Director of elections at the Electoral Office of Jamaica (EOJ), Orette Fisher has rubbished claims that election equipment have been malfunctioning at polling stations across the island. It was reported that many persons across the island, who turned out to cast their votes, had to return home without doing so because lines were too long and election equipment had been malfunctioning. Candidates from both the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and the People’s National Party (PNP) have also been complaining of the slow voting process and that the electoral machines were malfunctioning. According to reports from the EOJ, as at 1:00p.m. over 500,000 persons had voted, which accounts for 31.54 per cent of the voting population. There are 1,824,412 electors on the voters’ list. Polls opened at 7:00 a.m. and will close at 5:00 p.m. EOJ said special accommodation will be made for voters who were in line before 5:00p.m. This will allow them to cast their vote.
Those seeing the new movie Amazing Grace (opened Feb 2, 2007) about England’s long political battle to end slavery may not realize the family connection of the film’s hero with the controversy over Darwinism. William Wilberforce, the champion of abolition who brought an end to the slave trade as depicted in the film, had a son, Samuel, who became a leader in the fight against Darwinism in 1860. The Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce stood strong not only against the rising tide of liberal theology in the mid-19th century, but took particular umbrage at Darwin’s “flimsy speculation” as he called it. He wrote a strident review against The Origin of Species for the Quarterly Review that really got under Charles Darwin’s skin. Darwin recognized the input of his arch-foe, Richard Owen, director of the British Museum, the leading paleontologist of the day.Bishop Wilberforce was at the focal point of a pivotal event in the rise of Darwinism. At a lively series of lectures at the meeting of the British Association at Oxford, just months after the publication of Darwin’s Origin, Wilberforce faced off against Thomas Huxley in a famous interchange about evolution. Contrary to later depictions of the event as a victory of Huxley’s rationalist science against Wilberforce’s theological dogmatism, each side felt they had made the better case. Wilberforce, not only a theologian but a professor of mathematics, spoke for nearly half an hour before Huxley. Apparently he got strong support from the audience. It is highly doubtful he uttered an insulting jibe about Huxley’s ape ancestry as later revisionists alleged, or that Huxley delivered a devastating counter-thrust. In fact, Huxley and Wilberforce both acted on amicable terms of mutual respect after the episode.1 Darwin himself, though, glad that illness prevented his attendance at the meeting, told Huxley, “I would as soon have died as tried to answer the Bishop in such an assembly.” He probably would have also had died to have heard his former Beagle captain FitzRoy at the meeting giving an impassioned denunciation of the evolutionary views of the erstwhile shipboard naturalist.Many came to the meeting lusting for a fight over the new evolutionary views. Activists on both sides tended to hear what they wanted to hear and report it accordingly. Unfortunately for Wilberforce and other theists, the apparent progress of materialist science (as evidence through industrial progress), coupled with discontent over established religion, combined to give Darwin’s views a more “trendy” air that appealed especially to young scientists. Darwin’s aides capitalized on this in a rapid-fire sequence of articles, attacks, pamphlets, new journals and other publicity strategies in the days following the June meeting at Oxford. Within 10 years, most opposition to evolution had been swept away.2 Throughout his life, Bishop Wilberforce continued to be an adamant opponent of Darwinism. His prestige and trenchant criticisms gave the father of evolution fits. See also the postscript in an article about Amazing Grace by Jonathan Sarfati on Creation on the Web and an analysis of the urban legend by a pro-evolution writer, J.R. Lucas.1This was also apparently the meeting where Huxley presented his famous “monkeys and typewriters” illustration that has also become an urban legend. It is not at all credible that Wilberforce, a mathematics professor, was stupefied by Huxley’s imaginative story as often depicted. See the article by Russell Grigg on CMI.2The event also took place during a sea change in natural science. A new class of researchers dubbed “scientists” by Anglican priest and historian William Whewell in 1834 was beginning to carve out its turf. Formerly “natural philosophers” who worked either from their independent means or within church-run academic institutions, this growing class was seeking academic respectability and a unique professional domain (and the auspices of the universities). Darwin’s theory came just at the time the “scientist” was emerging as a new kind of professional animal. Historian of science Lawrence Principe, for example, has emphasized this very period as a kind of turf war for the emerging scientist class. Books characterizing a “warfare between science and religion” became popular