The episode will be broadcast tonight at nine o'clock on the National Geographic channel * Now they are demanding from the Fox network, to receive equal time for their arguments within the Cosmos program, which they have not been able to do in the schools, as you know. Series host Neil deGrasse Tyson disagrees
If the first episode of the Cosmos series was controversial with minimal mentions of climate change, evolution and the big bang, the second episode (which aired in the US last Sunday and will air in Israel today) has already taken off the gloves. Most of the chapter, according to American websites, is dedicated to the topic of evolution and the huge number of evidence (especially the genetic evidence) showing that it is indeed the explanation for all the variety of life on earth.
On one occasion, series host Neil deGrasse Tyson said explicitly: "The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact."
The series broadcast in the USA on the Fox network and worldwide by National Geographic on 220 channels in 181 countries in 45 languages - the largest launch of a science series.
In an interview with the mother jones website DeGrasse Tyson explains about the Cosmos series. "It is not surprising that those who deny the theory of evolution were not happy about the current episode. In fact, the science denier community doesn't like Cosmos at all." This week Ken Ham and the people of his site "Answers in Genesis" demanded equal time within the broadcast of the series for religious arguments as well.
In a previous interview with the same website, Tyson said that he would not agree to have a confrontation with creationists on the subject of evolution.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
- Neil deGrasse Tyson, presenter of the Cosmos series: "If Sagan were alive, he would be most surprised by the fact that we still have to argue that science is important to society."
- The mythological TV series Cosmos returns
Big Bang Denial
Our informant, Ken Ham, explains in the article "Criticism of CosmosOn his website "Answers in Genesis": "The Big Bang model is unable to explain many scientific observations, but of course this was not mentioned in the series" and this was in the week when the discovery was announced Direct evidence of the inflation that came immediately after the big bang, including the gravitational waves, which until now have been a theoretical prediction."
denial of evolution
As mentioned, the second chapter was entirely dedicated to evolution and it follows Charles Darwin's line of thought in his book "The Origin of Species" which began with examples of artificial selection (Darwin used pigeons, in Cosmos they preferred to give the domestic dog as an example) to prepare us for the much greater power of natural selection. Tyson repeats the metaphor of the "tree of life" and that all living things are branches of this tree. In the episode, Tyson also refuted the favorite argument of evolution deniers - the idea that complex organs such as the eye cannot be formed through evolution.
David Klinghoffer, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute (a Christian fundamentalist organization that spreads all the anti-scientific claims that later echo like an echo even among 'our' converts) Klinghoffer writes Because the Cosmos episode "makes a shameless projection from natural selection (dogs from wolves) to small things like the color of polar bears' fur to the development of the human eye." Well, Klinghoffer may not know this conclusion, but Darwin already made it 155 years ago.
His colleague Casey Luskin claims that Cosmos is involved in trying to convince people both of the scientific point of view of evolution and at the same time it promotes the materialistic scientific point of faith not only through its imposition of the facts but also through rhetoric and emotions while ignoring arguments and counter-evidence. He also attacks the concept of the tree of life and says that the tree has not yet been mapped, and project members should be told this Open Tree of Life who are trying to map the 1.8 million species that have been named in a concerted effort by the public and the scientific community. So it is true that the exact order of the species in the tree is an open scientific question, but the idea of a common ancestor, the core of evolution, is not controversial.
Climate denial
In the Cosmos series, the phenomenon was mentioned only briefly, perhaps it is supported for a future episode, but on the conservative right, Tyson's words are attacked in an interview with the program Late Night With Seth Myers. Myers and DeGrasse Tyson chose to attack religious people and claim that they do not believe in science, citing global warming as an example," writes Jeffrey Meyer, Columnist on the Newsbusters website In the Inquiring Minds podcast, Tyson points to research that 97% of scientific papers between 1991-2011 supported man-made warming.
Bill Moyer interviews Neil deGrasse Tyson
68 תגובות
It is indeed recommended.
Point, 'The open society and its enemies' - Karl Popper, recommended.
ארי
I like the approach to "accepting the other" in the Bible... For example when Elijah kills 450 rival clerics.
Amazing book 🙂
point
You wrote "With this statement I wanted to prove the opposite. that there is no difference between 2500 years ago and today.
And I'm not talking about the majority, because what the majority thinks has always been stupid."
