물은 답을 알고있다.-과학적 검증에 실패한 테마를 어떻게 볼것인가.-에모토 마사루

 

www.utube.com

keyword :emoto masaru

江本勝 wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto

 

Masaru emoto's website:

http://www.masaru-emoto.net/

 

 

많은 과학기관의 검증을통한 결과 어느 것도 인증을 받는데 실패했다는 기사로 귀결된다.

 

브러그 주인 송화강 기록 2012.11.19일

 

그럼 에모토 마사루의 예기를 직접 들어보자.

 

 

.

Criticism

 

Commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls,^[8] and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community.^[9] In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings.^[10]

In 2003, James Randi publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study.^[11]

In 2005, Kristopher Setchfield published a paper^[12] that analyzed deeper motives regarding Emoto's study. In his paper, Setchfield writes,

Unfortunately for his credibility with the scientific community, Dr. Emoto sells products based on his claims. For example, the products page of Emoto's Hado website is currently offering "geometrically perfect" "Indigo water" that is "highly charged hexagonally structured concentrate," and supposedly creates "structured water" that is "more easily assimilated at the cellular level" for $35 for an eight-ounce bottle. Without providing scientific research references for the allegedly amazing qualities of his Indigo Water, Emoto's commercial venture calls to mind ethical concerns regarding his intent and motivation—questions that would not be present if any scientist had published research supporting his claims.

[edit] Blinded studies

In 2006, Emoto published a paper together with Dean Radin in Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing. They describe that in a double blind test they conducted, 2000 people in Tokyo could increase the aesthetic appeal of water stored in a room in California solely through thought.^[13]

A better-controlled "triple-blind" follow-up study published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration did not yield positive results. More than 1,900 of Mr. Emoto's followers focused gratitude on water bottles in a vault over a period of three days. The water was then frozen and compared to two different sets of controls. Crystals from all three groups were not considered to be particularly beautiful (scoring 1.7 on a scale of 0 to 6, where 6 was very beautiful). An objective comparison of contrast did not reveal any significant differences among the samples.^[14]

Physician Harriet A. Hall wrote that "This watery fantasy is all very entertaining and imaginative, full of New Age feel-good platitudes, holistic oneness, consciousness raising, and warm fuzzies; but it's hard to see how anyone could mistake it for science."^[1]

 

Books

Emoto has sold 2 million copies of his books.^[15]

• Messages from Water, Vol. 1 (June 1999), Hado Publishing, ISBN 4-939098-00-1
• Messages from Water, Vol. 2 (November 2001), Sunmark Pub. ISBN 0-7881-2927-9
• The Hidden Messages in Water (April 2004 Eng., 2001 Jap.), Beyond Words Publishing ISBN 1-58270-162-8
• The Message from Water III: Love Thyself (January 2006), published by Hay House ISBN 1-4019-0899-3
• Water Crystal Healing: Music & Images to Restore Your Well Being (17 October 2006), published by Atria Books ISBN 1-58270-156-3
• The Shape of Love: Discovering Who We Are, Where We Came From, and Where We are Going, Doubleday, 2007. ISBN 978-0-385-51837-6

[edit] See also

• Water memory
• Polywater
• Penta Water
• Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab
• Pseudoscience
• Water (2006 film)