at this time. One particularly awful example, Principe relates in his Teaching Company series Science and Religion, was written by John Draper – who, incidentally, was the first (and a rather boring) speaker at that same British Association meeting!Wilberforce understood better than most that Darwin’s views, if accepted, would be dangerous. He also perceived that they were less scientific than anti-Christian, relying not on evidence but on “flimsy speculations.”Nevertheless, the Huxley-Wilberforce debate became a pivotal event in the history of science. Its effects rippled far beyond the question of how species arise. The significance of this event was described by Janet Browne, one of the most respected biographers of Darwin, in a penetrating analysis of the occasion after her depiction of the events as they unfolded on June 30, 1860 at Oxford. Notice the references to strategy, propaganda, and jockeying for position by the “Darwinites” as she calls them:The significant thing is that a contest had taken place. This occasion presented a clearly demarcated display of the respective powers of conflicting authorities as represented in two opposing figures. Wilberforce and Huxley were perceived as fighting over the right to explain origins—a dispute over the proper boundary between science and the church that seemed as physically real to the participants and to the audience as any territorial or geographical warfare. Each side was convinced that its claims about the natural world were credible and trustworthy, that its procedures were the only valid account of reality. As it happened, these opposing forces were unequally balanced in Victorian England. Science at that time held little innate authority in itself, and its status was sustained mainly through the the rhetorical exertions of its practitioners, among whom Huxley would come to shine, whereas the church was the strongest body in the nation, attracting and retaining the very best intellects of the age. Afterwards, it was rumored that Huxley’s victory for science was falsely embellished by science’s supporters. In this dispute, the challenge was clear. Any success for the Darwinian scheme would require renegotiating—often with bitter controversy—the lines to be drawn between cultural domains. Science was not yet vested with the authority that would come with the modern era. Its practitioners were exerting themselves to create professional communities, struggling to receive due acknowledgement of their expertise and the right to choose and investigate issues in their own manner. As Wilberforce demonstrated, that authority currently lay for the most part with theology. The gossip running through the crowd afterwards quickly crafted an epic narrative, a collective fiction with an inbuilt meaning much more tangible and important than reality. All felt they were witnessing history in the making. A public polarization of opinion had emerged. The issue became excitingly simple. Were humans descended from monkeys or made by God? —Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (Princeton, 2002), pp. 124-125.Browne launched from this episode into a chapter about Darwin’s “Four Musketeers” (Huxley, Hooker, Lyell, and Asa Grey, 01/04/2004) who capitalized on this public relations bonanza. Within a decade, through an almost master-planned campaign of smearing opponents and popularizing Darwin’s views, they pretty much won over the entire intellectual world. Now you see why J. P. Moreland said that the Darwinian revolution was primarily a movement to rid science of theology.The supposed “warfare between science and religion” was not started by the theologians. Science and theology had a long, mutually supportive history. It was started by the Darwinites, like Americans John Draper and Andrew D. White, whose revisionist histories (Draper, 1863; White, 1896) needed to demonize churchmen in order to legitimate the Darwinian revolution. Historian Lawrence Principe emphasizes that the conflict model of the science-religion interaction is dismissed by all modern historians. For today’s Darwin Party to insist they need to defend science from creationism rings as hollow as hearing Ahmedinejad say he needs nukes for defense.Evolutionist J. R. Lucas agrees in his analysis of the Huxley-Wilberforce interchange. “This is the most important reason why the legend grew,” he says; “At the time, Wilberforce was perfectly entitled to have an opinion about science, but in the later years of the century scientists were increasingly jealous of their autonomy, and would see in Huxley’s retort a claim they were increasingly anxious to assert.” In matters of science, effectively, the opinions of theologians were no longer welcome—an ironic outcome considering Darwin himself had but one degree—in theology!One cannot ignore the sociopolitical and economic forces that contributed to the rise of Darwinism. Other evolutionary theories had been proposed in prior decades (Erasmus Darwin, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Robert Chambers), with only a modicum of success. Why did Darwin succeed so triumphantly? Was it the genius of his theory of natural selection, and the scientific evidence he amassed to support it? Certainly his theory contained more detail and logical