Dr. Fazale (Fuz) Rana, Biochemist, USA, 3rd International Conference

Risultati immagini per fazale rana



The Human Genome

ENCODED by Design


I am honored to be invited to take part in this year’s 3rd International Conference on the Origin of Life. I had the privilege of speaking at the first two conferences. And, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this year’s conference. Thank you to the Technics and Science Research Foundation for the vision to sponsor and host such an important event.

It’s exciting to be part of a project in which one of the goals is to show the world how science can be used to build a bridge of friendship between Christians and Muslims. Based on our shared belief in a transcendent Creator, we can collaborate to demonstrate to people of all worldviews how scientific advance 1) points to the existence of God; and 2) undermines the evolutionary paradigm—a paradigm often used to justify atheism.

As a Christian and a scientist, I am convinced that nature provides evidence for God’s handiwork. As is written in the Old Testament book of Job:

7“But ask the animals, and they will teach you,
or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you;
8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,
or let the fish in the sea inform you.
9 Which of all these does not know
that the hand of the Lord has done this?”

13 “To God belong wisdom and power;
counsel and understanding are his.


Job 12:7-9, 13


And yet, when presented with compelling evidence for design that comes from biology, so many skeptics reject the evidence—and with this rejection, they reject belief in God.


They justify their skepticism by pointing to so-called flawed designs in nature—designs that would be unworthy of a Creator.

As the late, evolutionary biologist and atheist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in his famous essay, “The Panda’s Thumb”

“Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible Creator would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce.”

And, yet in my experience, as we learn more about the so-called “odd arrangements and funny solutions” inevitably, what we thought was a flawed design turns out to be an elegant, sophisticated design—one that reflects the Creator’s glory.

The latest scientific insights into the human genome beautifully illustrate this point.

As a biochemist and someone who has spent most of my life studying biology, I rank the sequencing of the human genome as the most significant scientific accomplishment of all time all-time.


Because the human genome sequence is the genetic blueprint for human beings.  From our genetic blueprint, we can gain fundamentally important information about the nature of humanity—at least, in a biological sense.

The draft sequence of the human genome was reported in June 2000. There is a famous picture showing then President Bill Clinton standing next to two gentlemen and bitter scientific rivals: Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project funded in part by NIH; and Craig Venter, the head of Celera Genomics, a private company that was looking to sequence and commercialize the human genome.

The Human Genome Project funded by NIH was initiated fifteen years earlier, spending 3.2 billion dollars to sequence the human genome. Celera was in a race with the Human Genome Project, hoping to complete the sequence before the publically funded project. If they could, they planned on monetizing the sequence data.

As it turns out, Collins and Venter decided to call a truce, agreeing to walk arm-in-arm across the finish line. In the process, they shared data with one another facilitating the completion of the draft sequence.

During the press conference President Clinton made these now-famous remarks:

“Today, we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, the wonder of God’s most divine and sacred gift. With this profound new knowledge, humankind is on the verge of gaining immense, new power to heal. Genome science will have a real impact on all our lives—and even more, on the lives of our children. It will revolutionize the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of most, if not all, human diseases.”

Truly, President Clinton appreciated the significance of having the sequence for the human genome.  He went so far as to describe the human genome sequence as the language God used to create human life.

Yet, the initial analysis of the human genome sequence indicated to many scientists that the human genome was anything BUT the product of Creator’s handiwork. Instead of being the language God used to create human life, it appeared to many scientists that the human genome was cobbled together over hundreds of millions of years by evolutionary processes, with much of the human genome riddled with molecular fossils—vestiges of an evolutionary history.

Many scientists would argue that the human genome stands as the most powerful evidence for human evolution, while, at the same time, indicating that God had nothing to do, whatsoever, with humanity’s origin.

In the next few minutes, I will explain why scientists reached these conclusions.

Then I’m going to describe some recent insights into the structure and function of the human genome that is radically changing our perspective on the human genetic blueprint in a way that reflects the Creator’s handiwork.

Let’s begin with a little background information, beginning with the structure of DNA.

This biomolecule consists of chain-like molecules known as polynucleotides. Two polynucleotide chains align in an antiparallel fashion to form a DNA molecule. The two strands are arranged parallel to one another with the starting point of one strand (the 5′ end) in the polynucleotide duplex located next to the ending point of the other strand (the 3′ end) and vice versa. The paired polynucleotide chains resemble a ladder with the side groups extending from the backbone interacting with each other to form rungs. The coupled polynucleotide chains twist around each other forming the well-known DNA double helix.

The cell’s machinery forms polynucleotide chains by linking together four different subunit molecules called nucleotides. The four nucleotides used to build DNA chains are adenosine, guanosine, cytidine, and thymidine—famously abbreviated A, G, C, and T, respectively.

The human genome consists of 3.2 billion genetic letters that are distributed among 24 discrete DNA molecules. These molecules interact with proteins to form complexes called chromosomes. These structures become visible in the cell nucleus as the cell divides. Each chromosome consists of a single DNA molecule that wraps around a series of globular protein complexes. These wrapped complexes repeat to form a supramolecular structure resembling a string of beads. Biochemists refer to the “beads” as nucleosomes.

The chain of nucleosomes further coil to form a structure called a solenoid. The solenoid condenses to form higher order structures that constitute the chromosome. Between cell division events, the chromosome exists in an extended diffuse form that is not detectable. Prior to and during cell division, the chromosome condenses to form its readily recognizable compact structures.

All the genetic material (DNA) in the cell’s nucleus is distributed among numerous chromosomes. The number of chromosomes in its cells is a characteristic feature of each species. For example, in the nucleus of each cell, chimpanzees possess 48 chromosomes and humans, 46.

