ЛОРД БАЈРОН: Мазепа

MAZEPPA

1.

‘Twas after dread Pultowa’s day .

When Fortune left the royal Swede –

Around a slaughtered army lay.

No more to combat and to bleed.

The Power and Glory of the war.

Faithless as their vain votaries, Man,

Had passed to the triumphant Czar,

And Moscow’s wall were safe again –

Until a day more dark and drear,

And a more memorable year,

Should give to slaughter and to shame

A mightier host and haughtier name –

A great wreck – a deeper fall,

And to shock to One – a thunderbolt to all. –

 

2.

Such was the hazard of to die;

The wounded Charles was taught to fly –

By day and night, through field and flood,

Stained with his own and subjects’ blood,

For thousands fell the flight to aid,

And not a voice was heard t’upbraid

Ambition in his humbled hour,

When Truth had naught to dread from Power.

His horse was slain, and Gieta gave

His own; and died the Russians’ slave.

This too sinks after many a league

Of well-sustained but vain fatigue –

And in the depths of forests’ darkling –

The watchfires in distance sparkling –

The beacons of surrounding foes –

A King must lay his limbs at length.

Are these the laurels and repose

For which the Nations strain their strength? –

They laid him by a savage tree

In outworn Nature’s agony;

His wound were stiff – his limbs were stark –

The heavy hour was chill and dark;

The fever in his blood forbade

A transient slumber’s fitful aid,

And thus it was – but yet through all,

Kinglike the monarch bore his fall,

And made in this extreme of ill

His pangs the vassals of his will –

All silent and subdued were they –

As once the Nations round him jay. –

 

3.

A band of chiefs – alas! How few

Since but the fleeting of a day

Had trained it – but this wreck was true,

And chivalrous; upon the clay

Each safe him down all sad and mute

Beside his monarch and his steed –

For danger levels man and brute,

And all are fellows in their need.

Among the rest Mazeppa made

His pillow in an old Oak’s shade,

Himself as rough and scarce less old –

The Ukraine’s hetman, calm and bold.

But first, outspent with his long course,

The Cossack Prince rubbed down his horse,

And made for him a leafy bed,

And smoothed his fetlocks and his mane,

And slacked his girth, and stripped his rein,

And joyed to hear how well he fed;

For until now he had the dread

His wearied courser might refuse

To browse beneath the midnight dews.

But he was hardy as his lord,

And little cared for bed and board –

But spirited and docile too,

Whate’er was to be done, would do,

Shaggy and swift – and strong of limb –

All Tartar-like – he carried him,

Obeyed his voice, and came to call,

And knew him in the midst of all,

Though thousands were around, and Night,

Without a star, pursued her flight;

That Steed from Sunset until down

His chief would follow like fawn.

 

4.

This done, Mazeppa spread his cloak,

And laid his lance beneath his oak –

Felt in his arms in order good

The long days’ march had well withstood –

If still the powder filled the pan,

And flints unloosened kept their lock;

His sabre’s hilt and scabbard felt,

And whether they had chafed his belt;

And next the venerable man

From out his haversack and can

Prepared and spread his slender stock,

And to the monarch and his men

The whole or portion offered then –

With far less of inquietude

Than courtiers at a banquet would.

And Charles of this his lender share

With smiles partook a moment there,

To force of cheer a greater show,

And seem above both wounds and woe. –

And then he said – “Of all our band,

Though firm of heart and strong of hand

In skirmish, march, or forage, none

Can less have said or more have done,

Than thee, Mazeppa – on the earth

So fit a pair had never birth,

Since Alexander’s days till now.

As thy Bucephalus and thou.

All Scythia’s fame to thine should yield

For pricking on o’er flood and filed.”

Mazeppa answered – “I’ll betide

The school wherein I learned to ride.” –

Quoth Charles – “Old Hetman, wherefore so,

Since thou hast learned the art so well?”

Mazeppa said – “Twere long to tell,

And we have many leagues to go,

With every now and then to blow,

And to one at least the foe,

Before our steeds may gaze at ease

Before the swift Borysthenes –

And, Sire, your limbs have need of rest,

And I will be the Sentinel

Of this your troop.” “But I request,”

Said Sweden’s monarch – “thou wilt tell

This tale of thine, and I may reap

Perchance from this the boon of sleep –

For at this moment from mine eyes

The present hope of Slumber flies.”

“Well, Sire, with such a hope, I’ll track

My seventy years of memory back.

I think ‘twas in my twentieth spring –

Aye, ‘twas, when Casimir was king –

John Casimir – I was his page

Six summers in my earlier age;

A learned monarch, faith, was he –

And most unlike you Majesty –

He made no wars, and did not gain

New realms to have them back again –

And (save debates in Warsaw’s Diet)

He reigned in most unseemly quit. –

Not that he had no cares to vex –

He loved the Muses and the Sex,

And sometimes these so forward are,

They made him wish himself at war;

But soon, his wrath being o’er, he took

Another mistress – or new book;

And then he gave prodigious fetes –

All Warsaw gathered round his gates

To gaze upon his splendid court,

And dames and chiefs of princely port;

He was the Polish Solomon –

So sung his poets – all but one –

Who, being unpensioned, made a satire,

And boasted that he could not flatter.