development, but to what extent was it a well-timed pretext for more substantive social factors to come into play?As evidence, consider that natural selection theory fell into disrepute over the next four decades and was nearly moribund by the turn of the century. Darwin himself had to concede more to Lamarck under repeated attacks on his mechanism by other scientists. It cannot be, therefore, that evolutionism became popular because of the scientific soundness of Darwin’s mechanism. There were highly-educated, well-trained and eminently-respected scientists who vigorously opposed Darwin’s ideas: e.g., Adam Sedgwick, Darwin’s geology teacher; Richard Owen, founder and director of the British Museum; John Phillips, Oxford geology professor and president of the Geological Society of London; Louis Agassiz, one of the most famous American scientists of the period, and many others. In fact, ironically, most of the early criticisms of Darwin’s thesis came from scientists, not theologians.Nevertheless, the vision of a “fact” of evolution (i.e., common ancestry through material mechanisms, whatever they were) rapidly took over the intellectual world right at the time three powerful social movements were in place to empower its acceptance: (1) the widespread belief in progress (evidenced by the apparent superiority of the British Empire), (2) discontent with establishment Victorian religion (with a resulting value put on secularism), and (3) the rise of the scientist class as an independent profession. Given these forces, any cause celebre that facilitated movements already underway could have been more celebre than cause. One can see how the Huxley-Wilberforce story could be blown out of proportion. It became a distortion, exploited by an avant garde ready to claim its portion by extortion.The upshot was that science was taken captive by materialism, not by force of evidence, but by revolutionary tactics of agenda-driven advocates on a turf war against a weakened church (whose own leaders were either undermining the historical foundations of the faith, or were living lives inconsistent with the teachings of Christ). By 1874, in a presidential address to the British Association, John Tyndall had pretty much established the claim of institutionalized naturalistic science to explore anything and everything it desired, including origins, meaning and ultimate destiny, baptizing its speculations (e.g., 01/17/2007) in the name of science (see James Clerk Maxwell’s satirical poem in the 08/10/2005 commentary). This went far beyond the first limited claims by Darwin to explain the origin of species. Like communists, the Darwinites seldom concede power once they have usurped it. That explains the histrionics of today’s professional science elites when creationism and intelligent design proponents, despite a much longer experience in natural philosophy, move to reassert rights to their historic domains of inquiry (e.g., 01/11/2007, 01/06/2007).Samuel Wilberforce’s fight against the incipient intellectual slavery of science to materialism is another story that must be told, because the Darwinite propaganda and subterfuge continues unabated to this day. There are only preliminary signs its grip is weakening. The science of the 21st century is too big a challenge for an outdated, simplistic philosophy devised by a 19th century bearded Buddha and his disciples.Meanwhile, go see Amazing Grace: the Movie. It’s an excellent use of the film medium to educate and inspire. Here is a movie that brings to life a period of history that should be known by everyone. Watching William Wilberforce struggle through the darkest days of opposition presents a sober lesson: never underestimate the lengths to which those who allow evil to exist will rationalize their positions with pragmatic and intellectual-sounding arguments – as his son Samuel Wilberforce would discover again in 1860. But never underestimate also the power of perseverance and the courage of rightly-based convictions. And, as the film illustrates, a little creativity and strategizing can help when dealing with entrenched, self-serving interests.(Visited 52 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
In a series of five articles, we share stories from Gift of the Givers volunteers in their own words as the organisation marks its 25th year of serving humanity. Dr Livan Meneses-Turino is an orthopaedic surgeon and in this, the final article, he describes Gift of the Givers as a family. He joined in 2010, and has never regretted serving mankind.Dr Livan Meneses-Turino with children he helped in the Philippines. (Image: Gift of the Givers)Sulaiman PhilipDr Livan Meneses-Turino: HOD of Orthopaedic Surgery in Northdale Hospital, PietermaritzburgWe are very often faced with decisions that are considered life or death. I hope and pray that those decisions are forgiven.In Haiti, we were faced with many casualties needing urgent attention. I remember a young man who had been trapped under the rubble. His left arm was severly damaged. Dr Duwayne Carlson, an American orthopaedic surgeon, spent the entire night trying to save his limb but could not stop the bleeding. My team mate, Dr Johnny de Beer, decided to perform an amputation of the patient’s upper limb to save his life. Carlson was