[edit] References

1. ^ ^{a b} Harriet Hall. "Masaru Emoto's Wonderful World of Water". Skeptical Inquirer (Nov/Dec 2007). http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1144934/masaru_emotos_wonderful_world_of_water.
2. ^ "The minds boggle". The Guardian. 16 May 2005. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/may/16/g2.science.
3. ^ ^{a b} "Masaru Emoto: Biography & Resources" (HTML). EnlightenNext.org. http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/bios/masaru-emoto.asp. Retrieved 2010-03-24.^{[unreliable source?]}
4. ^ Gary Greenberg. "There's no evidence water can understand human speech". Letters to the editor, The Maui News. http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/16702.html.
5. ^ "Authors: Masaru Emoto" (HTML). Beyond Words. http://www.beyondword.com/authors/detail/845/dr_masaru_emoto. Retrieved 2010-03-24.^{[unreliable source?]}
6. ^ "International Water For Life Foundation". http://www.internationalwaterforlifefoundation.org/. Retrieved 1 December 2011.
7. ^ "How to Take a Water Crystal Photograph" (HTML). Masaru-Emoto.net. http://www.masaru-emoto.net/english/ediary200609.html#0915. Retrieved 2011-10-10.
8. ^ Dr. William A. Tiller, another researcher featured in the movie What The Bleep Do We Know?, has pointed out that Emoto's experiments fall short of proof, since Emoto's experiments 'do not control for one of the three key factors in the supercooling of water'. Tiller, William (2005). "What the Bleep do we Know!?: A Personal Narrative". Vision In Action 2 (3-4). http://66.201.42.16/viewitem.php3?id=910&catid=510&kbid=ionsikc.^{[dead link]}
9. ^ Mae-Wan Ho. "Crystal Clear - Messages from Water". Science in Society. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/water4.php.
10. ^ For example, see Radin et al., 2006, page 408.
    See also "Water:The Quantum Elixir". New Scientist (2546). April 8, 2006. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025461.200-water-the-quantum-elixir.html.
11. ^ Talking to Water, Commentary, by James Randi, May 23, 2003.
12. ^ Review and analysis of Dr. Masaru Emoto's published work on the effects of external stimuli on the structural formation of ice crystals
13. ^ Radin, Dean; Hayssen1, Gail; Emoto, Masaru ; Kizu, Takashige (September 2006). "Double-Blind Test of the Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation". Explore: the Journal of Science and Healing 2 (5): 408–11. doi:10.1016/j.explore.2006.06.004. PMID 16979104. http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(06)00327-2/fulltext. Retrieved 2008-08-05.
14. ^ Spirituality & Health Magazine
15. ^ Barcelona seminar, September 14, 2006 entry on Emoto's website

[edit] Further reading

• Sheridan, Patricia (September 26, 2005). "Masaru Emoto". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05269/577778.stm. Retrieved 2007-05-19.
• Lafee, Scott (March 22, 2006). "Money can buy love – an additive to bottled water". The San Diego Union-Tribune. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060322/news_1c22singular.html. Retrieved 2007-05-19.
• Felt, Susan (April 27, 2005). "Good vibes: Author says water holds love, gratitude". The Arizona Republic. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/arizonaliving/articles/0427emotoqqnda270.html. Retrieved 2007-05-20.
• Norrell, Brenda (March 16, 2004). "News from the Southwest". Indian Country Today. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. http://web.archive.org/web/20070927172553/http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1079449171. Retrieved 2007-05-20.
• Berlin, David (February 10, 2007). "Let them count the ways to court your sweetie". The San Diego Union-Tribune. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070210/news_1b10vday.html. Retrieved 2007-05-20.
• Pasternack, Nancy (February 12, 2005). "Water-enlightening doctor comes to S.C.". Santa Cruz Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2007-09-30. http://web.archive.org/web/20070930200936/http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/February/12/local/stories/11local.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-20.
• Zander, Carly (October 13, 2005). "Global Water Guru Considers Research Center in Big Bear, Says the Native Voices Foundation". Send2Press. http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2005-10-1013-003.shtml. Retrieved 2007-05-20.

[edit] External links

• Masaru Emoto's web site
• Emoto's section of the web site of the movie What the #$*! Do We Know!?
• Masaru Emoto at IMDb
• James Randi's 1 million dollar challenge
• Gary Greenberg, a biomedical researcher and artist with patents for microscopes, challenges Emoto to explain why his work has not been peer reviewed
• Research paper on Emoto's findings
• Water-related pseudoscience

• Water memory

  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Jump to: navigation, search

  "Memory of water" redirects here. For the Spanish-Argentine film, see Memory of Water (film).

