Weekend of skepticism: Bill Nye (The Science Guy) says in the video that those who believe in creationism hold a complicated and inconsistent worldview
Veteran science communicator Bill Nye hits on creationism in a new video in the Big Think series under the title "Creationism - not suitable for children.
Nye, known from his show "Bill Nye the Science Guy" says that in the US there is a huge human capital in the field of scientific knowledge and when "you have a high proportion of the population that does not believe in science, it causes us all to retreat".
"The world becomes incredibly complicated if you don't believe in evolution" he says in the video.
Evolution is the basic concept of the life sciences. in all of biology. It's like trying to understand geology without believing in plate tectonics. You just won't get the right answer. Your whole world will be a mysterious world instead of a fascinating place.
As my professor, Carl Sagan, said: When you're in love you want to tell the whole world. Thus, from time to time I meet people who seriously claim not to believe in evolution. And my answer is: "Well, why not? Your world only becomes complex when you don't believe in evolution. How do you explain ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, radioactivity, distant stars like our sun but at a different point in the life cycle. The idea of deep time, of billions of years, explains most of the world around us. If you try to ignore it. Your world view becomes crazy and inconsistent. I say to adults, if you want to deny evolution and live in your own world that is completely inconsistent with anything we observe in the universe that's fine, but don't let your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically educated people as the voters and taxpayers of the future. We need engineers who can build things, solve problems. It's really hard. In two hundred years this worldview will certainly not exist. There is no evidence to support it.
In the US, many believe in creation as it is described in the book of Genesis, during the six days of creation, each of which lasted 24 hours. These creationists, known as young earth creationists, often believe that the universe was created 6,000-10,000 years ago.
The Gallup company published last June that 46% of Americans believe in this extreme creationism, 32% believe in evolution but one that is guided by God, and only 15% of the American public believes in 'atheistic' evolution, i.e. the scientific truth.
In 1961, the book "The Flood of the Book of Genesis" was published, which in many ways nourished the young Haaretz creationist movement in the USA. The purpose of the book was to combine the scientific evidence with the content of the stories of creation and the flood in the book of Genesis.
The idea of creationism has been rejected by the scientific community since the publication of Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859.
Editor's note: If Nye had lived in Israel, he would have understood that the situation here is much more serious. The ultra-Orthodox, who are the equivalent sector to the Christian creationists of the USA, do not learn any scientific basis, but they sanctify the non-learning of even core subjects such as mathematics and English, so that their children cannot even become accountants and lawyers - not only engineers, and will continue to live forever At the expense of the tax payer sector which is shrinking, and unfortunately this issue is not even an ISSUE in the elections. Most of the American creationists work (although not as scientists - according to the surveys) and support their families and pay taxes.
83 תגובות
Rebbe of Lubbitch, leader of the Jews
xianghua,
Didn't we talk about how God of the Gaps arguments are the lamest arguments and every self-respecting creation runs away from them like fire?
We didn't talk about the fact that if you define a concept such as complex, you must share with us the definition of this concept. Don't keep the definition between you and the imaginary friend. that's not nice.
Didn't we agree not to say planner or planning but rather God? You already wrote it. why are you going back
Do you already admit that God is not a scientific theory, and therefore cannot replace another theory again?
Do you already understand that weakening one theory does not strengthen another theory?
Do you believe that God was created about 7000-6000 years ago?
xianghua,
Didn't we talk about how God of the Gaps arguments are the lamest arguments and every self-respecting creation runs away from them like fire?
We didn't talk about the fact that if you define a concept such as complex, you must share with us the definition of this concept. Don't keep the definition between you and the imaginary friend. that's not nice.
Didn't we agree not to say planner or planning but rather God? You already wrote it. why are you going back
Do you already admit that God is not a scientific theory, and therefore cannot replace another theory again?
Do you already understand that weakening one theory does not strengthen another theory?
Do you believe that God was created about 7000-6000 years ago?
xianghua
Life is not a ticking clock - it is much more complex than that - and it certainly does not require an intelligent planner.
The vast majority of scientists accept evolution - and this theory has never been disproved. I'm sorry to disappoint you my friend….
We have a great deal of evidence for the development of such a clock over billions of years. And let me tell you a secret (don't tell your friends please) - even without any evidence the theory of evolution is true and it provides the only explanation for life as we know it today. Read again - even without any sight!!!! Amazing, right?
Regarding the beginning of man - the meaning is that there is a developmental sequence from the first cell to every person and every animal production today.
And regarding dinosaurs - no, she is not wrong. A dinosaur is not a fish. Again, I'm sorry to disappoint you.
Hello again Camila,
The question here is very simple - does a multiplying clock require planning or not. And from your response I understand that no.
"The overwhelming majority of scientists accept process evolution as a scientific fact and the theory of evolution as a supremely elegant scientific theory, and one of the most important and confirmed in the world of science." - which is refuted almost every week.
"So there you have it, you got an answer, a clock like the one above actually exists and it was definitely created in a completely natural process and I'm telling you this as a scientist, so here we actually found it." - Nice. You agree that a breeding clock can be created by a natural process. Now that you've agreed we'll just see if this belief holds water.
Of course, the burden of proof is on the one making a strong claim. Do you have proof that such a clock could indeed evolve over millions of years? As a start we are supposed to show how a replication system is created in gradual steps. Do you know a scenario for the formation of such a system? Remember - every step on the way to a multiplying clock is critical. Every gap closed in faith actually leaves us with only one option - planning.
"That the age of the universe is not a small number of thousands of years but several billions of years, that the fossils, genetics, biochemistry, anatomy and zoology, all provide countless evidences that the theory of evolution is the best explanation, by far, "- you are right that it is by far, only in the other direction.
"For a huge variety of phenomena. Are you grasping these areas to support your claim that Adam had any beginning?" - So Adam did not have a beginning according to you?