The human genome is comprised of 22 autosomes, numbered 1 to 22 based on size, with chromosome 1 being the longest and chromosome 22 being the shortest. There are also two sex chromosomes, dubbed the X and Y chromosomes.

Every cell in the human body has 23 pairs of chromosomes, one set comes from the mother, one from the father. The set is made up of 22 autosomes and 1 sex chromosome, either X or Y.

One of the surprises about the human genome came shortly after the rough draft sequence was produced. The initial analysis indicated only 20,000 genes exist in the human genome. This was a far cry from the predicted number: 100,000 genes, at minimum.

This meant that less than 2 percent of the human genome coded for proteins—the workhorse molecules of the cell. Evolutionary biologists interpreted the rest of the human genome as junk DNA.

Evolutionary biologists argue that most of the human genome looks like it was derived from retroviral infections. Also, included in the human genome are nonfunctional genes, dubbed pseudogenes, along with other types of evolutionary debris. At first glance, the human genome looks like a vast wasteland of junk.

Of course, this begs the question: Why would a Creator make the human genome with so much useless DNA?

In Psalm 8 of the Old Testament, David asks the question:

What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?

David answers his own question by remembering the Genesis 1 and 2 creation accounts for humanity’s origin. David replies:

You have made them a little lower than the angels
and crowned them with glory and honor.
You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
you put everything under their feet:


Given David’s words, a human genome littered with garbage is not what one would expect if human beings are the crown of creation. But, it is exactly what one would predict, if evolution cobbled together the human genome.


For evolutionary biologists, a high level of junk DNA in the human genome (and the genomes of other creatures) provides resolution to the C-Value paradox, adding to the case for evolution.


The C-Value paradox traces its origins back to the late 1960’s, early 1970’s. At that time, biochemists developed techniques to quantify the amount of DNA found in individual cells. They used these techniques to measure the amount of DNA in the different cell types comprising an organism. For example, human beings have approximately 210 different cell types that make up our bodies. Biochemists were interested in the amount of DNA in each of these cell types. For every organism studied, biochemists found that all the cells in their body contained the same amount of DNA. They dubbed this value as the C-value, with C standing for ‘constant.’ The C-value refers to the constant amount of DNA found in each of an organism’s cells.


At that time, biochemists thought that the amount of DNA should correspond to the complexity of the organism. More complex organisms should have more DNA, than less complex organisms. When biochemists plotted C-values for different organisms, they failed to discover any relationship between complexity and quantity of DNA in the organism’s cells.


The discovery of junk DNA resolved the C-value paradox. Accordingly, most of an organism’s genome consisted of junk DNA, which accumulated through random events. As a result, the C-value varied from organism to organism, with no rhyme or reason. In other words, the size of an organism’s genome has no relationship to complexity. It is just the vestiges of an unguided, evolutionary history.


This of course begs the question: Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God create genomes with more junk than functional DNA?


An even more problematic question: Why would organisms that naturally group together possess identical (or nearly identical) junk DNA sequences at corresponding locations in their genomes?


On the surface, the explanation that makes most sense is an evolutionary one; the junk DNA sequences arose in the shared evolutionary ancestor and persisted in the genomes as the different evolutionary lineages diverged from the common ancestor. In other words, junk DNA sequences in our genome and the genomes of other organisms reflects our evolutionary history and can be used to map evolutionary relationships.


Yet, over the course of the past decade, molecular biologists and geneticists have made discoveries that force us to re-think the evolutionary view of the human genome. Bit by bit researchers have discovered that most of the classes of junk DNA have function.


Of course, if junk DNA is functional, it undermines the case for evolution. One could argue that the shared junk DNA sequences in corresponding locations in genomes reflects common design, not common descent.


The case for the design of the human genome became stronger virtually overnight, thanks to the ENCODE project. This project was initiated shortly after the human genome was sequenced. It became immediately apparent that simply having the DNA sequence for the human genome was not enough. There had to be some means to interpret the sequence data. Nobody knew how to read the 3.2 billion genetic letters, comprising our genome. We knew how to fish out gene sequences from the human genome. But, nobody knew what the rest of the genome sequences meant, if anything, at all.


Scientists needed a Rosetta stone for the human genome.


Hence, the ENCODE project was birthed. Its goal: To identify all the functional elements in the human genome. ENCODE stands for the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements.


This project began in the early 2000’s. The pilot phase cost 55 million dollars—an expense pilot study.  The research consortium attempted to identify all the functional elements in 1 percent of the human genome. Their success with phase I, lead to phase II. This phase cost 130 million dollars and was completed in September of 2012. Phase III is currently under way. The total cost of the ENCODE project will be about 300 million dollars—a bargain, because to sequence the human genome cost 3.2 billion dollars. We will be able to interpret the human genome for a mere tenth of the cost of sequencing our genetic blueprint.


The ENCODE project was ‘Big science’ coming to biology.  The ENCODE consortium for phase II consisted of:


440 Scientists

32 Research Groups

Performed 1650 Experiments

Analyzed 147 cell types

Produced 15 X 1012 bytes of data

Required 300 years of computer time to analyze



The ENCODE consortium produced:


Nearly 40 publications




Genome Research

Genome Biology

Journal of Biological Chemistry


Phase III of the ENCODE project will survey the remaining 63 cell types for functional DNA and look for functional DNA at different stages of the cell cycle.


This data will go a long way towards helping us gain a fundamental understanding about human biology and human uniqueness.


We will be able to develop a better understanding of the genetic basis of diseases and develop diagnostic tools and improved treatments for many of these disorders.


The insights coming from ENCODE also impacts the creation/evolution controversy.


These results:


Eliminates best argument for evolution

Eliminates biggest challenge to biochemical design



What did ENCODE find that is so important to the case for a Creator?