It was a court of jousts and mimes,

Where every courtier tried at rhymes;

Even I for once produced some verses,

And signed my odes “Despairing Thyrsis”.

There was a certain Palatine,

A Court of high and far descent,

Rich as a Salt or silver mine;

And he was proud, ye may divine,

As if from heaven he had been sent;

He had such wealth in blood and ore

As few could match beneath the throne –

And he would gaze upon his store,

And o’er his pedigree would pore,

Until, by some confusion led,

Which almost looked like want of head,

He thought their merits were his own. – -

His wife was not of his opinion;

His junior she by thirty years,

Grew daily tired of his dominion,

And after wishes, hopes, and fears,

To Virtue a few farewell tears,

A restless dream or two, some glances

A Warsaw’s youth. Some songs, and dances –

Awaited but the usual chances,

Those happy accidents which render

The coldest dames so very tender. –

To deck her Court with titles given,

‘Tis said, as passport into heaven;

But, strange to said, they rarely boast

Of these who have deserved them most.

 

5.

 

“I was a goodly stripling then –

At seventy years I so may say

That there were few, or boys or men,

Who in my dawning time of day,

Of vassal or a knight’s degree,

Could vie in vanities with me;

For I had strength, youth, gaiety –

A port not like to this ye see,

But smooth, as all is rugged now;

For time, and war, and care have ploughed

My very soul from out my brow;

And thus I should be disavowed

But all my kind and kin, could they

Compare my day and yesterday;

This change was wrought, too, long o’er Age

Had ta’en my features from his page. –

With years, ye know, have not declined

My strength, my courage, or my mind

Or at this hour I should not be

Telling old tales beneath a tree,

With starless sky my canopy. –

But let me on – Theresa’s form –

Methinks it glides before me now,

Between me and yon chestnut’s bough;

The memory is so quick and warm,

And yet I find no words to tell

The Shape of her I loved so well.

She had the Asiatic eye,

Such as our Turkish Neighborhood

Hath mingled with our Polish blood,

Dark as above us in the sky –

But through it stole a tender light

Like the first Moonlight at Midnight –

Large, dark, and swimming in the stream

Which seemed to melt to its own beam –

All love, half languor, and half fire.

Like Saints that at the Stake expire –

And lift their rapture looks on high

As though it were joy to die.

A brow like a Midsummer lake,

Transparent with the Sun therein,

When waves no murmur dare to make,

And Heaven beholds her face within –

A cheek and lip – but why proceed? –

I loved her then – I love her still –

And such as I am loved indeed

In fierce extremes – in good and ill.

But still we love even in our rage,

And haunted to our very age

With the vain shadow of the past –

As is Mazeppa to the last - - -

 

6.

We met, we gazed, I saw and sighed –

She did not speak, and yet replied –

There are ten thousand tones and signs

We hear and see, but none defines –

Involuntary sparks of thought

Which strike from out the heart o’erwrought,

And for a strange intelligence,

Alike mysterious and intense,

Which link the burning chain that binds,

Without their will, young hearts and minds,

Conveying, as the electric wire,

We know not how, the absorbing fire. –

I saw and sighed – in silence wept –

And still reluctant distance kept,

Until I was made known to her,

And we might then and there confer

Without suspicion –then, even then, -

I longed, and was resolved to speak,

But on my lips they died again,

The ancient tremulous and weak –

Until one hour. There is a Game,

A frivolous and foolish play

Wherewith we wile away the day –

It is – I have forgot the name –

And we to this, it seems, were set,

By some strange chance which I forget;

I recked not if I won or lost;

It was enough for me to be

So near to hear, and oh! to see

The being whom I loved the most. –

I watched her as a Sentinel

(May ours this dark night watch as well!)

Until I saw, and thus it was,

That she was pensive, nor perceived

Her occupation, nor was grieved

Nor glad to lose or gain, but still

Played for hours, as if her will

Yet bound her to the place, though not

That hers might be the winning lot;

Then through my brain the thought did pass,

Even as a flash or lightning there,

That there was Something in her air

Which would not doom me to despair –

But on the thought my words broke forth,

All incoherent as they were –

Their eloquence was little worth,

But yet she listened – ‘tis enough;

Who listens once will listen twice;

Her heart, be sure, is not of ice,

And one refusal no rebuff.

 

7.

I loved, and was loved again;

They tell me, Sire, you never knew

Those gentle frailties – if ‘tis true,

I shortened all my joy or pain;

To you ‘twould seem absurd as vain;

But all men are not born to reign,

Or o’er their passions, or as you,

Thus o’er themselves and nations too.

I’m – or rather was – a Prince,

A Chief of thousands and could lead

Them on where each would foremost bleed,

But could not o’er myself evince

The like control; but to resume –

I loved, and was beloved again;

In sooth – it is a happy doom,

But yet, where happiest, ends in pain. –

We met in secret, and the hour

Which led me to that Lady bower

Was fiery Expectation’s dower.