"You're the forgetful one... quite a serious forgetfulness one must say. You mentioned, among other nonsense you wrote, the shark and the scarab as examples of dinosaurs. I explained to you that they do not belong in any way to the taxonomic group known as dinosaurs" - taxonomy is arbitrary, remind you. So you are wrong.
Ronit,
You're laughing, right?
Evolution is a theory without any scientific basis or serious proof.
Creationism was the correct explanation and the proof of this is that it is written in the Torah.
withering….
You are looking for logic where there is no desire to think. And the only thought there is lies.
You are right about everything. Not everything has a beginning. Not everything that looks "planned" requires an intelligent planner. But lies of idolaters and nothing else.
Evolution is an explanatory theory. It is based on a simple logical basis that, in my opinion, cannot be refuted. Beyond that - there are countless observations that confirm the Torah, and there is not a single observation that contradicts evolution.
The creationists are colossal idiots - they are climbing the wrong tree. Evolution does not explain the origin of life but only the development after a certain stage - the stage where DNA carries information.
They always fall into this trap and it amazes me every time.
xianghua
"The original claim is that something complex and with a beginning requires planning"
really? Was that the original claim? I encountered it for the first time only after the creationists realized they had a problem when they asserted their original claim: it (a watch, for example) is complex => proof that everything complex requires the existence of a planner. Maybe I just don't know the real history of this argument, can you show when the argument in the (innovative) formulation first appeared? By the way, if that wasn't the original wording of the argument, would that be proof that you're a lousy liar?
"A complex thing without a beginning does not require planning anyway. Very simple logic."
It's not simple logic, it's not logic at all, it's a tautology. It is equivalent to saying something like: it is so because it is so.
"By the way, this is not only a claim of creationists but of almost every scientist."
It's strange. I've been meeting with scientists on a daily basis for many years and I've never (never!) heard (in conversation and lecture) and never seen (in articles) such a claim expressed by them, do you have an idea how to explain the gap: 0 scientists out of many hundreds (maybe even thousands) that I've known/heard/read compared to your "almost every scientist"? Is there a situation where you are not very knowledgeable in the academic world and your level of familiarity with scientists is minimal to negligible?
"You will not find any scientist who admits that a watch (containing DNA), for example, can be produced by a natural process. Except for evolutionary scientists, apparently."
Let's start from Sipa, as you have already been told, the overwhelming majority of scientists accept the evolution process as a scientific fact and the theory of evolution as a supremely elegant scientific theory, and one of the most important and confirmed in the world of science.
Regarding the nonsense you wrote at the beginning of the sentence, for your information, scientists are the ones who discovered the phenomenon of molecular clocks that are found in many animals, and they, the scientists, were the ones who succeeded in deciphering the mechanism both at the biochemical level and at the genetic level (including the DNA code) that is responsible for the creation of the clock In a completely natural process - fact, this clock does not exist in the first stages of development and only later is it created and expressed in a completely natural process that is now known to us thanks to science. Ah, wait, you must have meant something else... the battered and old argument of the complex clock that evolved to be a replicating clock, that became a replicating robot, that became a replicating organic robot, all this following the discrimination that befell every previous version, when the last version mentioned in this sentence is excluded from nothing Like that because in fact, after evasions and contortions, it turned out that it is actually an organism after all and that your only reason for using such a strange phrase as "replicating organic robot" was because this phrase already contains what you wanted to "prove" (since we do not know of a robot whose creation was not involved planning). After this act of fraud was exposed, the expression went through another stage of evolution and is now: a clock containing DNA. So there you have it, a clock like the one above actually exists and it was definitely created in a completely natural process and I'm telling you this as a scientist, so here we actually found it.
"...man is known to have had some kind of beginning, and this is proven from the fields of physics, biology, geology and paleontology."
For a moment I rubbed my eyes... physics? Biology? geology? paleontology?! You rely on the same areas that the creationists are so stumped on because they state unequivocally that the reality as we understand it is that we are not at the center of the world, that the earth is the one that circles the sun and not the other way around, that the age of the universe is not a small number of thousands of years but several billions of years, that the fossils, Genetics, biochemistry, anatomy and zoology all provide innumerable evidence that the theory of evolution is the best explanation, by far, for a huge variety of phenomena. Are you holding on to these areas to support your claim that man had any beginning? And that proves in your opinion that he must have a planner?! Are you by any chance a relative of Yehuda Barkan?
"Exactly yes." did you forget According to the theory of evolution, birds are actually evolved dinosaurs. So from your point of view I understand that a chicken can also be considered a dinosaur. Blessed is the believer. And let me not believe in this nonsense."
It's you who is forgetful... quite a serious forgetfulness I must say. You mentioned, among other nonsense you wrote, the shark and the scarab as examples of dinosaurs. I explained to you that they do not belong in any way to the taxonomic group known as dinosaurs... Did you perhaps think to apologize to the lay readers who are not familiar with the facts and you are misleading them left and right? Don't you have any conscience?
"On the contrary, the best explanation for the similarity between two complex objects is that they were designed by the same designer. Just like two cars from the same manufacturer use many common components."
Ah, it's all clear now. This means that all the snowflakes in the world are made by this guy: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/
Are you claiming that since he learned how to make snowflakes there was no snow in the world?
And before you write back to me that this is a stupid example because we know that that guy only produces some of the flakes in the lab and that the rest of the snow is formed naturally... So think again about your robot/clock example and maybe from now on stop using such stupid examples...
And as for the last section... really, really.
So are you finally ready to tell us something about your god? Or is it still a secret imaginary friend?
Nte
I don't think that every scientific theory can necessarily be disproved. If it gives a good, logical and useful explanation, then the theory can definitely be true.
"The Origin of Species" was published, of course, in 1859, and not in 1959 as written.
Do you "believe" in evolution? I hope this is a translation problem. Does gravity also depend on belief? The beauty of science is that it is an ever-improving explanation of the universe and also makes predictions. He can be refuted and that is his whole strength. I wouldn't put it in the same line as creationism and using the same word - "faith" does exactly that
another one
I agree. I think this is not a question at all.
xianghua,
There is nothing like arguments and links to YouTube as scientific truth. I heard that this is how they proved the existence of the Higgs, through a clip on YouTube.