devastated, but we prayed together and he came to understand that our mission involved the need to make aggressive decisions quickly to save lives.I came to South Africa from Cuba in 2001 as part of a programme to bring Cuban doctors to work in areas where doctors were scarce. My first mission with Gift of the Givers was to Haiti in 2010, and I’ve been a part of this family since then and have never regretted a single minute spent serving our fellow humans.In Palestine, volunteers got to teach surgical methods that had never been practiced there before, (Image: Gift of the Givers)I am a trauma doctor and orthopaedic surgeon, these are my modest skills, but I have been an assistant nurse, organiser, handyman. Like everyone else, I am there to do whatever is needed on a mission.Dr Meneses-Turino at work saving lives in Nepal. (Image: Gift of the Givers)If I am away from the hospital, whether I’m on holiday or abroad at conferences or congresses, I let Imtiaaz know so he can contact me in case of emergencies. My bags are always ready because I am among the first group that goes. I save my leave days to use for missions, but if I am called, my management board and colleagues are quick to back me. It is always difficult to leave our families behind but it is our duty to serve, and we could not do it without the help and understanding of the people around us.Its something I see with Gift of the Givers, we give without expecting anything in return. We serve, no we are blessed, to have a leader like Dr Sooliman who was sent from above. [He] is the most humble and dedicated person I have ever come across.I learnt in Haiti that to be succesful in what we do we need to be organised and prepared, and not just from a professional perspective but psychologically and spiritually as well, and Dr Sooliman is the calm centre that makes that possible.I pray that I am given the strength to continue to serve. Not only because we offer assistance where and whenever it is needed, but also because I learn so much and we leave behind a legacy. Going to Palestine in 2014 was one of the best things that has happened to me. There were 100 volunteers and I was one of only 10 that were allowed to enter. I was able to train Palestinian surgeon on how to do a pelvic surgery, a skill that had never been developed there.Dr Meneses-Turino in Nepal after the earthquake. (Image: Gift of the Givers)Another example came from our service in Nepal after the earthquake in 2015. When we arrived we found that surgeons were struggling with the number of casualties suffering from pelvic fracture injuries. Pelvic surgery is my sub speciality, so we decied the best way forward was to teach local surgeons how to treat this trauma. In the beginning we operated together with Nepalese surgeons, but soon they were doing cases on their own. I was at the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT) Congress in Austria this year and saw a paper about pelvic and acetabular surgery written by doctors from the Nepal Medical College Teaching Hospital in Kathmandu. That was such a heartwarming surprise.Our first profile was on medical co-ordinator, Dr YM Essack. Click here to read more.To find out how beekeeper, Owen Williams, has contributed to the organisation, click here.Emily Thomas, who works in logitistics at Gift of the Givers shares her story.Ahmed Bham is the head of search and rescue. Read his story here.The Gift of the Givers volunteers consider themselves part of one large family. (Image: Gift of the Givers)Would you like to use this article in your publication or on your website? See Using Brand South Africa material.
World’s 50 Best Restaurants launches new drinking and dining guide TNT’s Pogoy scoreless since career performance in Game 1 Heruela finished with five points, two assists, a rebound, and a steal with no turnovers in his 14 minutes on the floor, but more importantly, he also hounded Jayson Castro on defense which added to the struggles of the KaTropa’s main gunner.June Mar Fajardo said he’s no longer surprised with the way Heruela is playing in the finals.After all, he’s the same guy who proved to be the perfect backcourt partner for the now three-time PBA MVP back in their days in University of Cebu.“We know what Brian can do. since his days in Blackwater, he was the starting point guard and we know he can contribute to the team. I’m just happy for him that he came in and was able to help us out,” Fajardo said in Filipino.Heruela shunned the praises and credited the huge second half spurt to San Miguel’s execution as a cohesive unit.ADVERTISEMENT Brian Heruela. PBA IMAGESBrian Heruela may be San Miguel’s third-string point guard, but for the second straight game, he has proven that he’s just as good as any starting playmaker in the league today.Starting in place of Chris Ross in the second half, the stocky guard filled the role admirably in Game 3 of the 2017 PBA Commissioner’s Cup Finals as he orchestrated a pivotal 16-5 run which tilted the momentum to the Beermen’s side en route to a 109-97 victory over TNT on Sunday.ADVERTISEMENT Heart Evangelista admits she’s pregnant… with chicken “I think it’s a collective effort from the whole team,” he said. “Me personally, I just want to play hard and do the best way I can to help my team in every way. Good thing that we had a good run, we executed well, and we’re able to have good defense which is why things went our way.”Though he’s not expecting anything in the coming games, Heruela shared that as always, he’s ready anytime coach Leo Austria calls his number.