My days and nights were nothing – all

Except that hour, which doth recall,

In the long lapse from youth to age,

No other like itself – I’d give

The Ukraine back again to live

It o’er once more, and be a Page,

The happy Page who was the Lord

Of one soft heart and his own Sword,

And had no other gem nor wealth

Save nature’s gift of youth and health;

We met in secret – doubly sweet,

Some say, they find it so to meet;

I know not that – I would have given

My life but to have called her mine

In the full view of earth and heaven,

For I did oft and long repine

That we could only meet by stealth.

 

8.

“For lovers there are many eyes,

And such there were on us; the Devil

On such occasions should be civil –

The Devil – I’m loathe to do him wrong –

It might be some untoward Saint,

Who would not be at rest too long,

But to his pious bile gave vent –

But one fire night, some lurking spies

Surprised and sized us both. –

The Count was something more than wroth –

I was unarmed; but if in steel,

All cap-a-pe from head to heels,

What ‘gainst their numbers could I do?

‘Twas near his castle, far away

From city or from succour near,

And almost on the break of the day;

I did not think to see another –

My moments seemed reduced to few,

And with one prayer to Mary Mother,

And, it may be, a Saint or two,

As I resigned me to my fate –

They led me to the Castle Gate;

Theresa’s doom I never knew –

Our lot was henceforth separate. –

An angry man, ye may opine,

Was he, the proud Count Palatine,

And he had reason good to be;

But he was most enraged lest such

An accident should chance touch

Upon his future Pedigree;

Nor less amazed, that such a blot

His noble Scutcheon should have got,

While he was highest on his line;

Because unto himself he seemed

The first of men, nor les, he deemed,

In others’ eyes, and most in mine. –

‘Sdeath! With a Page! – perchance a King

Had reconciled him to the thing –

But with a stripling of a Page –

I felt, but cannot paint, his rage. –

 

9.

“Bring forth the horse!” The horse was brought;

In truth, he was a noble Steed,

A Tartar of the Ukraine breed,

Who looked as though the Speed of thought

Were in his limbs – but he was wild,

Wild as the wild-deer, and untaught,

With spur and bridle undefiled;

‘Twas but a day he had been caught,

And snorting with erected mane

And struggling fiercely but in vain,

In the full foam of wrath and dread,

To me the Desert-born was led. –

They bound me on, the menial throng,

Upon his back with many a thong,

Than loosed him with a sudden lash –

Away! Away! – and on we dash! –

Torrents less rapid and less rush.

 

10.

“Away” – “Away!” – my breath was gone –

I saw not where he hurried on –

‘Twas scarcely yet the break of the day,

And on he foamed – Away! – Away!

The last of human sounds which rose

As I was darted from my foes

Was the wild shout of savage laughter,

Which on the wind came roaring after,

A moment from that rabble rout;

With sudden wrath I wrenched my head,

And snapped the cord which to the mane

Had bound my neck in lieu of rein,

And, writhing half my form about,

Howled back my course; but ‘midst the tread,

The thunder of my courser’s speed,

Perchance they did not hear nor heed,

It vexes me – for I would fain

Have paid their insult back again;

I paid it well in after days –

There is not of that castle gate,

Its drawbridge and portcullis weight,

Stone, bar, moat, bridge, or barrier left,

Nor of its fields a blade of grass,

Save what grows on a ridge of wall

Where stood the heart-stone of the hall;

And many a time ye there might pass

Nor dream that e’er that fortress was.

I saw its turrets in a blaze –

Their crackling battlements all cleft –

And the hot lead pour down like a rain

From off the scorched and blackening roof,

Whose thickness was not vengeance proof.

They little thought, that day of pain,

When launched, as on the lightning’s flash,

They bade me to destruction dash,

That one day I should come again,

With twice five thousand horse, to thank

The Count for his uncourteous ride.

They played me there a bitter prank

When, with the wild horse for my guide,

They bound me to his foaming flank –

For Time at last sets all things even,

And if we do but watch the hour,

There never yet was human power

Which could evade, if unforgiven,

The patient search – and vigil long –

Of him who treasures up a wrong.

 

11.

 

“Away! Away!” my steed an I,

Upon the pinions of the wind,

All human dwellings left behind;

We sped like meteors through the sky,

When with it s crackling sound the Night

Is chequered with the Northern light –

Town – village – none were on our track,

But a wild plain of far extent,

And bounded by a forest black

And, save the scarce-seen battlement

On distant heights of some stronghold

Against the Tartars built of old,

No trace of man – the year before

A Turkish army had marched o’er,

And where the Spahi’s hoof hath trod

The Verdure flies the bloody sod.

The sky was dull, and dim, and grey,

And a low breeze crept moaning by

I could have answered with a sigh,

But fast we fled – Away! – Away!

And I could neither sigh or pray,

And my cold sweat-drops fell like rain

Upon the courser’s bristling mane;

But, snorting still with rage and fear,

He flew upon his far career.