Again you bring the example of the clock with the dna? Didn't we talk about how you shouldn't use imaginary objects to try to contradict facts? It may be good to prove to yourself that that imaginary friend exists, the one you called the intelligent planner until I got you to admit that it is God, but it is not good enough to contradict facts.
Didn't we talk about how God of the Gaps arguments are the lamest arguments and every self-respecting creation runs away from them like fire?
We didn't talk about the fact that if you define a concept such as complex, you must share with us the definition of this concept. Don't keep the definition between you and the imaginary friend. that's not nice.
Do you already admit that God is not a scientific theory?
Do you already understand that weakening one theory does not strengthen another theory?
Do you believe that God was created about 7000-6000 years ago?
Miracles - "Why" - "For what purpose" - "Why, - "For what reason".
In other words, you are wrong in what you assume about me - stop assuming that I am someone else -
Where could it be implied from what I said that I understand the term 'why' in a different way.
Not that "why" is a much better question - 'why' is also a question that speaks to humans and therefore it too will slide into "theological" fields if you ask something along the lines of "why was there a big bang".
The question why has no place in science, at least not in exact science - in social sciences it is possible - but that was not the intention.
- Well, I understood what you meant - so we agree - asking "why was there a big bang" is not a scientific question.
withering
Don't be mad at xianghua. He is unjustifiably arrogant. He doesn't even understand his own faith.
He says, "You will not find any scientist who admits that a watch (containing DNA), for example, can be produced by a natural process. Except for evolutionary scientists, apparently."
He's just lying. Evolutionary scientists are all scientists. He does not deny evolution because he thinks it is not true. He denies her because she hurts the bird of his soul - a stupid belief.
He does not believe that a rooster is a descendant of a dinosaur. I don't remember being asked. This is a scientific theory that is uncertain. Smart people think it is, and it's only in recent years. It turns out that science is not acceptable to our little idolater.
His example of joint planning is idiotic. When you see two brothers - do you really think they have a common planner? Maybe co-parents?
It's funny to me that xianghua cites (false) claims of Protestant preachers to prove his points. This engraving in Cambodia is neither ancient nor convincing. It takes a lot of imagination to think it's a dinosaur - even the AIG website admits that the imagination is extremely weak.
withering,
"Creationists claim that a complex thing requires the existence of a planner. You claim that, not me. And then when you have to explain the existence of something incredibly complex like the intelligent planner, you suddenly contradict yourself and claim that it is actually possible that a complex thing does not require the existence of a planner." - The original claim is that something complex and having a beginning requires planning. A complex thing without a beginning does not require planning anyway. Very simple logic. By the way, this is not only a claim of creationists but of almost every scientist. You will not find any scientist who admits that a watch (containing DNA) for example can be produced by a natural process. Except for evolutionary scientists, apparently.
According to the logic of the claims you made, there is no problem that man, as a species, has existed since time immemorial without any need for a planner of any kind. "- absolutely not because man is known to have had any beginning, and this is proven from the fields of physics, biology, geology and paleontology.
"What is a dinosaur? Excellent question! There are fields called taxonomy and systematics in which organisms are grouped into groups with similar characteristics. If it interests you, you are welcome to look in the literature for what these characteristics are and prove that fish (such as the scarab and the shark) do not belong to this group. Do you understand that you cannot decide for yourself what is a dinosaur and what is not?" - Yes indeed. did you forget According to the theory of evolution, birds are actually evolved dinosaurs. So from your point of view I understand that a chicken can also be considered a dinosaur. Blessed is the believer. And let me not believe this nonsense.
"The best and simplest explanation we have today for the similarity between different organisms is the explanation of common origin," - on the contrary, the best explanation for the similarity between two complex objects is that they were designed by the same designer. Just like two cars of the same manufacturer use many common components.
"A search on the web shows that there are several examples mentioned by creationists in which dinosaurs are clearly drawn, but they do not look like authentic paintings at all but like souvenirs for tourists, and indeed a short search revealed that it is most likely a forgery, "- here is a specific example from the video, in which one clearly identifies Type of Stegosaurus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyY9Fuv3A9w&feature=related
Where exactly is the fake? And what do you say about all the 200 or so fossils that were found out of place and are well documented in the scientific literature? Are they all eye work? come on….
another one
I said that if there is someone who did something then science can in principle ask why he did it.
I see that we have a problem of understanding Hebrew here. What exactly do you mean by the word "why". I understand it - "for what purpose". You probably understand that "why".
I'm right?
I agree that today there is a religious war against evolution, big bang and nuclear studies and it is wrong.
Annie understands from the other side why Richard Dawkins insists on involving belief in the righteousness of the theory of evolution
In the absence of God. If he hadn't insisted, it is possible (and maybe I'm wrong) that there would have been more supporters of evolution, and the great flood of religious people who are closer to science. Today, the theory of evolution is on the defensive, reminiscent of a muster battle reminiscent of the second Middle Ages (or third if there was Atlantis). The forces fighting for science should shout with genius,
But they should have the wisdom, with whom to fight, and who is an ally, even though they think differently from him.
For them, admitting the correctness of evolution means no need for the existence of God. Some people this line of thought does not
Convinces them and they believe in a big bang 13.5 billion years ago, and in evolution with natural selection without any
Shortcut. They will allow each other the right to think, and they will join forces in the face of the darkness that covers our world in truth and not as a metaphor. As a result of the demographic increase: Muslim and ultra-Orthodox, there will be a growing gagging. The rabbinate in every religion holds its supporters by the power of the ignorance it takes care to preserve.
The debate is fundamental - between blind faith and the desire to investigate and doubt everything. This is the important debate, and in my opinion not
If God exists or not = it is a matter of free choice, as well as the way of defining what God is.
I don't assume anything.
I certainly don't assume that someone created the big bang.