You are much more radical than me! What you are saying is: a woman who slept with a man, and there is no one to testify that she was raped - she must be killed in the most brutal way.
The truth - I'm quite shocked.
'Love your neighbor as yourself' is a joke phrase in a society that tolerates homosexuals, in a society where a father has the right to marry his daughter against her will at a young age, etc., etc. But this is understandable given the period in which the words were written.
Thank you for warmly embracing the phrase 'love your neighbor as yourself' and wishing to love me and others to such an extent, it is better that you content yourself with embracing modern norms of fundamental rights, which do not depend on an outdated and primitive codex of laws.
point
I said a good word about the Torah. Isn't that good too?
and Eric,
The Torah wrote something else, much more advanced than what you are talking about. "Love your neighbor as yourself". Let's say that what is going on today in Israel and in the world is light years away from that. I mean we are very primitive today.
Oh Camila, what will happen to you? You didn't read my comments. I come and repeat and say that you are trying hard to insert meanings that are not there so that things come out evil. That in itself is evil.
The Torah came and warned those people not to touch a woman if she has not cheated, that is, if she has been raped.
And "he answered his neighbor's wife" which appears in the verse means "he slept with his neighbor's wife". And this is the language that appears elsewhere regarding the one who has a mother (slave...) that he must take care of her for food, clothing, and sex. "She remained covered and her punishment will not be diminished" and if he does not take care of her then she will go free. And this law also proves that your whole concept of the purpose of the Torah in these laws is distorted and stems from prejudices that came to blacken the Torah and make it primitive.
With this statement I wanted to prove the opposite. that there is no difference between 2500 years ago and today.
And I'm not talking about the majority, because what the majority thinks has always been stupid.
point,
You wrote for miracles: you just forgot that in 2500 years the science and morality of today will be the science and morality of 2500 years ago. So why are you so enthusiastic about them."
Are you implying that the distance between the science and morality of another 2500 years to what exists today will be of the same order of magnitude as the distance between the science and morality of today to what prevailed 2500 years ago? On what basis do you assume that? Of course you don't know that.
We don't know what will be, but we do know what was. The question is not why to be enthusiastic about what exists today (and there are many good reasons to be enthusiastic - one of which you use to read and write comments) but why it is worthwhile to continue to be enthusiastic about what contains so many moral distortions and factual errors regarding the universe in which we live.
point,
Why do you keep avoiding answering Nissim's simple question?
In which case do you think those legislators expect a woman to "shout in town"?
And what does the word "answer" mean in justifying the man's punishment?
It's true, 'whatever you hate, don't do' is an extension of the ancient saying, the golden rule transcends cultures and time,
The response and quote referred to your allusion to 'moral relativity' (that's how I understood your words, otherwise I didn't understand what you meant to claim in your response to miracles)
Eric, I didn't understand what you were referring to... and just be precise because it says that what is hateful to you, do not do to your friend
Spielberg,
I must not have understood you.
I revolted exactly against what the writers of the law clearly intended, or as you wrote, "From the point of view of the writers of the law, if the woman who was caught did not complain, it means for them that it was treason and not rape."
You wrote earlier that other commenters here are caught by the word "outcry" and that if you replace it with "complaint" everything becomes clear, but both I and the others, as far as I understand, resent precisely the direct link between the absence of the outcry and the decisive conclusion that in such a case holds for the woman who participated in the act of her own good and free will. In this respect, the interpretation you proposed for the word "shout" was unnecessary since it did not change the essential distortion that at least Nisim and I clearly recognize in this text (and this is regardless of the moral distortion regarding the nature of the punishment imposed). If you meant something else, you are welcome to explain and I hope that in any case you agree that it is not moral to make a firm statement that a woman was not raped just because she did not complain about it.
point
Idiots, the old Hillel who was not born in the postmodern era, \ 'The Golden Rule': 'Do not do what is hateful to you', why do you think there is such a wave of veganism?
You just forgot that in 2500 years the science and morality of today will be the science and morality of 2500 years ago. So why are you so excited about them?
This is me
point
If you assume that the Torah was written by humans, then it describes the morality and science that existed 2500 years ago.
If you assume it's God's words, then you have a God who thinks it's okay to murder children and that the world is flat.