At times I almost thought, indeed,

He must have slackened in his speed –

But no – my bound and slender frame

Was nothing to his angry Might,

And merely like a spur became.

Each motion which I made to free

My swoln limbs from their agony

Increased his fury and affright;

I tried my voice – ‘twas faint and low,

But yet he swerved as from a blow;

And, starting to each accent, sprang

As from a sudden trumpet’s Clang;

Meantime my cords were wet with gore.

Which oozing through my limbs ran o’er;

And in my tongue the thirst became

A something fierier than flame.

 

12.

…

 

 

(Lord Byron: MAZEPPA, April 2^nd 1817)

 

Радјард Киплинг: СИН

 

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs, and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting, too;

 

If you can wait and not being tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,

Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,

And yet don’t look too good nor talk too wise…

 

If you can dream and not make dreams your master,

If you can think, and not make your thoughts your aim,

If you can meet with triumph and disaster,

And treat those two imposters just the same;

 

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken,

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your live to, broken,

And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools;

 

If you can make one heap of all your winnings,

And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at you beginnings,

And never breathe a word about your loss;

 

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the will which says to them: “Hold on!”

 

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with kings – nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;

If all men count with you, but none too much;

 

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,

And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my Son!

 

(If—Rudyard Kipling - 1865-1936 (www.poets.org)

Харун Јахија: ЧУДОТО НА АТОМОТ

 

Поглавје 4

АТОМИ КОИШТО СТАНУВААТ ЖИВИ

До сада смо говорили и о томе како настаје материја. Рекли смо да су атоми градивни блокови свега живог и неживог. Важно је напоменути да су атоми градивни блокови живих организама исто као и неживих премета. Пошто атоми нису живе честице, запањује чињеница да су они градивни блокови живих организама. То је још једно питање које еволуционисти не могу да објасне.

Као што није могуће замислити делове камена које се спајају и заједно формирају живе организме, тако је немогуће замислити неживе атоме који се сами спајају да би формирале живе организме. Размислимо о комаду стене и лептиру; једно је неживо, друго је живо. Ипак, када размотримо њихове суштине, видимо да се обе састоје од истих субатомских честица.

Следећи пример може боље објаснити немогућност да се нежива материја саму од себе трансформише у живу материју. Да ли алуминијум може да лети? Не. Ако помешамо алуминујум са пластиком и бензином, да ли то може да лети? Наравно, још увек не може. Тек кад ове материјале поставимо на начин да формирају авион, и укључимо интелект пилота, после тога авион може да полети. Према томе, шта чини да авион лети? Да ли су то крила? Мотор? Пилот? Ништа од овога не може да лети само по себи. У ствари, авион је производ који је настао спајањем различитих делова од којих ниједан нема способност летења. То спајање извршено је по специјалном плану. Способност летења не изводи се ни из алуминијума, ни из пластике, ни из бензина. Особине тих супстанци су важне, али способност летења може да се оствари само спајањем тих супстанци према изузетном плану и уз интервенцију интелигентног бића. Живи системи нису ништа другачији. Жива ћелија се формира распоређивањем неживих атома према изванредном плану, интервенцијом интелигентног Бића. Особине живих ћелија, као што су раст, размножавање и друге, резултат су савршеног дизајна и интервенције Творца, а не особине молекула. Дизајн који срећемо приликом стварања потврђује чињеницу да Творац ствара живо коришћењем неживог, али не само неживог.

Само Творац, безгранично свемоћан и неупоредиво мудар, може да да` живот неживој супстанци, то јест да од ње створи живо организам. Живи системи имају тако сложене структуре, да још увек, упркос технолошким могућностима које су данас доступне, није у потпуности схваћено како функционишу.

Међутим, постоји стварност коју је могу схватити уз помоћ науке, која је начинила изванредан напредак праћен моћном технологијом и њеним запањујућим развојем у 20. веку. Живи организми имају веома сложене структуре. Када се средином 19. века појавила теорија еволуције, научна истраживања вршена су примитивним микроскопима који су створиле утисак да је ћелија само проста грудвица материје. Међутим, у 20. веку, посматрања и истраживања која су начињена коришћењем напредних инструмената и електронских микроскопа, открили су да ћелија, која је градивни блок живих организама, има веома сложену структуру која је могла да се формира само као резлтат савршеног дизајна. Оно што је најзначајније, та истраживања су показала да је апсолутно немогуће да живот настане спонтано из неживе материје. Извор живота је сам живот. Ова чињеница такође је експериментално доказана. То је проблем који еволуционисти не могу никада да реше. Из тог разлога, уместо да излажу научне доказе, истакнути научници-еволуционисти, који су се нашли у великом ћорсокаку, износе своје ставове које личе на улепшавање излога. Они излажу потпуно нелогичне и ненаучне тврдње да метерија има свест, способност и сопствену вољу. Ипак, они сами на крају не верују у ове апсурдне приче и приморани су да признају да, на главна питања на која треба одговорити, то није могуће учинити на такав начин.