These researchers performed six assays that measured



Binding of transcription factors

Histone binding

Modified histone binding


3-D interactions within the genome


All these processes play a key role in gene expression.


It is one thing to know what genes are present in the genome. It is another to know how and when those genes are used. We can think of genes within the genome like words in a dictionary. To write a novel, one needs to use the words in the dictionary in a variety of combinations, often using words more than one time. Each novel uses words from the dictionary in different ways to produce pieces of literature that communicate different meanings.


The set of genes found in the genome are like the words in the dictionary. These genes can be used to build each cell in the human body, with the cells functioning like novels. The genes are used or expressed differently from cell to cell, accounting for their unique features.


Gene expression not only differs from cell to cell, it also changes throughout the cell cycle and during growth and development. Each stage of the cell cycle, each stage of development represents a different novel that needs to be written.


It appears as if most of the DNA sequences found in the human genome are regulating gene expression needed to build, and then, maintain the human organism. Phase II of the ENCODE project reported that 80 percent of the human genome displays biochemical activity that likely reflects biochemical function.


The ENCODE scientists expect that as phase III comes to fruition, 80 percent will become 100 percent.


Ed Yong wrote in an article for Discover magazine:


And what’s in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney… “It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,” says Birney.


Ewan Birney serves as the head of the ENCODE consortium.


The human genome doesn’t appear to be a wasteland of junk. It appears to be functional. Most of the DNA sequences in the human genome play a role in making us human beings. This insight stands as a radical revision of our view of the human genome. It is not a wasteland of junk, but an elegant biochemical system that is far more complex than we initially imagined.


How have biologists responded to the ENCODE results?


Within hours of the publication of the phase II results evolutionary biologists condemned the ENCODE project, citing several technical issues with the way the study was designed and the way the results were interpreted.


These technical complaints continue today, igniting the junk DNA wars between evolutionary biologists and genomics scientists. Evolutionary biologists argue that if the results of the ENCODE project are correct, then cornerstone ideas in evolutionary theory—such as the C-Value paradox— can’t be correct. On the other hand, genomics scientists see value in the ENCODE results, using them to understand the genetic basis for disease.


Evolutionary biologists have roundly criticized ENCODE scientists, claiming them to be incompetent and decrying the design of the ENCODE assays. Evolutionary biologists claim that if ENCODE is correct, then key aspects of the evolutionary paradigm are in trouble.


These critics are doing science, ‘backwards.’ Instead of data used to evaluate a theory, the theory is used to evaluate the data.


The character of these objections aren’t lost on objective members of the scientific community who have suggested the real motivation behind the criticisms of the ENCODE project are philosophical—even theological—in nature.


For example, molecular biologists John Mattick and Marcel Dinger write in an article published in the scientific journal HUGO Journal:


“There may also be another factor motivating the Graur et al. and related articles (van Bakel et al. 2010; Scanlan 2012), which is suggested by the sources and selection of quotations used at the beginning of the article, as well as in the use of the phrase ‘evolution-free gospel’ in its title (Graur et al. 2013): the argument of a largely non-functional genome is invoked by some evolutionary theorists in the debate against the proposition of intelligent design of life on earth, particularly with respect to the origin of humanity. In essence, the argument posits that the presence of non-protein-coding or so-called ‘junk DNA’ that comprises >90% of the human genome is evidence for the accumulation of evolutionary debris by blind Darwinian evolution, and argues against intelligent design, as an intelligent designer would presumably not fill the human genetic instruction set with meaningless information (Dawkins 1986; Collins 2006). This argument is threatened in the face of growing functional indices of noncoding regions of the genome, with the latter reciprocally used in support of the notion of intelligent design and to challenge the conception that natural selection accounts for the existence of complex organisms (Behe 2003; Wells 2011).”


John Mattick who wrote these words is not friendly to creation or intelligent design.


Our understanding of genomes is in its infancy. Forced by their commitment to the evolutionary paradigm, many biologists see genomes as the cobbled-together product of an unguided evolutionary history. But, the more we learn about the structure and function of genomes, the more elegant and sophisticated they appear to be—and the more reasons to think that genomes are the handiwork of our Creator.


I would like to conclude with the words of Eric Green, the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute:


“During the early debates about the Human Genome Project, researchers had predicted that only a few percent of the human genome sequence encoded proteins, the workhorses of the cell, and the rest was junk. We now know that this conclusion was wrong. ENCODE has revealed that most of the human genome is involved in the complex molecular choreography required for converting genetic information into living cells and tissues.”


In light of the data coming from the ENCODE project, as a Christian I am justified in viewing the human genome, and hence, human beings as the product of a Creator’s handiwork.


In Psalm 139, David sings a song of praise to the Creator, summarizing the latest insights from the ENCODE project well, when he declares:


I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.


USA – http://freedomproject.com/ – Creation Scientists Slam Evolution Propaganda in Schools

By: Alex Newman


ISTANBUL, Turkey — Prestigious scientists and experts from the United States, Europe, and the Middle East came together late last month for the 3rd International Conference on the Origin of Life and the Universe. While there was plenty of diversity in their views, they all agreed on at least one thing: School children should not be subjected to lies or evolution-only propaganda at school.

In the United States, virtually all children in government schools are exposed to only one view on the origin of life: The theory that mankind evolved from a single-celled organism over millions or even billions of years. But as the scientists and experts from around the world demonstrated clearly, there is abundant scientific evidence showing that man was actually created, just as the Scriptures say.

A wide array of scientists — including Evangelical, Catholic, Mormon, and Islamic experts — addressed a broad range of topics related to Creation. In Turkey, efforts to undermine faith in the evolution theory using science have been highly successful. In fact, last year, authorities officially announced that the controversial theory would no longer be pushed on impressionable children in public school.