"Why" is not a question that science can or should ask.
You are the one who said "Science does know how to answer this, on a principled level."
another one
Again... you assume there is someone who created the big bang. What is the purpose of the apple that just fell off my table?
You are absolutely right that these questions have no place in scientific thinking. And not anywhere else sane.
Miracles - what are the answers to the question why?
What was the purpose of the big bang? Why does the universe behave as it does and not otherwise?
Do you think science can answer such questions?!
These are questions that have no place in scientific thinking.
Do you have any 'why' that you think science answers?
withering
From everything you said, there is one thing I disagree with you. There is a fundamental difference between evolution and relativity. It is quite possible that in the future there will be a refinement of the theory of relativity, as Einstein did for Newton. The theory of relativity is a theory that describes and not a theory that explains. It is a mathematical model for the physical world and valid under certain constraints.
The theory of evolution is not descriptive - it provides an explanation. It's like the "theory" that a viper's bite is dangerous because it injects venom into the body.
And you can definitely see evolution happening around us 🙂 There is a number of evidences for this.
Miracles,
No, he's not kidding, that's what's so sad. Some people believe, against all the evidence, that humans lived in the same subjugation as the dinosaurs. The truth is that to me it is not fundamentally different from those who believe that the world is about 6000 years old. It is of course not surprising that there is an overlap between those who hold these two beliefs. What is sad is that such people who show an incredible ability to ignore facts, irrational thinking as well as poor moral values, try (even if not very successfully) to rot the whole box by trying to take over the children's education. To me it's not just bad behavior, it's really a crime against humanity. For the avoidance of doubt, I am in favor of voicing a variety of opinions, provided they have a real grip on reality and minimal logical cohesion. If there is not even that, then it is not fit for human "food".
xianghua
https://www.hayadan.org.il/bill-nye-million-views-video-on-creationism-271012/comment-page-2/#comment-366642
Creationists claim that a complex thing requires the existence of a planner. You claim that, not me. Then when you have to explain the existence of something incredibly complex like the intelligent planner, you suddenly contradict yourself and claim that it is actually possible that something complex does not require the existence of a planner. Decide, if you relied on the first claim to conclude the existence of the planner, you do not have the logical freedom to claim in the same breath that that planner is also the exception to the first claim. It doesn't even matter that the evidence shows this first claim to be completely false, even if it were true to the best of our knowledge, there is still no justification for making the second claim. Man is an intelligent planner who creates complex things, according to the logic of the claims you made there is no problem that man, as a species, has existed since time immemorial without any need for a planner of any kind. It is not understood why you try to push God where He is not required.
What is a dinosaur? Excellent question! There are fields called taxonomy and systematics in which organisms are grouped into groups with similar characteristics. If it interests you, you are welcome to look in the literature for what these characteristics are and prove that fish (such as the scarab and the shark) do not belong to this group. Do you realize that you cannot decide for yourself what is a dinosaur and what is not?
Unfortunately, you are confusing conventional science with pseudo-science and the creationists' distortion of science. The best, and simplest, explanation we have today for the similarity between different organisms is the explanation of common descent, this is true for man and the chimpanzee and it is also generally true for any two other organisms on this planet. When a better explanation is found, that does not raise even greater difficulties than what is being tried to explain and that does not require distortion of complete and independent fields of research such as geology, chemistry, physics, biology and statistics, as well as the use of failed logical statements, I would be happy (every scientist would be happy, not just me) to examine him in depth. Just as I believe in the existence of elementary particles and their physical properties even though I have never experienced them directly with my senses, but only as a result of observations and experiments that confirm their existence and properties, so I have no choice but to accept the theory of evolution. Just as I would love to replace the theory of relativity with another more complete and elegant theory that would explain reality in a better way, so I would love to abandon the theory of evolution for a better theory than it. The proposal of the creationists - which is actually the proposal of the existence of God - does not help to understand anything and only raises more difficult questions and in any case cannot stand as a scientific theory because at the very least it is impossible to confirm or refute what cannot even be defined. can you define god
I saw 6 minutes of the video you sent, the first few minutes were embarrassing in terms of the stupid arguments in it, but right after the lecturer, Berathan of course, just flat out lies. I tried to look for some "evidence" from a non-creationist source for what really looks like a dinosaur and I couldn't find it, I only found trending arguments on the part of creationists with a developed imagination who point to a drawing of something completely unclear and identify it as a certain dinosaur while ignoring substantial discrepancies between their identification based on The details of the drawing and what is known from the fossils (such as the length of the legs and the form of movement expected from such an anatomy). It reminded me of those who see UFOs and claim it's an alien spaceship. A search on the web shows that there are several examples mentioned by creationists in which dinosaurs are clearly drawn, but they do not look like authentic paintings at all, but rather like souvenirs for tourists, and indeed a short search revealed that it is most likely a forgery, a modern hoax at best which the creationists warmly adopted as "conclusive evidence" ”, without checking the much more probable possibility (even without regard to the issue of evolution) that this is a forgery. I have not found any reliable source that presents similar findings, not even close. So no, no such examples were found, only more examples were found of the frauds of the creationists who are ready to grasp at any nonsense to try to challenge the theory of evolution and are just not ready to give an orderly alternative that includes a definition of God and a comprehensive theory that will give an explanation at least as good as what evolution provides for the observations and knowledge accumulated up to Today in the context of the variety of organisms.
another one
"Why" assumes that someone has intentions. "Why", meaning for what purpose. Science does know how to answer this, on a principled level.
Nissim I and 'one different' are two different people.
Pay attention to who you answer.
I kind of take evolution into account as a working assumption - even though I'm not well versed in its details at all -
Regarding what someone else said-
The answer to the riddle of the universe is 42. Now all that remains is to know what the question is...
As I already said before - science will never run out of questions - and there will always be room for alternative theories at the forefront of science - and there are questions that science cannot answer at all (like 'why').