Једном је постојало раздобље пре живота, у коме на Земљи није било живота. Наш свет сада обилује животом. Како је тај живот настао? Како су, у одсуству живота, створени органски молекули засновани на угљенику­? Како се појавио први живи организам? Како су настала сложена бића као што је човек, способни да истражују мистерију сопственог порекла?

Позната еволуционистичка прича покушава да објасни како је материја настала и еволуирала, зашто је задржала свој садашњи облик у свемиру и на Земљи, и зашто је способна да формира саму себе из сложене низове молекула?

Као што научници – еволуционисти признају, главни циљ теорије еволуције је да негира да је Творац створио живе организме. Иако је истина стварања очигледна у свакој тачки свемира, и дефинитивно је показано да је сваки детаљ производ дизајна који је толико савршен, да не би могао случајно да настане, еволуционисти као да не виде ту чињеницу и затварају се у један круг специфичног резоновања.

Међутим, уместо да прихвате истину, ови научници више воле да размишљају и говоре о способностима мртве материје и о томе како је неживо трансформисало само себе у живе организме. Док затварају очи пред истином, ти научници сами себи наносе непријатности. Очигледно је да тврђење да атоми имају неку врсту дара и да тај дар користе да се трансформишу у живе системе, нема ништа са логиком и реалношћу.

После читања примера који ћемо сад навести, сами ћете одлучити колико су реалне те ирационалне приче. То је сценарио за који еволуционисти тврде да описује трансформисање неживих и несвесних атома у живе организме, и што је још значајније, у људе са високим нивоом свести и интелигенције.

Према теорији еволуције, наводно, после Великог праска, атоми који садрже прецизно уравнотежене силе, некако су настали само од себе. Онда су ти атоми, одговарајући по броју како би формирали целокупан свемир, формирали звезде и планете, а неки други нашу планету Земљу. Неки од атома које чине планету Земљу наводно су сами себи првобитно формирали земљиште, а касније су изненада одлучили да формирају да формирају живе организме! Ови атоми наводно су се прво трансформирали у ћелије са високо сложеним структурама, а затим призвели копије ћелија које су формирали дељењем на двоје, после чега су почели да говоре и чују. Потом су се ти атоми трансформисали у универзитетске професоре које сами себе посматрају под електронским микроскопом и тврде да се случајно настали. Некои атоми су се спојили и тако формирали инжењере који конструишу мостове и небодере, док су се неки други другачије спојили и формирали инжењере који ће произвести сателите, свемирске летилице, док су се опет други специјализовали за рад у научним дисциплинама, као што су физика, хемија и биологија. Атоми као угљеник, магнезијум, фосфор, калијум и гвожђе спојили су се да би формирали, уместо безобличне масе, савршене мозгове изванредне сложености, чије тајне још увек у потпуности нису откривене. Ти мозгови почели су да уочавају тродимензионалне слике савршеном резолуцијом која још увек никаквом технологијом није достигнута. Неки атоми формирали су комичаре и смејале су се шалама који су ти комичари причали. Опет, некои атоми преко музичара, компоновали су музику и уживали слушајући је.

Ову причу могуће је продужити, али застанимо овде и извршимо експеримент да бисмо показали да таква прича никада не може да се оствари. Нека еволуционисти у једно буре ставе атоме, колико је год то потребно, од свих елемената који учествују у формирању живота. Нека у то буре додају што год сматрају да је неопходно да би се ти атоми сјединили и формирали органску материју, и нека онда чекају. Нека чекају сто година, хиљаду година и ако је неопходно сто милиона година пребацивајући одговорност на чекању од оца на сина.

Да ли ће се једног дана појавити професор из тог бурета? Свакако да неће. Без обзира колико чекају, професор неће изаћи из тог бурета. Не само да неће бити професора, већ ниједан живи организам неће изаћи из тог бурета. Ни птице, рибе, лептири, јабуке, слонови, руже, јагоде, наранџе, љубичице, дрвеће, мрави, пчеле, чак ни један једини комарац неће изаћи, јер ако се и милиони делова органских материја споје, оне спонтано неће стећи карактеристике живих организама.

Погледајмо сада дали да ли несвесни атоми могу спонатно да формирају молекуле ДНК, који претстављају камен-темељац живота, или да формирају протеине.

ДНК (Дезоксирибонуклеинска киселина), која се налази у једру ћелије, садржи шифре које носе информацију свих органа и свих карактеристика тела. Ова шифра толико је сложена, да су научници били у стању да ја препишу, и то до веома ограниченог опсега, тек 40-тих година 20. века. ДНК, која садржи целокупну информацију живог организма коме припада, такође је способна да репродукује саму себе. Како молекул формиран склапањем атома може да садржи информацију и како се умножава копирањем самог себе, остаје једно од питања без одговора, у науци засновној на теорији еволуције.