The experts at the conference made a compelling case. Dr. Fazale Rana, a Christian biochemist who serves as Vice President of Reasons to Believe, for instance, spoke on how the marvelously programmed human genome offers solid evidence of a Creator.

And Dr. David Snoke, president of the Christian Scientific Society and a physics professor at the University of Pittsburgh, noted that engineers already use design principles in their work.

Also speaking was Dr. Bijan Nemati, an Iranian-born scientist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville who converted to Christianity from Islam and used to work as a senior engineer in NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. In his speech, he highlighted how perfect the earth was for humanity — and how improbably that would be, unless a Creator designed it all.

And Dr. Oktar Babuna, a Muslim neurosurgeon from Turkey trained in the United States, said science totally debunks Darwin’s theories.

Presenting his understanding of Genesis was Dr. Ken Keathley, professor of theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. While he had many friends and colleagues who hold to a young-earth view — as did some at the conference — Keathley argued for an old-earth understanding of Creation.

Anna Manja Larcher, a Mormon who holds a Master’s degree in theoretical psychology, used her speech to suggest that the evolutionary paradigm cannot possibly explain the human mind. She compared efforts to fit everything into the evolutionary view to the infamous Procrustean bed.

And Dr. Hans Koechler, the former chair of political philosophy at Innsbruck University in Austria, explained his views on cooperation between the monotheistic religions in a globalized world.

Most of the American speakers who spoke with this writer at the conference said they had homeschooled their children. But several of them told FreedomProject Media that it was still important for public schools in America to quit pretending like the evolution theory is the only — or even the correct — scientific explanation for life, the universe, and mankind. In fact, they all agreed that the evidence shows the evolution theory is wrong.

One especially interesting speaker, Fabrizio Fratus, an Italian sociologist and one of that nation’s leading creationists, spent much of his time going through proven lies that are still used in school textbooks today — deceptions such as the phony drawings created by Ernst Haeckel. The fraud may succeed in convincing gullible children to believe in the evolution theory, but it is unethical and outrageous to use lies in advancing a dangerous worldview, Fratus said.

The event was organized by the Turkish Technics & Science Research Foundation, the Foundation For the Preservation of National Values, and the National Values Foundation under the Honorary Presidency of Adnan Oktar, widely described as Islam’s leading creationist. It was held at the beautiful Fairmont Quasar Hotel in Istanbul on April 28. In total, there were eight senior speakers from five different countries.

Aside from the moral implications of the evolutionary worldview, there are also serious implications for freedom. America’s mostly Christian Founding Fathers held that the truths of man being created and endowed with inalienable rights by his Creator was “self-evident.” But when children are constantly told that “science” claims they came from slime, suddenly there is no objective value to life — nor is there any external source for human rights.

Children in government schools must have the opportunity to hear non-evolutionary viewpoints. After all, most Americans, who pay the taxes to support the schools, do not accept the theory, according to polls. And the scientific method is increasingly undermining the theory. Schools must quit using deception and indoctrination to manipulate children. The truth can stand on its own.


PRAVDA.RU Science Has Once Again Declared: ‘We Were Created’ See more at http://www.pravdareport.com/science/earth/14-05-2018/140947-creation-0/


All those who are true friends of God, who are loyal to Him by heart and who rejoice by striving on His path, are the bright faces of this world. Regardless of their beliefs, religions and ethnicities, the friends of God are the force that keeps the world standing. If it were not for the existence of people who have a respectful fear of God, submit to His will and love Him more than anything, the world would be plunged into darkness. The earth would be left without love, friendship, mercy and compassion. The woe, pessimism and the oppression encouraging aspects of disbelief would lay waste to all mankind.

For these reasons, people who love God and who don’t want the world to face such darkness came together on April 28, 2018 at the Istanbul Fairmont Quasar Hotel for the Third International Conference on the Origin of Life and the Universe. Scientists and theologians from the USA, Italy, Austria and Germany contributed to a historical meeting. Co-hosted by The Technics and Science Research Foundation, The Foundation for the Preservation of National Values and The Foundation of National Values, the speakers once again announced to the whole world that science shows universe and life were created out of nothingness and proved that there was no further tolerance for Darwinist dictatorship. During the conference, which had two coffee and one lunch break, eight esteemed speakers offered breathtaking details about God’s beautiful creation of the universe and life. In between the sessions, Istanbul Dance Factory displayed an amazing dance performance, and famous percussionist Onur Seçki stunned the attendants with his spectacular show. The Third  International Conference on the Origin of Life and the Universe was a success not only with the topics it dealt with or in its impeccable organization, but also with an elite lineup of speakers and its modern and sophisticated attendants. The flawless organization, which saw close to 500 guests, was praised by guests from the scientific, political and artistic communities.

Esteemed scientists who spoke during the conference touched on many crucial points. While Dr. Bijan Nemati explained why Earth has a very special and privileged place in the universe, Professor Ken Keathley mentioned the seven days of creation as explained in the Bible and explained why the new ‘Young Earth’ movement is wrong. Dr. Fazale Rana showed how the human genome is a very intricate, elaborate creation, while Ms. Anna Manja Larcher demonstrated that love and compassion cannot be accounted for by evolutionary ideas. Professor David Snoke showed that those who use the phrase ‘Intelligent Design’ to avoid using the name ‘creation’ were conflicted and sociologist Fabrizio Fratus made it clear that evolution was not science but a mere ideology. Dr. Oktar Babuna explained that the Qur’an pointed to creation and not evolution and Professor Hans Koechler analyzed monotheism and the meaning of co-existence.

Needless to say, there is a crucial reason why such an elite and large international gathering was organized.

The world today is faced with an unprecedented bloodshed. People live in fear and apprehension. While many countries have remained untouched by war,  they too are wrestling against the plague of terrorism. The world has been effectively deprived of happiness, joy, cheerfulness and tranquility. People lead tense, stressful and anxious lives.