Eliasaf
It is written "And there was evening and there was morning one day". Day and night, according to Genesis, were before the sun was created.
The order of creation does not exactly correspond to what we know today. It does fit the legends that were common 2500 years ago.
It is a very beautiful story, but it should not be linked to reality. What is it good for?
xianghua27
Please check what a dinosaur is and get back to us with a half page article explaining why coelacanth is not a dinosaur. I'll give you one hint – only one of them has lungs…..
And about dinosaurs and humans - you're kidding, right??? There are 60 million years or so in which there are no dinosaurs (except birds) and no humans either.
another one
I understand that Stephen Hawking is a saint in your eyes? Or do you only quote him when it's convenient for you? He also said there is no God…
Where does it come from that according to evolution the flu should get stronger over the years? You don't even understand what evolution is. All the island is saying is that those who breed faster become more common. Don't talk about "strength" at all.
I think it's rather nice that the truth about the riddle of the universe is hidden
There will always be something to aspire to, something to discover and something to explore.
And in short: it won't be boring!
a different one,
Quote wars again, Ed Vercondiam again?
So because someone said we won't be solved, that means we won't be solved?
The syntax of your second sentence about evolution is extremely odd. Reminds me of Rabbi Nachman Matzeran's syntax. It's you?
Stephen Hawking - "We will never understand the riddle of the universe". Hawking himself came to the realization that science will not solve the riddle of the universe.
According to the evolution over the years, the flu should be "stronger" and more dangerous, something that happens.
Shmulik is not cleverness?
It seems to me that usually when they say "Torah" they mean the Bible (Torah, Prophets, Scriptures).
Let's be precise
You can believe in God and science.
It is impossible to believe in evolution and the Jewish woman, or Islam, or Christianity. The reason is that in evolution man has no special status. He is an animal like any other animal, and he only exists by chance.
These religions, and perhaps all of them, give a special status to man.
Science sees no need for the existence of a creator. Maybe there is or maybe there isn't. The evidence does not support that there is…….
Pine,
So what's the point? Will you change the interpretation every time so that it fits the science?
Once upon a time, before evolution, the religious claimed that there was a God because there were so many species and only God could create something like that, and then Darwin came and created a tremendous revolution in thought. The religious in response said "Ah, sorry we were wrong before but we are not wrong anymore. God is more sophisticated than we thought and he is the only one who can explain the slim probability that evolution will occur."
At every stage, the religious Hindus reverse the interpretation so that it fits their worldview. It's lame and ridiculous.
It is clear to me that someone will make the ridiculous claim that science also changes their minds. The difference is that science changes its mind as new evidence comes to light. The religion claims that it knows the absolute solution since time immemorial and why does the evidence matter, God and the Torah (in the Jewish/Christian case) are always right
It is possible to believe in creation by God, and also be a scientist
There are ways to bridge Judaism (or any other religion) and evolution,
See, for example, in the Wikipedia entry Torah and science
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2
Therefore, there are religious people or believers who have long ago received the decree of reconciliation on this issue...
He is in the Bible, in "N" and not in the Torah itself and I don't know if there is any archaeological documentation about the man himself
"And I will write in response that King David is not in the Torah"
Can you explain?
We already agreed in another discussion to call the planner by his name - God. xianghua himself admitted this and I would very much like to meet people who believe that there is an intelligent designer who is not God (and I don't mean just an alien, who also must be asked who created him).
Saying "God" as an answer to the question of why we are here is the same as a patient asking the doctor why he is deaf and the doctor answering him, because you cannot hear. The answer "God" explains nothing. God is not a scientific theory. God is just a word.
Evolution is an existing fact. We see this in bacteria in labs every day. Maybe the explanation of how we evolved still contains holes but evolution is a fact.
All the arguments of the creationists (that is, those who for some reason are afraid to write God and write an intelligent planner) are God of the Gaps arguments and they do not understand that, at most, the weakness of natural selection is only the weakness of natural selection and not a strengthening of any other theory and any weakening of a theory She is candy for scientists who are just waiting to contradict previous knowledge, if only to become famous.
We will rest in the fact that certainly the book of Genesis is a difficult book for children and not only for children and in general, there is not a single archaeological evidence for the book of Genesis in particular or the Torah in general including extensive searches in Sinai, after we conquered it. Nothing found. Even in the Egyptian writings there is no mention of Moses, for example. At this point I will warn in advance that now the wise man on duty (reincarnation of Rabbi Nachman of Tsaran) may come and tell about King David and I will write in response that King David is not in the Torah (it has already happened, on this website).
another one
Oh oh oh - how much nonsense in one comment 🙂
Do you think the germ theory is correct? This is the illustration according to which there are really, really small creatures that cause diseases.
Do you think clouds bring rain?
Do you think the earth is round (approximately)?
Is Bibi Netanyahu the Prime Minister of Israel?
Evolution is a theory just like the 4 theories I just mentioned.
As for the issue of "inextricable complexity" - only a delusional person like Michael Behey thinks it's a handicap (by the way - a court ruled that his claims are delusional - not me). Darwin was wrong when he said that such a discovery would disprove his theory. We know of many mechanisms that seem inextricable but know how to clearly explain how they came about.
Listen carefully and understand - today there is no mechanism in any creature living today that lived in the past that there is no way to imagine how it was created in evolution.
Bihi's opinion is not acceptable in science, nor in court. There is no point in discussing it at all.
Eliyahu Galil
85% percent of Americans are wrong. They also believe that Jesus walked on water. Is science suddenly democratic for you?
And I repeat that you quoted me so nicely
"Atheistic evolution is a scientific truth and is no longer a theory. This has been proven beyond any scientific doubt."
What is amazing is - even if God had planned the world, evolution would have called for itself, and the animals that would have evolved would have eliminated all the planned creatures. I proved this in my thesis...
I also thank them. It's just a shame that it doesn't really help everyone.
"Only 15% of the American public believes in 'atheistic' evolution, i.e. scientific truth." Thank you for helping the reader know what the "truth" is.