Протеини су градивни блокови живих организама и играју кључну улогу у многим неопходним функцијама организма. На пример, хемоглобин транспортује кисеоник по организмом, антитела уништавају штетне микроорганизме које доспевају у тело, а ензими нам помажу да варимо храну коју узимамо и претварају је у енергију. Формуле које се налазе у ДНК омогућавају производњу више од 50,000 различитих типова протеина. Протеини су кључни за опстанак живих организама и зато недостатак чак и само једног од тих протеина учинио би живот немогућим за тај организам. Научно је немогуће да се ДНК и протеини - обоје огромни молекули - формирају спонтано, као резултат простог случаја.

ДНК је серија нуклеотида распоређених по специјалном распореду. Протеин је серија аминокиселина поново распоређених по посебно редоследу. Прво, математички је немогуће да се молекули ДНК, или молекули протеина, које постоје у хиљадама различитих типова, простим случајем распореде по прецизном редоследу неопходним за живот. Рачун вероватноће открива да је претпоставка, да чак и најпростији молекул протеина оформи правилан редослед случајно, једнака нули. (За више информација, видети књигу “Обмана еволуције” {The Evolution Deceit} Харуна Јахија).

Као додатак тим математичким немогућностима, постоји и значајна хемијска препрека случајном формирању тих молекула. Када би однос између ДНК и протеина био резултат времена, случаја и природних процеса, онда би постојала нека врста хемијске тежње да ДНК и протеини реагују, пошто киселине и базе имају снажне тежње да међусобно реагују. У том смислу, да је случај стварно играо улогу, читав низ других природних хемијских реакција појавио би се међу насумичним фрагментима ДНК и протеина, и живи системи које видимо данас не би се формирали.

Да ли онда та природна тежња делова ДНК и протеина да међусобно реагују хемијски указује да би време, случај и закони хемије на крају произвели живот из неке мешавине тих молекула? Не. Управо супротно. Проблем је да су све те природне хемијске реакције погрешне реакције, што се тиче живих система. ДНК и протеини препуштени времену, случају, и сопственим хемисјким тежњама, реагују на начин који уништава живи систем и који би спречио било какав предложени развој живота.

Као што смо видели, потпуно је немогуће да ДНК и протеини, које се никако не могу насумично формирати, буду неконтролисано остављени да би формирали живот, пратећи своје сопствено формирање. Жан Гутон (Jean Guitton), познати филозоф, напоменуо је ту немогућност у својој књизи „Бог и наука“ (Dieu et la Science), изјављујући да живот није могао да се формира као резултат случаја:

„Које 'случајности' су учинили да одређени атоми буду привучени једни другима како би формирали прве молекуле аминокиселина? Опет, кроз које случајности су се ти молекули спојили како би формирали крајње сложену структуру звану ДНК? Постављам ово просто питање као што је то поставио и биолог Жакоб Франсоа (Francois Jacob): Ко је припремио планове првог ДНК молекула како би дао прву поруку која је омогућила рођење прве ћелије?

Ако се неко задовољава претпоставкама које укључују случајност, та питања, и многа друга, остају неодговорена; због тога су, неколико последњих година, биолози почели да мењају своја гледишта. Врхунски истраживачи не задовољавају се простим препричавањем Дарвинових закона; оне износе нове, изненађујуће теорије. То су теорије засноване на идеји да је у цео процес укључен принцип организације, који је очигледно супериоран у односу на материју.“

Као што је Жан Гутон навео, у светлу истраживања и научних открића начињених у 20. веку, дошло се до тачке када је научно утврђено да Дарвинова теорија еволуције нема никаву оправданост. Амерички биолог Мајк Бих (Michael Behe) износи ово у својој познатој књизи „Дарвинова црна кутија“ (Darwin’s Black Box):

"Наука је начинила огроман напредак у схватању тога како хемија живота ради, али је елеганција и сложеност биолошких система на молекуларном нивоу парализовала покушај науке да објасни њихово порекло. Практично, није било покушаја да се опише настанак специфичних, сложених био-молекуларних система, а још мање је било напретка по том питању. Многу научници су тврдили да су објашњења надохват руке, или ће бити откривена пре или касније, али никаква подршка за таква тврђења не може се пронаћи у професионалној научној литератури. Што је још значајније, постоје задовољавајући разлози – засновани на самој структури система – да се сматра да ће се Дарвинистичка објашњења механизма живота показати заувек неоправданим.“

Као што је целокупан свемир настао специјалним стварањем, тако су и живи организми настали специјалним стварањем. Нежива материја не може да е комбинује простим случајем да би формирала живе организме. Само Творац који поседује неограничену моћ, бескрајну мудрост и бесконачно знање, има моћ да све то учини.

 

Поглавје 5

МОЌТА НА АТОМОТ

...

(Наслов на оригиналот: The Miracle of Atom by Harun Yahya; издавач: Центар за природњачке студије – Белград, во соработка со Global Publishing Istanbul/ www.cps.org.yu 2003 год.)