  Water memory

  Claims	Under certain circumstances water can retain a "memory" of solute particles after arbitrarily large dilution.
  Related scientific disciplines	Chemistry, Medicine
  Year proposed	1988
  Original proponents	Jacques Benveniste
  Subsequent proponents	Brian Josephson, Madeleine Ennis, Martin Chaplin, Luc Montagnier various homeopaths
  Pseudoscientific concepts

  Water memory is the claimed ability of water to retain a "memory" of substances previously dissolved in it to arbitrary dilution. No scientific evidence supports this claim.^[1][2] Shaking the water at each stage of a serial dilution is claimed to be necessary for an effect to occur.^[3] The concept was proposed by Jacques Benveniste to explain the purported therapeutic powers of homeopathic remedies, which are prepared by diluting solutions to such a high degree that not even a single molecule of the original substance remains in most final preparations. Benveniste sought to prove this basic tenet of homeopathy by conducting an experiment to be published "independently of homeopathic interests" in a major journal.^[4]

  While some studies, including Benveniste's, have reported such an effect, double-blind replications of the experiments involved have failed to reproduce the result. The concept is not consistent with accepted scientific laws and is not accepted by the scientific community.^[5][6] Liquid water does not maintain ordered networks of molecules for longer times than a small fraction of a nanosecond.^[7]

  Contents  [hide]  1 The Nature controversy 2 Subsequent research 3 See also 4 References 5 External links

  [edit] The Nature controversy

  In the original study,^[4] French immunologist Jacques Benveniste's team at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) diluted a solution of human antibodies to such a degree that there was virtually no possibility that a single molecule remained. Nonetheless, they reported, human basophils responded to the solutions just as though they had encountered the original antibody (part of the allergic reaction). The effect was reported only when the solution was shaken violently during dilution. Benveniste stated: "It's like agitating a car key in the river, going miles downstream, extracting a few drops of water, and then starting one's car with the water." ^[5] At the time, Benveniste offered no theoretical explanation for the effect.

  Benveniste submitted the research to the prominent science journal Nature for publication. There was concern on the part of Nature's editorial oversight board that the material, if published, would lend credibility to homeopathic practitioners even if the effects were not replicable.^[5] There was equal concern that the research was simply wrong, given the changes that it would demand of the known laws of physics and chemistry. The editor of Nature, John Maddox, stated that, "Our minds were not so much closed as unready to change our whole view of how science is constructed."^[5] Rejecting the paper on any objective grounds was deemed unsupportable, as there were no methodological flaws apparent at the time.

  In the end, a compromise was reached. The paper was published in Nature Vol. 333 on 30 June 1988,^[3] but it was accompanied with an editorial by Maddox that noted "There are good and particular reasons why prudent people should, for the time being, suspend judgment" and described some of the fundamental laws of chemistry and physics which it would violate, if shown to be true.^[1] Additionally, Maddox demanded that the experiments be re-run under the supervision of a hand-picked group of what became known as "ghostbusters", including Maddox, famed magician-cum-paranormal researcher James Randi, and Walter W. Stewart, a physicist and freelance debunker at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.^[8]

  In the first series of supervised experiments, the original experimental procedure was followed as it had been when the paper was first submitted for publication. The experiments were successful, matching the published data quite closely. However, Maddox noted that during the procedure the experimenters were aware of which test tubes originally contained the antibodies and which did not. A second experimental series was started with Maddox and his team in charge of the double-blinding; notebooks were photographed, the lab videotaped, and vials juggled and secretly coded. Randi went so far as to wrap the labels in newspaper^[9], seal them in an envelope, and then stick them on the ceiling so Benveniste and his colleagues could not read them. No memory effect was observed in the blinded experiments.

  Nature published a follow-up report in the next issue:^[10] "We conclude that there is no substantial basis for the claim that anti-IgE at high dilution (by factors as great as 10¹²⁰) retains its biological effectiveness, and that the hypothesis that water can be imprinted with the memory of past solutes is as unnecessary as it is fanciful." Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of fraud; Maddox and his team initially speculated that someone in the lab "was playing a trick on Benveniste,"^[5] but later concluded, "We believe the laboratory has fostered and then cherished a delusion about the interpretation of its data." Maddox also pointed out that two of Benveniste's researchers were being paid for by the French homeopathic company Boiron.

  In a response letter published in the same issue of the journal, Benveniste lashed out at Maddox and complained about the "ordeal" he endured at the hands of the Nature team, comparing it to "Salem witchhunts or McCarthy-like prosecutions."^[11] In both the Nature response and a following Quirks and Quarks episode, Benveniste especially complained about Stewart, who he stated acted as if they were all frauds and treated them with disdain, complaining about his "typical know-it-all attitude". In his Nature letter, Benveniste also implied that Randi was attempting to hoodwink the experimental run by doing magic tricks, "distracting the technician in charge of its supervision!" He was more apologetic on Quirks and Quarks, re-phrasing his mention of Randi to imply that he had kept the team amused with his tricks and that his presence was generally welcomed. He also pointed out that although it was true two of his team-members were being paid for by a homeopathic company, the same company had paid for Maddox's team's hotel bill.