: )
Hasn't the light gone out for them yet?
Why is it that those who want free voters are crooks while those who want hordes of voters who listen to what the rabbi/priest/kadi told them is fine?
And I didn't understand who do you think he works for? I know of only one party that puts education high on the list of priorities. I will check with Yaron Yadan whether Bill Nye works for the Or party.
"We need scientifically educated people, as voters and taxpayers of the future"
That's what bothers this crook and that's why we know who he works for
"Atheistic evolution is a scientific truth and is no longer a theory. This has been proven beyond any scientific doubt."
(Miracles)
Miracles - come back to you!
On the basis of undetermined determinations, evolution is a theory, with different scientific foundations just as Shaffer calls the existence of a "planning being" a theory.
Evolution has not been proven in any way, just as the existence of a "designed being" has not been proven in any way. There are arguments that establish - proofs innnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
By the way,
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly" have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would
"Absolutely broke down
-Charles Darwin
Considering the primitive level of science in the 19th century, Darwin may have thought that living things have a "reduced structure". (reducible structure) But the discoveries of the last century have shown that systems and organs in life cannot be reduced to simplicity. This fact, known as the "irreducible complex", damages Darwin's theory just as he feared.
So we probably agree
But what about the proof of a point??
Miracles, maybe yes maybe not...just.
Not only those who practice medicine think so, I believe there is no one who does not think so.
Then?
maybe yes, maybe no
Evolution is the result of heredity. It's a bit more complicated than that - evolution needs 3 things: culture, differential culture rate and heredity. that's it.
That is - those who do not believe in evolution do not believe in one of these things. The one who multiply - there is no debate. Genetics says that there is variation in the offspring, a small variation indeed, but the variation can affect the rate of reproduction. Heredity makes sure that the changes are passed on to the next generation.
Do you think that those who practice medicine don't think like that?
Miracles..
if you mean
"I believe that the sciences of physics and biology dismiss Genesis and therefore I assume that anyone who deals with this on a regular basis also dismisses Genesis"
OK.
But if your claim is that one who believes in Genesis cannot be a scientist, I still don't understand why.
After all, what is important is the practice, the laws.
The story that evolution tells me is not important at all, what is important are the laws of genetics and anatomy.
If the surgeon understands anatomy and the laws of genetics, heredity and the many laws of biology, he can believe what he wants, because his belief does not affect the rules of the game.
The Big Bang is a theory that is told based on the laws and observations, great, but after all, I don't need the Big Bang theory to understand the laws and predict the future according to them and create works of all kinds.
I also don't need to know how mathematics was invented and developed to solve mathematical problems, what I need is the laws.
In Genesis it is not written that each of the days of creation took 24 hours.
Moreover, the concept of a day that we know today is from sunrise to sunrise the next day, this was certainly not possible before the creation of the sun (according to the Book of Genesis on Wednesday), and in any case it is implied that the definition of the concept of "day" is different.
This was actually one of the arguments of the defense in the monkey trial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmLK0hi-DA4&feature=relmfu
Hayat
Stop if the arguments are weak
This site is at the level of 18 year olds in all matters of preaching.
"Scientific truth" as if there is even such a concept as "truth" or "proof" what nonsense
withering,
"If everything that is complex requires planning, and there is no doubt that an intelligent planner is an incredibly complex thing, then no, it does not make sense that there is no need to explain the existence of an intelligent planner. "- Obviously there is a need. And a possible simple answer is that it has existed since time immemorial, and thus does not require a creator himself. Which is not the case with a person, a rabbit or a caracal.
"The scarab is not a type of dinosaur, not even sharks, not even close to it, where did you get this nonsense from?" - Where did you get this nonsense from? How do you determine exactly what a dinosaur is?
"We also have an evolutionary connection to yeast" - you are welcome to believe what you want. Just don't call this faith science, as it refutes it.
If a T-Rex had lived for a certain period of time alongside humans, wouldn't you expect to find bones, wall paintings in caves, and the like in these?" - Wonder and wonder. It turns out that such were indeed found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWe3cteDuBc&feature=relmfu
I understand that for you stegosaurs and diplodocus lived alongside humans.
Nisim, before you spread your thoughts everywhere, I recommend you follow the discussion I had here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-study-in-the-holyland-240912/
Maybe yes maybe not, but sure maybe
So I don't exactly agree with you. First of all, it is clear that there are excellent scientists in all fields who believe in religion. It doesn't work out so well for me, but it's a fact.
I agree that it is possible to be an engineer who participates in the construction of spaceships. But I don't think it's possible to explore space and believe at the same time that the world is 6000 years old. Nor can you be a researcher in biology or geology or nuclear physics if you have such a belief.
Again - I distinguish between religious belief and belief in creation 6000 years ago.
And regarding the heart/brain surgeon - the only explanation we have for these body parts is evolution. No engineer would design a brain like the human brain looks like.
another one
Again - understanding evolution gives explanations for many of the mechanisms in our body. The bone structure for example. Why do we have a tailbone that causes so much trouble? Why is there a nerve from the brain to the voice box that surrounds the heart?
A doctor who is a technician may not need to understand evolution.
Give me one explanation without evolution why there is a new flu vaccine every year?
Give me one explanation why antibiotics a few years ago are not good today?
I agree with your last part. But, there are several theories that are very, very well-founded and today science is only trying to "refine them". The big bang, evolution, part of quantum theory (QED) and general relativity.
Some of these theories may be an abstraction of a deeper theory, but like Newton's equations, they will not turn out to be wrong.
No, there is no logic in this argument, the argument is very weak and cannot be accepted as a logical explanation.
Your main failure is that you don't understand (or you don't know) that not everything that seems "complex" requires a planner, there are many examples in nature of processes that are driven by a number of simple laws and create very complex patterns.
