Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Antarctic Researchers Construct and Venerate Wayside Cross With Crucifix and Image of Virgin Mary

(Antarctica) In the eternal cold of Antarctica researchers have erected a wayside shrine. The place, where the wood panel has been planted with a wooden crucifix and a Marian icon, is called Our Lady of the Glacier. "You will be my witness in Jerusalem and in all of Judaea and Samaria and to the ends of the Earth" (Acts of the Apostles 1:8). The words, which Jesus gave in his departing message to the disciples, have been adopted by a group of researchers. They have erected a wayside cross in one of the most uninhabitable parts of the Earth, in the middle of the Antarctic. The researchers are active at the French/Italian station Dome Concordia, which lays on an enormous high plateau in the East Antarctic. On the station, laying at 3,233 meters above see level, the outline of Dome C may be found, located about 1,000 kilometers from the coast. The station is part of the European Commission and European Science Foundation funded Antarctic Research Project EPICA.

The chief doctor of the research team, Vincenzo Di Giovanni explains in a letter, that two members of the expedition came by the idea for the erection of a wayside cross and that it was agreed upon by the others. From wood, they set up a box of wood panel with a small roof and put a Crucifix and Marian icon on the panel and between the two is the inscription "Protect Us".

The wayside cross was put up between the research station and the ice field, on which planes land. In the mean time, the Scientists have ceased calling the station Concordia among themselves, but after the Virgin and Mother of God Mary "Mother of the Eternal Glacier".

Last December 8th some colleagues of the research station formed a procession to the wayside cross, and prayed there on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception together. As Doctor Di Giovanni continued to write, that the wayside cross is also "respected by the Moslem scientist or the agnostic or atheist researchers."

"Here on the extreme end of the world we need God's assistance and want to fulfill his mandates", says Di Giovanni in his letter from the place, where the temperature goes 80 degrees celsius below zero. A place in which for six months during the Summer, the son never goes down and in the extreme polar night, an eternal darkness rules.

On the religious topography of Antarctica there is, besides the wayside cross of Our Dear Lady of the Glaciers, still another Christian place. Already since 1976 there is a Catholic Chapel of the Antarctic at the Argentine Research Station Esperanza (Hope) which is dedicated to St. Francis of Assisi. In 2003 the Patriarch of Moscow established on the island of South Shetland a Russian Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi Bild: Religion en Libertad/Wikicommons

Friday, April 1, 2011

Soylent Green is REAL

Editor: the Frankenstein labs have come up with a trick out of science fiction to help solve world hunger.  There was a famous film called, "Soylent Green".  It's a film based on a novel called, Make Room! Make Room!, by Harry Harrison describing a dystopic future where the world is driven to starvation because of malthusian-like overpopulation.  Despite the fact that the malthusian thesis has not come to pass, our masters have decided to get us interested in marketing some exiting ideas related to cannibalism.

Here's the link to the story on lifesite, news...

A pro-life group that monitors the use of cells from babies victimized by abortions is today highlighting a biotech company, Senomyx, which it says produces artificial flavor enhancers using aborted fetal cell lines to test their products.
The group Children of God for Life is calling for a public boycott of major food companies partnering with Senomyx.
Debi Vinnedge, the director of the pro-life organization, tells today that, in 2010, her group wrote to Senomyx CEO Kent Snyder and pointed out that moral options for testing their food additives could and should be used. But when Senomyx ignored her letter, the group  wrote to the companies Senomyx listed on their website as “collaborators” warning them of public backlash and threatened boycott. They included food giants PepsiCo, Kraft Foods, Campbell Soup, Solae and Nestlé. (See update below.)

Thursday, January 28, 2010

If the cosmos were what scientism affirms it to be,

By Wolfgang Smith

Nothing strikes the contemporary mind as more certain and authoritative than the findings of physics, astronomy, chemistry, and, of late, molecular biology. These are the “hard” sciences of the present age, which, by empirical means, of a scope and accuracy that stagger the imagination, have put us in touch with fundamental realities that could not even have been conceived in bygone days. Moreover, this group of sciences has been in a sense “visibly validated,” for all to see, by the technological miracles which now surround us on all sides; how, then, can one doubt—much less deny—its findings? In truth, one cannot; quantum particles and fields, galaxies and quasars, molecules and the genetic code—all these are undeniable facts, which must henceforth be reckoned with.

We must remember, however, that facts and their interpretation are not the same thing. And since, subjectively, facts are invariably associated with an interpretation of some kind, it comes about that science as a rule presents us with two disparate factors: with positive findings, on the one hand, plus an underlying philosophy in terms of which the formulation and disclosure of these discoveries are framed. In its actuality science is never the kind of purely empirical enterprise it is generally reputed to be, which is to say that ontological as well as epistemological presuppositions do inevitably play an essential role. What is more, these various philosophical articles of belief are rarely if ever examined or subjected to critical scrutiny by the scientific community. They are the foundational ideas one absorbs, as if by osmosis, in the course of one’s scientific education; they pertain, one might almost say, to the scientific unconscious. And when it happens that one or the other of these ingrained philosophical dogmas does emerge into the light of day as a subject of discourse, the typical response on the part of scientists is to point immediately, by way of validation, to the success of the scientific enterprise: “It works!” one is told in effect. And yet in reality no philosophical belief has ever been validated by an empirical finding; the fact is that verification as well as falsification through empirical means apply to scientific as opposed to philosophical propositions. The separation between these two domains, however, is rarely attempted by scientists; only in times of extreme crisis, when the foundations of a science seem to be crumbling, does one encounter serious thought concerning questions of this kind, and even then such inquiries are pursued only by an adventurous few; it takes an Einstein or a Heisenberg to descend, as it were, to the foundational level, where philosophical axioms begin to come into view. What the rank and file absorb from these founders, moreover, pertains mainly to the technical aspect of the enterprise: one accepts the equations of relativity or the formalism of matrix mechanics, while all but ignoring the philosophical side of the coin. It is safe to say that the men and women who engage in the day-to-day business of scientific research tend not to be overly interested in philosophical subtleties; and so they incline to retain the philosophical axioms to which they have become accustomed over the years, and which could only be recognized as such, and dislodged, through serious and concentrated inquiry. It thus comes about that in the minds of scientists today, good science and inferior philosophy coexist and are in fact inextricably intertwined; as John Haught of Georgetown University has recently pointed out, “Some of the most prominent scientists are literally unable to separate science from their materialist metaphysics.”

This said, I can proceed to state my primary thesis: I contend that by virtue of the aforesaid confusion scientists have promulgated philosophic opinions of the most dubious kind as established scientific truths, and in the name of science have thrust upon an awed and credulous public a shallow world-view for which in reality there is not a shred of scientific support. Having gained the trust and admiration of society through the technological wonders which they have engineered, I maintain that scientists as a class have usurped their authority by predisposing the public against the high truths of religion. I am not suggesting, to be sure, that they have consciously deceived others, but rather contend that they have themselves been misled as a rule in matters pertaining to philosophy, metaphysics, and religion. Meanwhile the fact remains that these “blind guides” are exerting an inestimable influence upon education and public belief, with disastrous consequences to human welfare, both here and hereafter.

Read further...