 

Цветан Тодоров: СТРАВОТ ОД ВАРВАРИТЕ

Beyond the clash of civilization

Introduction

BETWEEN FEAR AND RESENTIMAN

The twentieth century was dominated, in Europe, by the conflict between totalitarian regimes and liberal democracies. Following the Second World War, after the defeat of Nazism, this conflict took the shape of a global Cold War, intensified on the margins by various limited ‘hot’ confrontations. The actors in these were clearly identified. On the one side, the bloc of the Communist countries, extending from East Germany to North Korea, initially dominated by the Soviet Union. On the other side of the ‘Iron Curtain’ around these countries lay the West, the ‘free world’, essentially comprising the countries of Western Europe and North America, under the leadership of the United States. Outside this antagonism there was a third actor, a varied assortment of non-aligned countries, politically neutral, called the third world. The Earth was thus divided up on political criteria, even if other characteristics played a role too: the Third World was poor, the West rich, while in Communist countries the army was rich and the population poor (but not allowed to point out this discrepancy).

This situation lasted for over half a century. I was especially aware of it since I was born in Eastern Europe, in Bulgaria, where I grew up before going to live in France when I was twenty-four. It seemed to me that this division of the countries of the world would last forever – or at least until the end of my life. This may explain the joy I felt when, around 1990, the European Communist regimes collapsed one by one. There were no longer any reasons for setting East against West, or for competing in the struggle for world domination: and all hopes were permitted. The old dreams of the great liberal thinkers would finally come true. War would be replaced by negotiation; a new world order could be established, more peaceable than the previous world of the Cold War. I do not think I was alone in placing my faith in this desirable development.
Only twenty or so years later, it has to be admitted that this hope was illusory; it does not seem that tension and violence between countries will disappear from world history. The great confrontation between East and West had relegated various kinds of hostility and opposition to the background: these soon started to re-emerge. Conflicts could not just vanish as if by magic, since the deep reasons for their existence were still there; indeed, they were quite possibly becoming even more influential. The world population is continuing to grow rapidly, while the territory on which it lives remains the same size as before, or, indeed, is shrinking, eroded by deserts and threatened by floods. Worse, vital resources – water, energy – are diminishing. In these circumstances, competition between countries is inevitable – and this implies that those who have less will become increasingly aggressive towards those who have more, and the latter will become increasingly worried about preserving and protecting their advantages.

These are permanent features of the landscape, but some new developments have also been occurring. Even though numerous hot spots are still found across the world, sometimes exploding into violence, their action remains limited in space, and no global conflict comparable to the Second World War has broken out for over sixty years. This absence of any major confrontation has enabled a veritable technological revolution to happen peacefully right in front of our eyes; and the latter, in turn, has greatly contributed to the strengthening of contacts between countries in the process known as globalization.
This technological shake-up has affected several different domains, but some advances have had a particularly strong impact on international relations. The most evident concerns communication, which has become incomparably more rapid than in the past, and is also taking many channels. Information is instantaneous, transmitted by both words and images, and it can reach the whole world. Television (and no longer just radio), mobile phones, email, the Internet: once we might have complained about being short of information, but now we are drowning in it. One of the consequences of this change is that the different populations on our planet are spending more time with each other. Words and images are making people more familiar with one another, standardized products circulate across the entire world, and people too are travelling more than ever before. The inhabitants of rich countries go to the lands of the poor to do business or enjoy a holiday; the poor try to reach the lands of the rich to find work. If you have the means, travel has become much faster.

The intensity of communication and the ever-accelerating familiarity between countries and people have positive and negative effects; but one other technological innovation is a source of nothing but apprehension. This is the ease of access to weapons of destruction, in particular explosives. Anyone and everyone, it now seems, can procure them without difficulty. They can be miniaturized and carried around in your pocket; they are so sophisticated that they can kill tens, hundreds or thousands of people in a single instant. Bomb-making instructions are easily available on the Internet, the products needed to make them are sold in supermarkets, and a mobile phone is all you need to set off an explosion. This ‘democratization’ of weapons of destruction creates a completely new situation: it is no longer necessary to resort to the power of a state in order to inflict heavy losses on your enemy, since a few highly motivated individuals with even a minimum of financial resources are enough. ‘Hostile forces’ have completely changed their appearance.

These major technological achievements have had consequences for people’s lifestyles, but they have not entailed the immediate disappearance of the old world – obviously, they could never have done so. What they have produced, however, is a juxtaposition of contrasts, in which the archaic is found cheek by jowl with the ultramodern. This simultaneous presence of opposites can be found within a single country, as well as between countries. The Russian or Chinese peasant is just as far removed from the way of life found in Moscow or Shanghai as the peasants of the Rif and Anatolia are from the inhabitants of Paris and London. The world of the former is dominated by a ‘vertical’ communication, ensuring the transmission of traditions; that of the latter, in contrast, is characterized by the force of ‘horizontal’ tradition, between contemporaries permanently linked to a network. What is striking here is the fact that the two worlds are not unaware of each other: images from both worlds circulate across the whole planet. And they do more than just see each other: ruined peasants leave their lands and make their way to cities in their own countries or, preferably, to cities in rich countries. Global metropolises, found in every continent, contain populations of different origins and, naturally, of extremely varied customs and manners. And thus it is that a niqab (veil covering the whole body) can be seen next to a G-string. (But both are forbidden in French schools!)