But they do not know what to do or how to put an end to the current state of affairs. They feel helpless against the power that incites wars, that somehow orchestrates and propagates evil. They are waiting for a helping hand to reach them.

At this point, we, the friends of God, are obliged to step into action and fulfill our responsibility. We have to be a strong wind that will sweep through the dark clouds spawned by disbelief looming over the world and usher in the bright, luminous, warm and peaceful days.

For that reason, the people who hold this heart, came together for the Third International Conference on the Origin of Life and the Universe and foiled the sinister plot of the materialist dictatorship around the world. This was a crucial response to those who sought violence, discord and division; it was shown that Darwinism was the source of the evil.

However, this is not the only reason why the conference was a great achievement.

The Third International Conference on the Origin of Life and the Universe brought together  Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, Evangelists Presbyterians, and welcomed diverse nationalities and religions under a single roof. A common language was used to declare Almighty God as the Creator of all universes from nothing. The beauty in unity, friendship and solidarity was shown to the whole world.

There is no doubt that no matter how great the plot of the evil, the alliance of the good, the right will always be triumphant. It is impossible to live with hatred while love and sincerity are very easy to achieve. It is for this reason crucial to show these facts to the world through such events. Love is the most amazing value in the world and it should be shown that love can be honestly and sincerely experienced without any ill-intentions or ulterior motives. This event was one of those rare incidents where this love and spirit of solidarity were displayed.

The International Conference on Origin of Life and the Universe, which has been an annual event for the past three years, once again proved to be a spectacular event to usher in love and solidarity to the world. This beautiful effort will continue and gather strength every year.

The world, now a scene of constant aggression, anger, fear and death, urgently needs love, solidarity and a beautiful future. Societies who were made to believe that everything is a product of coincidences, should be saved from this deception. People who fell into a the cycle of desperation due to the deception of coincidental formation, will now discover the beauty of seeing God’s existence and relying on Him. Showing this fact to the world using science and with the warmth and modernism of religion will help open up a whole new leaf of beauty for our world.

Harun Yahya


See more at http://www.pravdareport.com/science/earth/14-05-2018/140947-creation-0/

Creazionismo o evoluzionismo?

Per chi è interessato a conoscere l’interpretazione dei dati scientifici in relazione all’impostazione creazionista, a Varese, un interessante ciclo di 3 incontro con il presidente di AISO (associazione studi sulle origini) Stefano Bertolini.


seminario impresa


Venerdì 25 Maggio – ore 20,00


Sabato 26 Maggio -ore 16,00



Relatore: Ing. Stefano Bertolini – Presidente A.I.S.O.


Via Oriani 121

Loc. Avigno 21100 VARESE


Per info  340 6801807

Eugenetica, figlia dell’evoluzionismo di Darwin


L’eugenetica è figlia del darwinismo? Benché il suo primo teorizzatore, Francis Galton, abbia coniato il termine un anno dopo la morte di suo cugino Darwin, l’eugenetica deve tutto al darwinismo. E si presenta come la tecnica adatta a “correggere” gli errori dell’evoluzione della specie, eliminando fisicamente chi è fisicamente “indegno”.

"Il tesoro dell'ereditarietà umana", studio di eugenetica del 1909

Nei giorni scorsi, il lettore Massimo Campostrini ha indirizzato una lettera intelligente al direttore de La nuova Bussola Quotidiana per sottrarre la terra sotto ai piedi a quei fautori della logica eugenetica che si trincerano dietro la “scienza” dell’evoluzionismo darwiniano, usando il darwinismo contro il darwinismo. Campostrini ha ragione a dire, sul filo del paradosso, che se per il darwinismo le specie migliori e gli elementi migliori di ciascuna specie sono quelli che hanno maggiore successo riproduttivo (motivo per cui sono migliori e progrediscono a discapito dei peggiori), essi si produrranno da soli nella selezione migliorativa senza bisogno di alcun intervento esterno, il quale, anzi, adultererebbe indebitamente tale meccanismo naturale favorendo le specie e gl’individui che, se non godono di miglior successo riproduttivo, significa che non sono affatto i migliori. L’eugenetica, insomma, intesa come aiuto artificiale alla natura nell’opera di selezione, per via sessuale, delle specie migliori e degl’individui migliori di ciascuna specie sarebbe cioè il contrario del sostanziale laissez-faire in cui si risolverebbe il darwinismo. Vero. Purtroppo però non è andata così.

Apparentemente il naturalista inglese Charles Darwin (1809-1882) non scrisse di eugenetica. Non esisteva nemmeno il termine, inventato, un anno dopo la morte di Darwin, dall’esploratore e antropologo pure inglese Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911). Il termine Galton lo inventò, a coronamento di più di un ventennio di riflessioni e di “studi”, traendo un neologismo da due termini greci, eu, “buono” e genos, “stirpe”, a p. 24 d’Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, uscito a Londra nel 1883 per i tipi di Macmillan. Qui immediatamente egli precisa – alla nota 1 contenuta nelle pp. 24-25 – che l’eugenetica è «[…] la scienza del miglioramento della stirpe», un concetto «[…] egualmente applicabile agli uomini, ai bruti [cioè agli animali] e alle piante», scienza che «[…] non è per nulla confinata a questioni d’incroci accorti, ma che, specialmente nel caso dell’uomo, tiene conto di tutte le influenze che tendono, per quanto remotamente, a dare alle razze o ai ceppi sanguigni più adatti una possibilità migliore di prevalere rapidamente sui meno adatti di quanto essi avrebbero altrimenti avuto». Spiega poi Galton che “eugenetica” è parola felice per la concisione con cui veicola alla perfezione il concetto, battendo in breccia il desueto “viricultura”.  Ecco, questo “culturismo” è quello che oggi chiamiamo tranquillamente – si fa per dire – ingegneria genetica, sposa incestuosa di sula sorella, l’eutanasia.