Camila, you are blind because of the brainwashing you went through. If you read the text you will see that he came to protect the woman. And because of the brainwashing you went through, you can't see it.
And once again, the text speaks of a case where there was no rape at all. And you insist that you do, because that's how you get things done as you wish.
It's like someone comes and says something good to you, and you turn the things he says into bad things because of all kinds of precipitation you have. You don't need to be a great genius to do this, a little hate will do.
And it seems you are full of hate and have found a way to express that hate by attacking imaginary things that don't exist at all.
I saw the first 2 episodes and in my opinion the series is a bit shallow,
It's a bit hard for me to put my finger on why I feel this way, but this is my feeling about her expectations in the show,
A bit like a presentation you get in an email of the different sizes in the universe from the smallest to the largest,
You can understand why they brought in the ablution of the eye because it is a favorite thing of science deniers of the various religions
who like to use it with the storm analog and hop it turns into a plane,
And from this they conclude that it cannot happen and this is proof of.... Etc. etc…
Who said there is no cooperation between religions 🙂
The weak side is that some issues are brought up there that are more in the nature of a scientific hypothesis that has to be debated among the scientists
Even if this hypothesis has something to rely on and is the leader among the hypotheses
Nevertheless, it is appropriate to be careful in presenting it as a kind of absolute scientific fact,
And that's all I wanted to say...
Shmulik,
I agree with every word
Camilla, Spielberg,
In my opinion, the only reason worth debating is with those who think that the Torah is from God, otherwise, this is another codex of laws that was customary at the time and perhaps even made moral progress relative to what was customary in other places and such, it is absolutely not surprising why the treatment of women/girls/slaves/gays and other slander in Shin She is like that.
withering,
First of all, yes, if you interpret "shouting" as "complaining" things are clear. According to the authors of the law, if the woman who was caught did not complain, it means that it was treason and not rape.
Secondly, you are again imposing today's morality on then. Who talks about a 13-year-old girl today? Obviously, I do not claim that this text should have an impact on today's law, and certainly no one should be stoned, including the most despicable murderers and rapists. My argument is about the interpretation of the verse and what was the intention of the biblical author.
point,
Let's leave my approach and answer Nissim's question instead, okay?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/cosmos-second-episode-comments-2303146/comment-page-2/#comment-500692
If you think you can get away with it by shifting the discussion to my or someone else's "approach", then you are wrong. There is a text, it is quite clear to those who are willing to read it. You for some reason choose to ignore part of it or maybe you have an explanation that none of us could see, I would appreciate it if you would answer Nissim's question and tell us about it.
Spielberg,
You interpret: yelling = the complaint and then states that everything becomes clear, doesn't it? Let's check:
Do you think it would be correct to say about our own time that if a woman (who could be a 13-year-old girl) does not immediately complain about rape, then in your opinion it would be correct to state that she was not raped but willingly cooperated?
Can you think of even one reason why a woman who has been raped would not want to report it? (I know several very good reasons for such behavior, and I personally knew at least two women who chose not to complain and I can certainly understand and justify them).
Is everything still clear to you? Do you really not think that this is a problematic formulation, not to mention unfortunate, not to mention monstrous?
Shmulik,
Of course you are right that in any case the punishment is not humane and immoral, but I did not point to this problem in my words to the point, but to the fact that they created a single-valued link between "not shouting" => the agreement. In my opinion, anyone who does not rise up against this is an immoral person and I do not wish such a person to behave this way with his mother/wife/sister/daughter, etc., for the sole reason that they are not to blame for that person's immorality, all I can wish for such a person is that he experience it firsthand, But it is obviously a thought experiment that is beyond his intellectual capacity, because if he was able to do it he would not be blind to the moral distortion in things in the first place.
And you are also right in understanding that whether these are laws written by humans (which is the likely option in the absence of any factual support for the existence of the spaghetti monster) or whether the holy Omicron wrote them, these are laws that should be thrown out of our midst because in any case they are immoral. The shocking thing is that there are religious people who are willing to suppress this moral distortion even though in their opinion it indicates the poor and shocking level of morality of their God.
Spielberg,
You wrote exactly what I wrote, in the post that begins with the words "I'm sorry, here I completely disagree with you". I prefaced my first paragraph with the words: "Except as historical research?" If you don't accept the "divinity of the book", everything works out - the book recorded the morality of its time, and is terrible by today's standards.