“I always prepare myself mentally and physically. Whenever coach puts me in, I’m always ready,” he said.Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next What ‘missteps’? WATCH: Firefighters rescue baby seal found in parking garage 1 dead in Cavite blast, fire MOST READ Ethel Booba on hotel’s clarification that ‘kikiam’ is ‘chicken sausage’: ‘Kung di pa pansinin, baka isipin nila ok lang’ Heruela was making all the right plays that Ross almost didn’t want to go back in the game in fears of ruining San Miguel’s flow.“I was telling the coaches in the third quarter, ‘Don’t worry about me. Let them play, let those guys play and get their confidence because we have a really talented team from all the way down to the last man on the bench.’ Everyone’s capable of contributing and coach has a way and its won us a lot of titles, but when those guys get their numbers called, they’re ready and they produced for us,” he said.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSSEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completionSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSMalditas save PH from shutoutRoss also gave Heruela his stamp of approval.“He was amazing, man. When I got the flagrant one, he came in and we didn’t miss a beat.” Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss PLAY LIST 02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Cayetano to unmask people behind ‘smear campaign’ vs him, SEA Games Lacson: SEA Games fund put in foundation like ‘Napoles case’ LATEST STORIES View comments
World champion Tejaswini Sawant came up with a lacklustre effort, getting beaten to the gold by Madhya Pradesh’s Rajkumari Rathore in the women’s 50m rifle prone at the 54th National Shooting Championships in Delhi on Friday.Rajkumari, who was on a break from shooting in the last year-and-a-half for having a baby, shot 592 out of 600 to clinch top spot in this non-Olympic event, in which no final is held. Meena Kumari of Himachal Pradesh finished second with 591 while Tejaswini, representing Maharashtra, was third with 589.However, the efforts of Tejaswini, Deepali Deshpande and Tejaswini Mulay gave Maharashtra the senior team gold with a total score of 1750, with army taking the silver and Railways the bronze. Karnataka’s Rekha C. took the juniors’ gold with a score of 586, while the junior team gold went to Madhya Pradesh.Rajkumari, 28, told Mail Today after her match that the key to her success had been a will to compete with herself. “Basically I didn’t go into the match thinking about the fact that I was shooting against the world champion or anything. It was just a case of trying to better my own score and that happened, so I’m very happy,” she said.When asked about how she manages her shooting and family, Rajkumari said: “My husband’s mental support is something I really appreciate, because I don’t have a coach. Also, nowadays, leaving my one-and-a-half year old daughter, Sanskriti, is difficult for me but in the last two World Cups that I competed in last year and also here, I have left her behind because my mother-in-law takes great care of her.”advertisementMeanwhile, the men’s 10m air rifle also got underway on Friday with India’s first individual Olympic gold medallist, Abhinav Bindra, leading the way. Bindra shot with a rifle bearing a logo that said – ‘Ready for London’. However, his score of just 592 out of 600 did not indicate he really was ready. Hardeep Singh (591) of the army lies second, with Karnataka’s Rakesh Manpat (590) and navy’s PT Raghunath (589) close behind. World record holder Gagan Narang will compete on Saturday, after which the final will be contested.In another event on the day, Jaspal Rana made a storming start to the rapid-fire pistol, finishing up with a score of 285 out of 300 in the first stage of the two-stage competition. Rana, representing Delhi, is currently placed second, along with army’s Pemba Tamang and navy’s Rahul Panwar, with another armyman, Commonwealth Games gold medallist Vijay Kumar, in the lead at 289. The second stage and the final – which will be played in a new format devised by the International Shooting Sports Federation – will be held on Saturday.Mansher leads in trialSingh took the lead on Day 1 of the first trial with a score of 73 out of 75. Mansher, who has been a constant feature in the national team since the early 1980s, overcame a major disappointment in the national final last week – where he finished fourth – to reel off scores of 24, 25 and 24 in the three rounds.National champion Manavjit Singh Sandhu and junior champion Kynan Chenai trail Mansher by two points.In the skeet trial being conducted simultaneously, army shooter Allan Daniel Peoples shot a brilliant score of 75 out of 75 to lead the way, ahead of Arozepal Sandhu (73) and national champ Mairaj Ahmad Khan (72).The final two rounds in both these events will take place on Saturday, with a second trial to be held on Monday and Tuesday.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.