Galton era il cugino di secondo grado di Darwin, e questo di per sé sarebbe il meno (i figli non sono responsabili delle colpe dei padri, figuriamoci i biscugini). Il punto è però che fu un darwinista entusiasta. La pubblicazione, nel 1859, di L’origine delle specie di Darwin gli cambiò la vita. Lo colpirono specialmente la pagine su incroci e selezione. Darwin parlava per lo più di bestiame, ma in fin dei conti, soprattutto per la cultura materialista dell’epoca, l’uomo non è forse soltanto un altro animale? Del resto Galton condurrà anche “ricerche” statistiche sul potere della preghiera – i cui risultati affidò al saggio Statistical Inquiries into the Efficacy of Prayerpubblicato nel fascicolo del 1° agosto 1872 di The Fortnightly Review – per concludere che le preghiere non hanno alcun effetto sulla longevità di coloro per le quali sono offerte. Convinto che le qualità migliori fossero ereditabili da un individuo all’altro – concezione esposta in Hereditary Genius del 1869 (Macmillan), strampalata ma dal futuro assicurato – Galton cominciò a teorizzare l’applicazione degl’incroci selettivi d’allevamento all’essere umano; in breve, l’uomo venne concepito come l’ennesimo prodotto della zootecnia. Chi doveva incaricarsi di allevarne la stirpe migliore, favorendo la trasmissione delle sue grandi qualità e scartando le altre? Lo Stato. A partire dagli anni 1920, gli hanno dato retta in molti: alcuni degli Stati Uniti d’America, il Canada, il Brasile, il Giappone, la Francia, la Germania, la Gran Bretagna – con l’appoggio di parte del clero anglicano – il Belgio e la Svezia con un fiorire di leggi per il “miglioramento della razza” e la sterilizzazione obbligatoria degli “indegni” in un crescendo culminato nel regime nazionalsocialista di Adolf Hitler (1889-1945).

Colpa di Galton, certo, ma Galton non avrebbe potuto nulla senza il principio primo del darwinismo: le specie viventi migliorerebbero progressivamente modificandosi fino a dare vita a specie nuove mediante quella che, dopo Darwin, si sarebbe chiamata genetica, così che la vita attuale sarebbe sempre il distillato più avanzato di tutta la vita che ci ha preceduto nel tempo finalmente epurata da scarti, vicoli ciechi e false partenze, e costantemente pronta a nuove trasformazioni migliorative, cioè a declassare domani la vita migliore di oggi a ennesimo rifiuto obsoleto di ieri.

Fu questo che affascinò Galton nel mezzo di quella temperie culturale in cui l’illuminismo si trasformava in positivismo e dove nel nuovo concetto di “gaia scienza” confluì tutto quanto portava acqua al mulino dell’uomo-Prometeo: dalla nuova teologia di Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) alla “critica biblica” di Ernest Renan (1823-1892), dallo Zaratustra di Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) all’Inno a Satana di Giosue Carducci (1835-1907), dai sogni sinarchici di Joseph Alexandre Saint-Yves marchese d’Alveydre (1842-1909) da cui nacque l’idea di tecnocrazia al “materialismo spiritista”, il tutto con un crescente chiodo fisso. L’uomo, finalmente scopertosi dio a se stesso, doveva pur essere un superuomo, immune da ogni pecca, scevro da tacche, resistente, esente e libero, in una parola vaccinato contro ogni degenerazione. Non fu così soltanto per Nietzsche e per la sorella pre-nazista di Nietzsche, ma per l’Occidente intero. L’idea darwiniana del progressismo medicina che cura la vita senza bisogno di Dio grazie al moto perpetuo di un meccanismo che esiste inesorabilmente da sempre e che funzionerà inflessibilmente per sempre ne è stato l’ermeneutica somma. Bisognerebbe datare il “temerario mondo nuovo” di Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) dall’anno di pubblicazione de L’origine delle specie di Darwin.

Ora, Darwin non dedica un rigo all’eugenetica non solo perché non ne aveva a disposizione il termine, ma perché non ne aveva affatto bisogno. La logica con cui spiega lo sviluppo di una vita nata per caso dalla materia inanimata è intrisa di sostanza eugenetica: la “stirpe buona” è il prodotto di una natura sostituitasi a Dio. Galton ha avuto il merito di essere stato il primo ad averlo compreso alla perfezione. Solo che sia Darwin sia Galton avevano fatto i conti senza l’oste, che se per loro Dio non esiste più (o è ininfluente) possiamo senza problemi chiamare anche solo natura.

L’ipotesi del progresso migliorativo darwiniano è infatti totalmente indimostrata e infondata. Anzi, sono più i fatti che la confutano di quelli che la sosterrebbero. Basti solo pensare che le modificazioni genetiche sono solo patologiche; che nessuno ha mai documentato la nascita di una specie nuova per mutazione genetica da una precedente; che tutti gli esempi forniti dai darwinisti di “mutazione genetica” e di “speciazione” sono in realtà lo sviluppo attuale di potenzialità già insite negli esseri viventi (le varianti melaniche delle falene, per esempio, o il polimorfismo del proteo); e che lo stesso Darwin dovette arrendersi davanti a quelle forme di vita “inspiegabili” (ma solo per il darwinismo) che chiamò «fossili viventi», ovvero animali e piante che, stando a L’origine delle specie, avrebbero dovuto estinguersi “milioni” di anni fa poiché “arretrate” per cedere il passo a forme più “evolute”, ma che, non avendo invece lettoL’origine delle specie, continuano indisturbatamente a esistere, e anzi sono oggi note in numero assolutamente enorme, molto più grande che al tempo di Darwin.