As soon as you write that I'm caught yelling, it shows me that you didn't read what I wrote. I wrote exactly the opposite. I wrote that even if we assume that the woman organized the whole business and cheated on her of her own free will, then what? Even in a situation where she is guilty of everything, the punishment of stoning is terrible and demonstrates the level of discrimination inherent in the Torah.
There is no hypothetical question regarding the complainant. What bothers me is that I haven't heard a blanket denial from Sylvan. This is what should interest us: whether the presidential candidate committed the act or not. I don't understand your question, at all.
Spielberg
All I am saying is - that it cannot be said that the morality described in the Torah sounds like something that a kind-hearted and man-loving God would think of.
Shmulik,
As far as I am concerned, the Bible is a very interesting book because of its antiquity, because we do not have any such detailed document that reports on the moods of about 2500 years ago, because of its historical importance on the subsequent periods until today on the world in general and the Jewish people in particular.
I don't see it as a constitutionally binding book for today, so the discussion of whether it is moral to stone or not is not interesting. Obviously, today we will not stone anyone.
Nissim and Shmolik,
You take the word "shout" here and ask if they heard it or not and if they were shocked. I understand "shouting" as "complaining" and then everything becomes clear. If the woman who slept did not complain and was married to someone else, the law states that she will be stoned, and if she did complain, that means she was raped and therefore she will not be stoned. Pretty simple, isn't it?
Of course, the completely hypothetical question is asked, what is the right of a woman who complained only after 15 years when she heard that the man was running for president?
point
Shmulik explained it well. If you believe that people wrote the Torah, then there may be the morality you describe, that is, more morality than existed at that time. But if God wrote the Torah - we would expect morality at the highest level and this is not the case.
point,
Regarding Torah morality, since the believer's claim is that the Torah was written and given by God, I claim that it could have been a little better. You know, to treat women a little nicer, to convince the people of Israel to commit a little less genocide, not to rape 12-year-old girls and maybe not to approve slavery in any form whatsoever? You know that according to Judaism slavery is still allowed (here the Torah must be separated from the believers. Many Jews were in the black liberation movement in the USA. Kudos to us for that, not sarcastically)
point,
What you wrote is ridiculous by any standard. I talk about the achievements of secularism, humanism and liberalism and you tell me about the Nazis. Were the Nazis any of those? The Nazis are a mixture of paganism, Aryan tradition and reliance on Christianity, whose example, until that time, was that the Jews were guilty of murdering Jesus. This is what I am talking about: religion is neither moral nor holy, but was written by men in order to preserve their power and pimp the people that they can do horrible things under a tent. Please just don't tell me the Nazis were atheists. Don't go in there
Something about the morality of the Tanakh, there are crimes that are erased by turning back time, the victim was not harmed and the victim was not harmed in the next world, and so is the punishment or no punishment should refer to the previous and parallel world from time turning back, in short it depends on how one lives in this world and in the next world after time turning back and with the stories
Kamila, look, from the beginning you come with the attitude that it is impossible for the Torah to say anything moral and then you insert things that were not written and analyze the time of things so that they came out according to this approach. You don't even try to think that maybe you are wrong in your whole attitude and that maybe the Torah actually came to protect the woman from pig men who would kill women for any nonsense. You don't want to think about that because you've been brainwashed. You should open up a bit.
Shmulik,
Do you really think there is any such morality? And the less we kill, the more moral we are. But it's just an exaggeration. It has no basis. After all, there is no problem in saying that it is forbidden to kill just in case, and then you would be the most moral. But it sounds ridiculous. Because then it turns out that morality is known and given in advance, when in truth it is that morality is determined by humans.
And you talk about things as if they are an achievement when you forget that only 60 years ago this "moral achievement" that you speak of came out of Beit Madrasu, that stripping the skin of a living Jew is fine and moral and sending Jews to be slaughtered is a great mitzvah.
So first of all get off this imaginary mountain you made up for yourself because it doesn't exist. And start thinking about things rationally.
Spielberg
The situation is that a girl slept with a man and the punishment is stoning. Maybe there was rape and maybe not. They did not hear screams - they conclude that she was not raped and the punishment is stoning...
If the girl is not engaged - she must marry a rapist...
I agree that the morality of the past is not the morality of today. But - all I'm saying is that it's not true to say that the morals in it are from the Torah.