  Maddox was unapologetic, stating "I'm sorry we didn't find something more interesting." on the same Quirks and Quarks show he dismissed Benveniste's complaints, stating that the possibility that the results would be unduly promoted by the homeopathy community demanded an immediate re-test. In failing, the tests demonstrated that the initial results were likely due to the experimenter effect. He also pointed out that the entire test procedure that Benveniste later complained about was one that had been agreed upon in advance by all parties. It was only when the test then failed that Benveniste disputed its appropriateness.

  The debate continued in the letters section of Nature for several issues before being ended by the editorial board. It continued in the French press for some time.^[12] For all of the arguing over the retests, it has done nothing to stop what Maddox worried about; even in the light of their failure they are still used to claim that the experiments "prove" that homeopathy works.^[13] one of Benveniste's co-authors on the Nature paper, Francis Beauvais, later stated that while unblinded experimental trials usually yielded "correct" results (i.e. ultradiluted samples were biologically active, controls were not), "the results of blinded samples were almost always at random and did not fit the expected results: some 'controls' were active and some 'active' samples were without effect on the biological system."^[14]

  [edit] Subsequent research

  In the cold fusion or polywater controversies many scientists started replications immediately, because the underlying theories didn't go directly against scientific fundamental principles and could be accommodated with a few tweaks to those principles.^[15] But Benveniste's experiment went directly against several principles, causing most researchers to outright reject the results as errors or fabrication, with only a few researchers willing to perform replications or experiments that could validate his theories.^[15]

  After the Nature controversy, Benveniste gained the public support of Brian Josephson,^[16] a Nobel laureate physicist with a reputation for openness to paranormal claims. Experiments continued along the same basic lines, culminating with a 1997 paper claiming the effect could be transmitted over phone lines.^[17] This was followed by two additional papers in 1999^[18] and another on remote-transmission in 2000 by which time it was claimed that it could also be sent over the Internet.^[19]

  Time magazine reported in 1999 that, in response to skepticism from physicist Robert Park, Josephson had challenged the American Physical Society (APS) to oversee a replication by Benveniste. This challenge was to be "a randomized double-blind test", of his claimed ability to transfer the characteristics of homeopathically diluted water over the Internet.^[20] The APS accepted the challenge and offered to cover the costs of the test. When he heard of this, Randi also offered to throw in the long-standing $1 million prize for any positive demonstration of the paranormal, to which Benveniste replied: "Fine to us."^[21] in his DigiBio NewsLetter. However, Randi later noted that Benveniste and Josephson did not follow up on their challenge, mocking their silence on the topic as if they were missing persons.^[22]

  An independent test of the 2000 remote-transmission experiment was carried out in the USA by a team funded by the United States Department of Defense. Using the same experimental devices and setup as the Benveniste team, they failed to find any effect when running the experiment. Several "positive" results were noted, however, but only when a particular one of Benveniste's researchers was running the equipment. "We did not observe systematic influences such as pipetting differences, contamination, or violations in blinding or randomization that would explain these effects from the Benveniste investigator. However, our observations do not exclude these possibilities."

  Benveniste admitted to having noticed this himself. "He stated that certain individuals consistently get digital effects and other individuals get no effects or block those effects."^[23]

  Third-party attempts at replication of the Benveniste experiment have failed to produce positive results that could be independently replicated. In 1993, Nature published a paper describing a number of follow-up experiments that failed to find a similar effect,^[24] and an independent study published in Experientia in 1992 showed no effect.^[25] An international team led by Professor Madeleine Ennis of Queen's University of Belfast claimed in 1999 to have replicated the Benveniste results.^[26][27] Randi then forwarded the $1 million challenge to the BBC Horizon program to prove the "water memory" theory following Ennis' experimental procedure. In response, experiments were conducted with the Vice-President of the Royal Society, Professor John Enderby, overseeing the proceedings. The challenge ended with no memory effect observed by the Horizon team.^[28] For a piece on homeopathy, the ABC program 20/20 also attempted, unsuccessfully, to reproduce Ennis's results.^[29]

