there is a risk that simplistic
reporting and faulty interpretation of his ideas could create the
impression that the pope has deserted to the ranks of the outright
anti-evolutionists; he has done no such thing, his advisers insist.
Not that the advocates of intelligent design or outright creationists
are in need of anyone’s endorsement. Their ideas are flourishing
and their numbers growing. As Mr Krauss has caustically argued, the
anti-evolution movement is itself a prime example of evolution and
adaptability-defeated in one arena, it will resurface elsewhere. His
ally Father Coyne, the devoted star-gazer, is one of the relatively
few boffins who have managed to expound with equal passion both their
scientific views and their religious beliefs. He writes with breathless
excitement about "the dance of the fertile universe, a ballet with
three ballerinas: chance, necessity and fertility." Whether they are
atheists or theists, other supporters of Darwin’s ideas on natural
selection will have to inspire as well as inform if they are to
compete with their growing army of foes.
Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All
rights reserved.
–Boundary_(ID_u5HdQRZRLKw40cUVzGF/Iw)- –