Example snowflakes:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos/photos.htm
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos2/photos2.htm
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos3/photos3.htm
Or the spectacular patterns created by a flock of starlings consisting of tens of thousands of birds, each of which observes one simple rule of keeping a constant distance from the birds flying next to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81wFZavdhPU
Another example is beaches that are repeatedly hit by sea waves and create strips of pebbles sorted by size. No planner created this order but the waves of the sea.
There are many more examples (fractals for example, or the crystallization process of crystals)
As you can see, the argument that everything "orderly" or "complex" requires a planner is a completely wrong argument.
Miracles
I don't believe that intelligent design is a scientific theory and I don't understand evolution too much - but:
There are enough doctors with a very superficial knowledge of evolution - they never learned about it in their lives - some also believe in creation - this is a fact - please direct me to a study that says that doctors who "believe" in evolution and know it in depth are better than doctors from a similar group who do not know evolution in depth or who believe in some kind of story creation.
Second thing - there is no such thing as "scientific truth" there is no such thing beyond any doubt in science - and no theory becomes "truth" after a certain time a theory remains a theory - it just becomes more established.
Miracles.
"It is somewhat difficult to practice medicine without a deep understanding of evolution. You can be a computer technician without understanding computers, but you will never be a good technician.
It is also important for the doctor to understand the body he is operating on. I don't see how it is possible to understand the body without knowledge of evolution."
I think you misunderstood me.
When I ask, "What difference does belief in Darwinian evolution make to a brain or heart surgeon?"
I mean, why should a surgeon believe that the world was created billions of years ago and not thousands of years?
What does it matter if the scientist believes in the creation of God or in common ancestors and the number of years that life exists according to evolution?
All he needs is knowledge of the practical laws of evolution, such as genetic similarity, genetic engineering, the understanding that there are mutations, the laws of inheritance, etc.
Can't a physicist who believes that the world was created as told in Genesis and not according to the big bang theory build a spaceship that will reach space?
The scientist must know what he needs from a practical point of view, and to believe that we live in the Matrix and that one day New will come and take him out of here, because what is that relevant to his occupation?
Now that you understand me correctly…
What difference does belief in Darwinian evolution make to a brain or heart surgeon?
"Someone", a planner who had no beginning does not require planning himself. Simple logic."
The sentence of xianghua makes sense, given that it had no beginning and there was no one to plan it
Because otherwise there would be another initial planner that has no beginning and thus in infinite regression to the unknown beginning.
What is the definition of a beginning anyway, after all we have no information about the time before the big bang "someone" pressed the TRIGGER and from there everything rolled on and we are probably quite limited in our ability to express and in our formulation which is also limited to the framework of a certain language that can express a finite number of words and intentions.
Someone is at the end of my mind, because I also feel limited in words 🙂
maybe yes, maybe no ….
It is somewhat difficult to practice medicine without a deep understanding of evolution. You can be a computer technician without understanding computers, but you will never be a good technician.
It is also important for the doctor to understand the body he is operating on. I don't see how you can understand the body without knowledge of evolution.
Eli
What holes are there in evolution? I don't know a single one.
I would love to learn something new
point
You are right that there is no connection between Christian creationism and the Jewish religion. But - it is hard to say that there is no connection between religion and science. There are many contradictions between them...
xianghua
You have no idea what you are talking about. A coelacanth is very, very, very (!) far from being a dinosaur. That it is a very ancient animal is irrelevant. The creation museum is full of lies that any 5 year old can see.
Atheistic evolution is a scientific truth and is no longer a theory. This has been proven beyond any scientific doubt.
Don't argue about things you don't understand - it seems a bit amateurish...
Where did you find anything about DNA between 100 million years ago? And since when does a laboratory say that only a million survive? You read a word here and a word there, and again understand nothing.
By the way - evolution does not explain the beginning of life, so don't talk about 200 genes. Life of course did not start in a cell with genes!
friends…
How is Chigua's claim explained (short for Che Guevara?)
"It should be noted the interesting fact that DNA samples of Dino were found dating back to approximately 100 million years ago. While the laboratory research shows that dna should not survive more than a million years and more under super-preservative conditions."
If his claim is true, then the dating method is wrong, or the laboratory research is wrong, or his claim is wrong...
someone?
xianghua
If everything complex requires planning, and there is no doubt that an intelligent planner is an incredibly complex thing, then no, it does not make sense that there is no need to explain the existence of an intelligent planner. This is an idiotic evasion by creationists.
Not a siliconite!!! Scarred! How many times can you be corrected? Go learn Latin before you write nonsense. And no, the Scarecrow isn't a type of dinosaur, not even sharks, not even close, where did you get that bullshit?
And as for alligators, which actually have a kind of connection to dinosaurs, both represent different branches that evolved from the same ancestral form. Should we conclude from this that you accepted the correctness of the ancestor theory? Crocodiles are not modern dinosaurs, absolutely not. Again, learn before you write nonsense.
Latvians actually have a direct evolutionary connection to dinosaurs, so what? We also have an evolutionary connection to yeast, does that mean you are the same as the common ancestor we and yeast share? (Well, in your case it might not be very surprising).
If a T-Rex had lived for a certain period of time alongside humans, wouldn't you expect to find bones, cave murals, etc. in those? Can you explain why we find remains of shen-harb and mammoths and many other animals that are no longer with us and precisely of a te-rex or any other real dinosaur there is no evidence left from that time, not even one? No, there is no way the creationists are right (and it doesn't matter where they are from), for the simple reason that their claims conflict with many facts and suffer from shocking logical fallacies. Those who are interested in knowing something about the reality around us can only do so through serious consideration of the facts and through arguments free from logical fallacies. When you start behaving like this, maybe your words will start to make sense, at the moment they are a pile of nonsense that is not suitable for the consumption of an intelligent person.
No xianghua, it doesn't make any sense, certainly not simple, it's just a jumble of words that doesn't convince any thinking person who exercises some sense and logic.
Why would such an amazing and wonderful being exist since time immemorial without a creator? What logic is there in this? If you told me about some piece of rock that has been floating in space since time immemorial I would understand, but a thinking and conscious being? Such a wonderful and complex being, that she cares about us? Who wants us to worship her from morning till evening and praise her and speak her praises?