  Research published in 2005 on hydrogen bond network dynamics in water showed that "liquid water essentially loses the memory of persistent correlations in its structure" within fifty millionths of a nanosecond.^[7]

  [edit] See also

  • List of experimental errors and frauds in physics
  • List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
  • Pathological science
  • Pseudoscience
  • Scientific misconduct
  • Masaru Emoto

  [edit] References

  1. ^ ^{a b} Anonymous [John Maddox] (1988). "When to believe the unbelievable". Nature 333 (6176): 787–787. Bibcode 1988Natur.333Q.787.. doi:10.1038/333787a0. PMID 3386722.
  2. ^ See Mole (unit) and Homeopathy for more detailed information on how we can calculate the original number of molecules.
  3. ^ ^{a b} E. Dayenas; F. Beauvais, J. Amara , M. Oberbaum, B. Robinzon, A. Miadonna, A. Tedeschit, B. Pomeranz, P. Fortner, P. Belon, J. Sainte-Laudy, B. Poitevin and J. Benveniste (30 June 1988). "Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE" (PDF). Nature 333 (6176): 816–818. Bibcode 1988Natur.333..816D. doi:10.1038/333816a0. PMID 2455231. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v333/n6176/pdf/333816a0.pdf. Retrieved 2007-06-05.
  4. ^ ^{a b} Poitevin, Bernard (2005). "Jacques Benveniste: a personal tribute". Homeopathy 94 (2): 138–139. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2005.02.004.
  5. ^ ^{a b c d e} John Langone (8 August 1988). "The Water That Lost Its Memory". Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,968080,00.html. Retrieved 2007-06-05.
  6. ^ P. Ball (8 August 2007). "Here lies one whose name is writ in water". Nature. doi:10.1038/news070806-6. http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070806/full/news070806-6.html. Retrieved 2011-02-13.
  7. ^ ^{a b} Cowan ML; Bruner BD; Huse N et al. (2005). "Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H₂O". Nature 434 (7030): 199–202. Bibcode 2005Natur.434..199C. doi:10.1038/nature03383. PMID 15758995.
  8. ^ Robert Sheaffer (January / February 1998), column "Psychic Vibrations", "E-mailed Antigens and Iridium’s Iridescence", Skeptical Inquirer 22.1, http://www.csicop.org/si/show/e-mailed_antigens_and_iridiumrsquos_iridescence/
  9. ^ James Randi in interview for BBC Horizon: Homeopathy The Test, 26/11/2002
  10. ^ J. Maddox; J. Randi, W. W. Stewart (28 July 1988). ""High-dilution" experiments a delusion" (PDF). Nature 334 (6180): 287–290. Bibcode 1988Natur.334..287M. doi:10.1038/334287a0. PMID 2455869. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v334/n6180/pdf/334287a0.pdf. Retrieved 2007-06-05.
  11. ^ J. Benveniste (28 July 1988). "Dr Jacques Benveniste replies" (PDF). Nature 334 (6180): 291–291. Bibcode 1988Natur.334..291B. doi:10.1038/334291a0. Archived from the original on 2007-02-25. http://web.archive.org/web/20070225102815/http://br.geocities.com/criticandokardec/benveniste02.pdf. Retrieved 2007-06-05.
  12. ^ P. Coles (28 July 1988). "Benveniste controversy rages on in the French press". Nature 334 (6181): 372–372. Bibcode 1988Natur.334..372C. doi:10.1038/334372a0. PMID 2457165.
  13. ^ Homeopathy breakthrough
  14. ^ Memory of water and blinding, Francis Beauvais, Homeopathy, 97(1):41-42, January 2008.