It is easy to guess at the results this collision between widely differing traditions might well lead to. In some people, it engenders envy, or rejection, or both at once; in others, it inspires contempt, or condescension, or compassion. The former have the superiority of numbers, and of a sense of anger, on their side; the latter have technology and sheer might on theirs. The mixture is explosive, and the number of conflicts is on the increase. The map of these conflicts, however, is not the same as that imposed just after the Second World War.

These days, we can separate out the world’s countries into several groups, depending on the way they are reacting to these new circumstances. However, they can no longer be distinguished on the basis of political regime, as at the time of the confrontation between Communism and democracy; nor by big geographic divisions, as, for example, between North and South (since Australia is in the South and Mongolia in the North); nor between East and West (since China and Brazil often turn out to be similar); and even less between civilizations. In the eighteenth century, discussing the human passions that stir a society, Montesquieu introduced a notion that he called ‘the principle of government’: virtue in a republic, for instance, and honour in monarchies. These days, too, a dominant passion or social attitude imbues government decisions as well as individual reactions.
I am fully aware of the risks one runs in schematizing things this way and freezing situations that are necessarily forever changing. Several social passions are always acting together at any one time, and none affects all the members of a population; their very identity is mobile and does not assume the same appearance from one country to another. In addition, the hierarchy between them is forever evolving, and one country can easily pass, in the space of just a few years, from one group to another. And yet their presence is undeniable. To describe this division, I will start out from a typology recently suggested by Dominique Moisi, filling it out a little and adapting it for my own purposes, without forgetting the simplifications it will necessarily entail.

I will call the predominant passion of a first group of countries appetite. Their population often feels that, for various reasons, it has missed out on its share of wealth; today its time has come. The inhabitants want to benefit from globalization, consumption and leisure – and they will not skimp on the means needed to achieve this. It was Japan which, several decades ago, first went down this path, and it has been followed by several countries in South East Asia and, more recently, by China and India. Other countries, and other parts of the world, are now setting off down the same road: Brazil, and, possibly in a not too distant future, Mexico and South Africa. For several years, Russia seems to have been following the same route, turning its defeat in the Cold War into an advantage: its development no longer has to be reined in by ideology; nor does the enrichment of its citizens. The country no longer needs to take part in the competition for world hegemony.

The second group of countries is that in which resentment plays an essential role. This attitude results from a humiliation, real or imaginary, allegedly inflicted on it by the countries with the most wealth and power. It has spread, to various degrees, across a good part of the countries whose population is mainly Muslim, from Morocco to Pakistan. For some time, it has also been endemic in other Asian countries or in some countries in Latin America. The targets of this resentment are the old colonial countries of Europe and, increasingly, the United States, held responsible for private misery and public powerlessness. Resentment towards Japan is strong in China and Korea. Of course, it does not dominate everyone’s minds or all activities; nonetheless, it helps to structure social life, since, like the other social passions, it characterizes an influential and highly active minority.

The third group of countries is distinguished by the place occupied in them by the feeling of fear. These are the countries that make up the West and that have dominated the world for several centuries. Their fear concerns the two previous groups, but it is not of the same nature. Western, and in particular European, countries fear the economic power of the ‘countries of appetite’, their ability to produce goods more cheaply and thus make a clean sweep of the markets – in short, they are afraid of being dominated economically. And they fear the physical threats that might come from the ‘countries of resentment’, the terrorist attacks and explosions of violence – and, in addition, the measures of retaliation these countries might be capable of when it comes to energy supplies, since the biggest oil reserves are found in these countries.

Finally, a fourth group of countries, spread across several continents, might be designated as that of indecision: a residual group whose members risk falling thrall, one day, to appetite or resentment, but who for the time being are not so affected by these passions. Meanwhile, the natural resources of these lands are being pillaged by nationals originally from the other groups of countries, with the active complicity of their own corrupt leaders; ethnic conflicts spread desolation among them. Certain strata of their population, often wretched, try to gain access to the ‘countries of fear’ which are wealthier than their own, in order to enjoy a better standard of living.

I am not really competent to describe in detail each of these groups of countries. I live in France, within the European Union, so in the group designated as being dominated or in any case marked by fear; it is also the only one which I know from inside. I am going to restrict my subject even more, and limit myself to just one of the relations that can be observed here: the relation with countries and populations marked by resentment. My reason for attempting to analyse this particular passion is that it often seems to have disastrous results. The point that I would like to develop can be summed up in just a few words. Western countries have every right to defend themselves against any aggression and any attack on the values on which they have chosen to base their democratic regimes. In particular, they must fight every terrorist threat and every form of violence vigorously. But it is in their interest not to be dragged into a disproportionate, excessive and wrong-headed reaction, since this would produce the opposite results to those hoped for.

...

(Tzvetan Todorov The Fear of Barbarians: Beyond the Clash of Civilizations : Excerpt from pages 1–12 of The Fear of Barbarians: Beyond the Clash of Civilizations by Tzvetan Todorov, published by the University of Chicago Press. ©2010 by The University of Chicago.)