If such a wonderful God exists without a creator then please don't tell me that one little living cell can't. You know what, we'll go your way. Even the first living cell did not have a beginning, it existed since time immemorial and from it all animals evolved.
There is a situation where humans lived together with dinosaurs if 65 million equals 2 million. In mathematics it is not like that, not even in years.
"Someone", a planner who had no beginning does not require planning himself. Simple logic.
Yes, my father I wrote too fast. And as for dino and humans, isn't the silicona a type of dino? Sharks? Alligators? Power lizards? It turns out that humans and their religion also exist in the present, side by side. It should be noted the interesting fact that Dino's DNA samples have been found that date back to approximately 100 million years ago. While the laboratory research shows that dna should not survive more than a million years and more under super-preservative conditions. That is, there is a situation where the creationists from Aig are right, and T. Rex lived for a certain period of time alongside humans. Jurassic Park is behind you…
You didn't read well. Write atheistic evolution.
I thought AIG was an insurance company.
And the creation museum behind the video shows humans and dinosaurs that lived together. No need to listen to their nonsense.
Ok xianghua, you've convinced me, now just tell me how your amazing, "invisible", wondrous, omnipotent god came to be.
Theistic evolution is a "scientific truth". Is this a new joke or something? This is a total hypothesis. It should be noted that the development of any living cell is ruled out by Atson scientific research, which shows that a minimal cell requires close to 200 different genes.
It should also be noted the official response of the largest creationist site on the web - aig in their own response video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-AyDtD6sPA&feature=BFa&list=PLRXRxTxAgO0e_gNkhDH-otTP1kJlzAuGb
The father is referring to the scientific academy, not the humanitarian academy, which indeed in many cases has a "liberal" tendency (liberal in the sense that the Americans know and not in the sense that we know).
Do you have data regarding the percentage of foreigners in the real academy in the USA?
I know there are many - but I'm not sure they are the majority.
to another one. It is not true that the required amount of real professionals is fixed, it is a fact, many hi-tech companies lack employees and are forced to open development centers elsewhere.
And as for your claim, "It's funny that despite the fact that the United States is a very religious country, according to the survey, the overwhelming majority of the best universities in the world are still located in the United States." Those who study in these universities are foreigners - nowadays mainly Chinese and Indians who received good training in their countries without apologizing for science, and supplement it in the American universities. If you asked the average American he would not be opposed to burning down the liberal universities.
First thing - I think that the lack of participation of a large part of the ultra-Orthodox population in the economy and in the military service is among the biggest problems facing Israel (but not the biggest).
I must point out that there is a naive perception - especially on the economic left that thinks that if there are more people who study science and real subjects then there will inevitably be a place to accommodate them - we definitely lose some geniuses every year who could have left the ultra-orthodox population if they had studied something realistic and not religious subjects. - and it is really important Expose them to it so that they too have the choice - but it is a utopian notion to think that if everyone studies science then the economy will collapse - because there is a certain amount of professions with a realistic background that the economy needs.
Second thing - Yuval:
Religion is not the cause of wickedness in the world but only a possible means for wickedness - the most murderous authorities in the twentieth century did what they did without religion. (By the way, I am completely secular if anyone asks).
A halachic state will not be established here so quickly - the state of Israel has a long democratic heritage.
Third thing
It's funny that despite the fact that the United States is a very religious country, according to the survey, the overwhelming majority of the best universities in the world are still located in the United States.
point,
For some reason, according to your comments, you remind me a lot of Kenny from Seuss Park!
This is quite positive in case you are not familiar with the series.
Amir The aliens argument is a nonsensical argument just like "God", evolution perfectly explains the development of life and there is no need for aliens.
And a question, who created the aliens you're talking about, other aliens? And who created them?
You didn't solve anything here, you just complicated it.
The fix is simple for both sides. If you consider the possibility of alien intervention, it will solve the remaining problems for almost everyone. The gods of the various Bibles are aliens, and there are many species. All the processes of creating life, evolution, etc., combine automatic processes but also intelligent intervention from time to time, such as genetic engineering and improving the abilities of certain creatures (for example, our ability to speak, apparently). We too have evolved to be a creature that genetically engineers its environment in an evolutionary process. In short, everything will be easier for both sides: the atheist scientist and the believer in creationism, etc.
Thanks Dror. At night, deep time disappears for me too... 🙂
Avi,
Please correct the publication year of the book Origin of Species 1859
For those who are really skeptical, I recommend questioning all the pseudo-skeptical articles published here recently with the aim of confusing the reader into thinking that they are representations of some kind of skeptical approach which, in truth, is behind an orderly method and an arranged truth of a non-skeptical religion at all.
This is a religion of people who think they have arrived at the truth and the right way of thinking which includes questioning everything that that religion thinks is incorrect, and this is exactly what every religion does.
Therefore, real skeptics beware of falling into the trap.
You are confusing a bit between creationism (= naive belief that things happened as they are understood by the simple reader in the book of Genesis) and belief in the Creator, which is not related to science at all.
How does the world get complicated if you believe in the Creator? Ask all the tens if not hundreds of millions who have been murdered and slaughtered to this day in the name of the stupid faith in this imaginary god, ask all the oppressed nations and people in the world who live under a regime of terror and terror under the auspices of that faith.
If, God willing, a halachic state is established here one day, our situation will not be better than the situation in Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, and other countries where religious laws are applied, did you know that the punishment for an atheist who violates the Sabbath is a cruel death by stoning? And this is just one example.
Believing in vanity is a dangerous thing.
Although I am only a software engineer and not a biologist, but there is no shortage of holes and discontinuities in evolution.. How exactly does the world get complicated if you believe in the Creator?
Why is an atheist engineer better than a theist engineer?
What difference does belief in Darwinian evolution make to a brain or heart surgeon?
What does my theistic/atheistic view change about my field of study?