  15. ^ ^{a b} Philip Ball (2001), Life's matrix: a biography of water (illustrated, reprinted ed.), University of California Press, p. 328, ISBN 978-0-520-23008-8, http://books.google.com/books?id=vPVdHwpkfu0C
  16. ^ Brian Josephson, molecule memories, New Scientist letters, 1 November 1997
  17. ^ J. Benveniste; P. Jurgens, W. Hsueh and J. Aissa (21–26 February 1997). "Transatlantic Transfer of Digitized Antigen Signal by Telephone Link". Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
  18. ^ J. Benveniste; Aissa, J., Guillonnet. "The molecular signal is not functional in the absence of "informed water"". Medical Hypotheses 54 (A163 (abstr.)).
  19. ^ J. Benveniste; Thomas Y, Schiff M, Belkadi L, Jurgens P, Kahhak L (2000). "Activation of human neutrophils by electronically transmitted phorbol-myristate acetate". FASEB Journal 13 (1): 33–39. doi:10.1054/mehy.1999.0891. PMID 10790721.
  20. ^ Leon Jaroff, Homeopathic E-Mail, Time Magazine, 17 May 1999]
  21. ^ Jacques Benveniste and Didier Guillonnet, DigiBio - NewsLetter 1999.2, "Demonstration challenge, etc." section
  22. ^ James Randi, Computer problems, a Nobel Laureate reneges, more magnetic shoes, the metric system, and ..., Commentary ,26 January 2001
  23. ^ Jonas, Wayne B.; John A. Ives, Florence Rollwagen, Daniel W. Denman, Kenneth Hintz, Mitchell Hammer, Cindy Crawford, and Kurt Henry (January 2006). "Can specific biological signals be digitized?". FASEB Journal 20 (1): 23–28. doi:10.1096/fj.05-3815hyp. PMID 16394263. http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/23. Retrieved 2007-06-05. — this paper includes an excellent references list.
  24. ^ Hirst S. J.; Hayes N. A., Burridge J., Pearce FL, Foreman JC. (9 December 1993). "Human basophil degranulation is not triggered by very dilute antiserum against human IgE". Nature 366 (5): 525–527. Bibcode 1993Natur.366..525H. doi:10.1038/366525a0. PMID 8255290.
  25. ^ Ovelgonne, J. H.; Bol, A. W., Hop, W. C., van Wijk, R (15 May 1992). "Mechanical agitation of very dilute antiserum against IgE has no effect on basophil staining properties". Experientia (Birkhäuser Verlag (part of Boiron)) 48 (5): 504–508. doi:10.1007/BF01928175. PMID 1376282.
  26. ^ P. Belon; J. Cumps, M. Ennis, P. F. Mannaioni, J. Sainte-Laudy, M. Roberfroid, F. A. C. Wiegant (April 1999). "Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: Results of a European multi-centre trial". Inflammation Research 48 (Supplement 1): 17–18. doi:10.1007/s000110050376. PMID 10350142.
  27. ^ Lionel Milgrom (2001-03-15). "Thanks for the memory. Experiments have backed what was once a scientific 'heresy', says Lionel Milgrom". The Guardian (Guardian Unlimited). http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2001/mar/15/technology2
  28. ^ "Homeopathy: The test. Transcript.". BBC Two. 2003-11-26, 9pm. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml. Retrieved 2007-03-04.
  29. ^ Stossel, John (2008). "Homeopathic Remedies - Can Water Really Remember?". 20/20 (ABC News). http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=124309. Retrieved 2008-01-22
• 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 무분별 수용해선 안 되는 이유