Essendo non solo indimostrata e infondata, ma anzitutto e soprattutto falsa, questa meccanica però semplicemente non funziona. Come farebbe, infatti, ciò che ieri si è solamente creduto essere il meglio dell’oggi, ma che tale non era, produrre il meglio di domani per modificazioni che sono attestate solo in senso degenerativo? Non funzionando, della due l’una: o l’ipotesi va gettata oppure occorre forzarla. È qui che Galton ha evitato al cugino Darwin il disastro, scegliendo la seconda opzione.

Il “galtonismo” (come è stato a volte chiamato il pensiero eugenetico) non è insomma il tradimento del darwinismo: è la sua sola possibilità di salvezza. Peggio ancora: è un fossile vivente. Secondo il progressismo imperante avrebbe dovuto estinguersi nel maggio 1945 assieme al nazismo, ma non lo ha fatto perché è una delle anime nere del progressismo stesso. Galton gli ha semplicemente dato un nome, ma esiste da tempo, almeno da quando c’è il peccato dell’uomo, ed è “scienza” da che lo Stato ha avuto i mezzo per farsi totalitario: si è manifestato in Francia con l’Illuminismo e la Rivoluzione che inventò il razzismo, volle rifare gli ebrei e sterminò i cattolici “sbagliati” dell’Ovest; si è palesato in Unione Sovietica quando Stalin perseguitò gli ebrei (come hanno illustrato almeno il giornalista statunitense Louis Rapoport, lo storico tedesco Arno Lustiger [1924-2012] e il giornalista russo Arkady Vaksberg [1927-2011]); ovviamente è stato l’asse portante dal nazismo, ma quello lo sappiamo bene perché i progressisti solo di quello ci parlano; ed è alacremente al lavoro oggi nell’aborto (la terza sorella incestuosa), nell’eutanasia, negli ospedali-prigione in cui sono stati uccisi Terry Schiavo (1963-2005), Eluana Englaro (1970-2009), Charlie Gard (2016-2017) e Alfie Evans (2016-2018).

L’uomo dio a se stesso decide che l’«interesse migliore» per chi è ammalato e bisognoso di cure è quello di scomparire senza lasciare né traccia né eredi. Vaneggiamenti invasati? No, parole del consigliere del principe, dove il principe è il premier gauchiste francese Emmanuel Macron e il consigliere è l’economista e banchiere pure francese Jacques Attali: «L’eutanasia sarà uno degli strumenti essenziali delle nostre società future […]. Per cominciare, in una logica socialista, il problema si pone così: la logica socialista è la libertà e la libertà fondamentale è il suicidio; di conseguenza, il diritto al suicidio diretto o indiretto è dunque un valore assoluto in questo tipo di società. In una società capitalista, verranno inventate e saranno di uso comune macchine per uccidere, strumenti che permetteranno di eliminare la vita quando sarà troppo insopportabile o economicamente troppo costosa. Ritengo quindi che l’eutanasia, sia essa un valore di libertà o una merce, sarà una delle regole della società futura» (citazione tratta da La médecine en accusation, intervista ad Attali nel volume L’avenir de la vie curato dal giornalista Michel Salomon edito da Seghers a Parigi nel 1981 con prefazione del filosofo Edgar Morin, alle pp. 274-275).

Qualcuno, scrivendo sul sito della Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, ci crede al punto di chiamare «[…] sciacalli ideologici» coloro che hanno cercato di strappare Alfie al boia, argomentando così: «Alfie non era più e forse non era mai stato un bambino, nell’accezione della completezza umana, forse non era solo in stato vegetativo, in quanto ciucciava e muoveva le braccine. Lascio a laicisti, eticisti, scientisti e religiosi vari marcare il confine terminologico, ma su un fatto erano tutti quanti d’accordo: il bimbo era condannato. Il problema si spostava dunque sul “come” arrivare al termine». È il “caro”, vecchio galtonismo, illustrato a puntino da Richard Weikart – professore di Storia alla California State University Stanislaus di Turlock – in From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, pubblicato da Palgrave Macmillan (lo stesso editore di Galton) a Londra nel 2004 e contro cui si sono scatenate le polemiche. Ma guarda un po’.



Marco Respinti

Comunicato Stampa – La Technics & Science Reasearch Foundation ha tenuto la terza edizione della Conferenza Internazionale sull’Origine della Vita e dell’Universo

La Technics & Science Reasearch Foundation ha tenuto la terza edizione della Conferenza Internazionale sull’Origine della Vita e dell’Universo

Presso il Fairmont Quasar Hotel, Istanbul


La terza edizione della Conferenza sull’Origine della Vita e dell’Universo, organizzata congiuntamente dalla Technics & Science Research Foundation (Fondazione per la Ricerca Tecnica e Scientifica), dalla Foundation For the Preservation of National Values (Fondazione per la Difesa dei Valori Nazionali) e dalla National Values Foundation (Fondazione per i Valori Nazionali), sotto la Presidenza Onoraria del Sig. Adnan Oktar, si è tenuta il 28 Aprile di quest’anno presso il Fairmont Quasar Hotel di Istanbul, ed ha ospitato 8 oratori provenienti da Stati Uniti, Austria, Germania, Italia e Turchia.


La conferenza è stata promettente per l’alleanza fra Musulmani e Cristiani; essa ha riunito Mormoni, Musulmani, Cattolici, Evangelisti, Presbiteriani, ed ha accolto sotto lo stesso tetto nazionalità e religioni diverse per mostrare le prove scientifiche della Creazione contro le ormai superate e false dichiarazioni della teoria dell’evoluzione.