 

 

입력 : 2012.03.08 06:54

조덕영 박사의 창조신학

 

▲조덕영 박사

에모토 마사루 라는 일본인이 쓴 <물은 답을 알고 있다>라는 책의 내용을 기독교인들이 무분별하게 기독교의 변증 자료로 사용하는 것을 보게 된다. 이것은 그리 바람직하지 않다.

 

하늘에서 수증기 형태의 물들이 서로 붙어 얼게 되면 작은 얼음 알갱이들이 생겨나게 되는 데 이때 물 분자들이 서로 달라붙는 속도와 온도와 이에 따른 포화 상태에 따라 다양한 육각 대칭을 가진 아름다운 프랙탈(fractal) 모양이 생기게 된다.

온도에 따라 달라지는 눈 결정체의 모습은 다음과 같다.
① 영하 -5 ~ -10도일 때는 육각 원통형과 기둥형, 막대형 결정이 많이 만들어진다. 과포화상태(g/㎥)에 따라 결정체 모양이 달라지기도 한다. 원통 육각형 결정체는 주로 과포화 0.2g/㎥ 아래에서 많이 생기는 결정체이다.
② 영하 -5 ~ -10도일 때 과포화가 높아지면 원통형이 아닌 기다란 막대형 결정체가 만들어진다. 과포화가 0g/㎥에 가까우면 속이 꽉 찬 육각 기둥형이 된다.
③ 얇은 평면 육각형 결정체는 영하 아래에서 과포화 0.1g/㎥에서 많이 보인다. 추운 날 보이는 결정체 중에 가장 흔한 모양이기도 하다.
④ 부채꼴 모양 결정체는 영하 -10 ~ -22도 이하, 과포하 0.14g/㎥ 이상에서 만들어진다. 부채꼴도 생김새가 조금씩 다르다.
⑤ 별모양 결정체는 0 ~ 영하 -3.5도, 과포화 0.1g/㎥ 이상과 -10 ~ -21도, 0.2g/㎥ 이상일 때 주로 만들어진다.

이런 눈송이의 특징에 대해 처음 연구한 사람은 1611년 크리스천 과학자 요한 케풀러였다고 알려지고 있다. 오늘날과 같은 세밀한 연구는 아니었으나 지금으로부터 400년전 사람이었던 케플러의 탁월성(케플러의 신앙적 학문적 탁월성에 대해서는 필자가 쓴 <위대한 과학자들이 만난 하나님>을 참조할 것)을 알 수 있는 대목이다.

그 후 눈송이가 만들어지는 원리를 자세히 밝혀낸 사람은 미 캘리포니아 공대 물리학자 케네스 리브레히트였다. 미국의 윌슨 벤트리는 1936년 자신이 직접 제작한 특수 카메라로 평생 눈송이 사진 2 천여 장을 담아 책을 발간했다.

물이 아름답고 독특한 특이성을 가진 물질인 것은 사실이다. 하지만 물이 인간의 언어와 생각을 이해하고 기억한다는 주장은 별로 설득력이 있어 보이지는 않는다. 그리 과학적이지도 않고 전혀 성경적이지도 않다. animism이나 샤머니즘이나 범신론적, 만유내재신론(panentheism)적 사고는 성경적 사고가 아니다. 에모토 마사루의 책은 물이 얼면서 복잡하고 다양한 아름다운 육각형 결정을 만들어내는 신비를 아전인수적으로 해석한 범신론적, 만유재신론적 사고의 반영일 뿐이다.

더구나 일본 황실의 조상신인 아마테라스 오미카미(天照大神)라는 글을 보여주거나 미스터리 서클의 사진을 보여주거나 티베트의 경전을 들려주면 물은 아름다운 육각형 결정체가 보이는데, 우리 나라 아리랑 노래를 들려주면 찌그러지고 뭉개진 육각형의 모습을 보여주는 등 이런 황당한 엉터리 주장을 일부 기독교인들이나 일부 기독 언론들이 무분별하게 기독교를 변증하는 자료로 삼는다는 것은 우리 기독교인들이 얼마나 책을 제대로 읽지 않고 분별력과 판단력이 부족한 지를 보여주는 개탄스러운 일이다.

사실 이런 유사한 일들은 기독교 안에서 너무 많다. 앞으로 다시는 이런 무지한 일들이 제발 기독교 안에서 벌어지지 말았으면 한다.

* 이 글은 조덕영 박사의 ‘창조신학연구소’ 홈페이지(www.kictnet.net)에서 가져온 것입니다.

조덕영 박사는

환경화학 공학과 조직신학을 전공한 공학도이자 신학자다. 한국창조과학회 대표간사 겸 창조지 편집인으로 활동했고 지금은 여러 신학교에서 창조론을 강의하고 있는 창조론 전문가이기도 하다. 그가 소장으로 있는 ‘창조신학연구소’는 창조론과 관련된 방대한 자료들로 구성돼 목회자 및 학자들에게 지식의 보고 역할을 하고 있다. ‘기독교와 과학’ 등 20여 권의 역저서가 있으며, 다방면의 창조론 이슈들을 다루는 ‘창조론 오픈포럼’을 주도하고 있다.

 

 

그럼 에모도 마사루의 동영상을 직접 보기로 하자.