Hanno partecipato alla conferenza 400 importanti ospiti, tra cui scienziati, accademici, cancellieri, ambasciatori, presidenti di varie istituzioni e organizzazioni, rappresentanti delle più prestigiose università della Turchia, artisti, atleti, importanti dirigenti del mondo degli affari, giornalisti e scrittori.

Unica tra i gruppi creazionisti, la TSRF è la sola organizzazione di ispirazione Islamica che presenta prove scientifiche che fanno crollare i fondamenti del Darwinismo e che smentisce le false dichiarazioni della teoria dell’evoluzione. La TSRF cerca di instaurare rapporti di cordialità fra tre fedi Abramitiche, ossia l’Islam, il Cristianesimo e l’Ebraismo. A tal fine, la TSRF molto spesso ospita eventi che vedono la partecipazione dei principali teologi, studiosi, intellettuali e scienziati, Cristiani, Ebrei o appartenenti ad altre religioni, provenienti da tutto il mondo.

Dopo il discorso di apertura, un breve filmato introduttivo sul Sig. Adnan Oktar, l’autore del famosissimo Atlas of Creation (“L’Atlante della Creazione”), ha fornito maggiori informazioni sulle sue iniziative scientifiche e culturali, che includono più di 300 libri, più di 5000 conferenze e documentari basati sulle sue opere tradotte in 73 lingue, ed oltre 250 articoli pubblicati su organi di informazione stranieri, nonché le sue dirette televisive.


La conferenza, della durata di circa 9 ore, e costituita da 2 sessioni, ha compreso le seguenti attività: 7 oratori stranieri conosciuti in tutto il mondo hanno parlato della non validità teologica e scientifica della teoria dell’evoluzione.


Gli oratori che hanno partecipato alla conferenza sono:


Fazale Rana“The Human Genome: Encoded by Design” (“Il Genoma Umano: Codificato secondo un Progetto”)


Ken Keathley“The Seven Days of Genesis One: An Old-Earth Interpretation” (“I Sette Giorni della Genesi 1: Un’interpretazione della Vecchia Terra”)


Fabrizio Fratus – “Invalidity of Darwin’s theory of evolution” (“La non validità della teoria dell’evoluzione di Darwin”)


David Snoke“How biologists are already widely using intelligent design principles …and why their explanations for this are problematic?”(“In che modo i biologi stanno già ampiamente usando i principi di un progetto intelligente… e perchè le loro spiegazioni su questo fatto sono problematiche?”)


Bijan Nemati“The Pale Blue Dot Revisited: Appreciating Our Uncommon Place in the Universe” (“La rivisitazione del Pallido Puntino Blu: Apprezzare il Nostro Inconsueto Posto nell’Universo”)


Anna Manja Larcher – “Beware the Procrustean Bed: Evolutionary Explanations of Love and Compassion” (Attenzione al Letto di Procuste: Spiegazioni Evoluzionistiche dell’Amore e della Pietà”)


Hans Köchler– “Monotheism and the Meaning of Coexistence: A Philosophical Perspective” (“Il Monoteismo e il Significato della Coesistenza: Una Prospettiva Filosofica”)


Oktar Babuna “Creation in the Qur’an” (“La Creazione nel Corano”)


Di particolare interesse l’intervento del Sociologo Italiano Fabrizio Fratus, il quale ha discusso il tema dell’inattendibilità delle dichiarazioni della teoria dell’evoluzione, sottolineando che si tratta di una teoria non scientifica, in quanto non verificabile, riproducibile e falsificabile. Il Dr. Fratus ha evidenziato come i libri di testo delle scuole Italiane siano pieni di false informazioni sull’origine della vita, vere e proprie falsificazioni scientifiche, tra le quali spicca il caso del fossile Archaepteryx, la frode scientifica degli embrioni di Haeckel, i casi dell’Australopiteco Lucy e dell’uomo di Neanderthal, questi ultimi usati per avvalorare la tesi del passaggio tra scimmia e uomo. Sebbene i ritrovamenti fossili abbiano dimostrato che l’uomo di Neanderthal era un uomo come noi e che non aveva niente di primitivo, gli evoluzionisti cercano ancora di rappresentarlo come un uomo-scimmia, usandolo per supportare la falsa dichiarazione del passaggio tra scimmia e uomo. L’importante intervento del Dr. Fratus ha descritto in modo chiaro ed esaustivo qual è il metodo con cui i materialisti evoluzionisti impongono la menzogna dell’evoluzione della specie: la manipolazione della verità.

Il filmato “The Origin of Life” (“L’origine della Vita”) ha offerto una visione concisa dei segnali della Creazione di Dio osservati sia in Cielo che in Terra. E’ inoltre stato presentato un filmato riguardante  Gli Ospiti di Adnan Oktar .


La conferenza, che ha riunito differenti ambiti della scienza, ha anche offerto spettacoli di ballo e musica che rappresentavano i vari campi dell’Arte. Dopo uno spettacolo di percussioni e una esibizione di danza del gruppo Istanbul Dance Factory, il programma della conferenza è proseguito con un pranzo, durante il quale i partecipanti e gli ospiti si sono riuniti per scambiare le proprie idee in un’atmosfera carica di cultura e scienza.


Nella cerimonia di consegna delle targhe che si è tenuta alla fine della conferenza, gli oratori e gli illustri ospiti sono stati premiati con targhe dai membri della Technics & Science Research Foundation, della Foundation For the Preservation of National Values e della National Values Foundation.

Per ulteriori informazioni o interviste riguardo la Fondazione di Ricerca per la Technologia e la Scienza o la Conferenza sull’Origine della Vita e dell’Universo, contattare:


Ms. Serra Basarir
Perpa Ticaret Merkezi, A Blok No. 974
Okmeydanı – Sisli Istanbul
+90 533 139 0957