Spielberg,
I'm sorry, here I completely disagree with you (with a reservation). If you claim that the book of the Torah was written by people, then why do we even dwell on the claims and laws of people who did not know that the world is round, that women and gays are people and that diseases are not caused by sins? Who cares today what they once thought, except as historical research?
But, for a religious person, the book of the Torah was given by God and every word in it is sacred. Then, we have every right to compare the moral achievements we have reached, with great effort, against all the religious juntas against the horrible biblical morality and to show that such a God is not worthy of us and that, in fact, no God can trust his hand to such a horrible document and therefore, the Torah was not written by God and therefore is not sacred.
withering,
Why excuse the silence issue? Even if the woman was silent and betrayed in a big way, initiated even, the punishment of stoning is not moral by any standards. The penalty is a disgrace to any current codex of laws and the civil legislator was needed to abolish this madness.
Similarly, the abuse of a father, the seduction of a virgin, the rape of a virgin, etc., etc., are atrocities that Satan did not create. You can read here:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/מעמד_האישה_ביהדות
In the debates I conducted, I was told that this was the humane behavior of the time and I replied that it was quite clear that this was a codification of the moral behavior that was practiced at the time, but that if the Torah was indeed given by the planner of a "skeptic", then I would have expected something a little more egalitarian, progressive and humane-liberal. What a disappointment if this is the best the planner could give us. Misery doesn't begin to describe his ability.
Miracles,
In my understanding, the idea in the above verse is that if the girl did not shout, then it was voluntary betrayal. She is not stoned because she did not shout, but because not shouting indicates her consent to the act. In the forest, unlike the city, there is no one to hear and therefore it is impossible to know whether she shouted (resisted) or not and therefore she was not stoned.
In today's words, the law says that if you catch a married man and woman lying in the city, stone the man. As for the woman, mark whether it was consensual or not.
According to the criteria of those days this is a progressive law, see the Bedouins of today who kill the girl regardless of whether she consented or not.
In any case, the laws of that time should not be judged by the poor of today, for better or for worse, and therefore it is also certain that Torah law should not be applied today.
point,
You wrote: "And the whole point of the shouting is actually to say that the girl is also guilty of sin because she also wanted to sleep with her man's boyfriend."
That is, if the same girl was raped and didn't scream, maybe because she was shocked, maybe because the rapist threatened her that if she made a sound or resisted in any way, he would not only rape her but also kill her, and maybe just because he shut her up and beat her with his strength, then she is strong At least she cooperated willingly (if she didn't initiate it at all on her part), and therefore according to the human scum who wrote these things down, not only should that girl who was a victim be killed, but she should be killed in a shocking, cruel and shameful way.
And no less worse than that is the fate of those who were raped and had no inheritance, including the whole shocking perception of that woman as if she were some object, a piece of property and nothing more. And we are full of hate? Do miracles or I own this sub-morality? Is Nisim or I, or any sane and moral person able to wish for himself, his wife, his children a set of laws like this?
It is so typical of religious conservatives to blame those who point out the darkness that exists in religion instead of dealing with this darkness. But how can you deal with what you don't even see is there, in front of you, black and white. It's not for nothing that the sentence is so striking: religion is an opinion whose eye has been taken out.
So unlike you and your ilk, we the secular ones are able to appreciate the good things in the Bible (in this case) but also know how to vomit and condemn those dark parts that reveal the level of morality that was the accepted practice among humans thousands of years ago, and continues to be an accepted practice ( even if in principle even if it is not realized as it is) even today in a broad public that most of its brazenness (and its brazenness is very much) pretends to be morally superior to all others, Jews and Gentiles alike.
The religious, on the other hand, are so committed to the text (after all, it is the word of the living God) that they are unable to see the hump the size of Everest that is placed in front of their noses. It is shocking every time to see up close another man of darkness who does not want to see the magnitude of the moral distortion that shines like bleached iron.
point,
What do you mean? It is clear that the punishment is not appropriate. The crime is not moral by any humanistic standards. In what world should a married woman be stoned for infidelity? (Assuming that rape without shouting means that she agreed, that is, for the purpose of the discussion, I completely accept that this is the intention, even though we know for a fact that it was rape, women don't necessarily scream out of fear, because their mouths are covered, etc.)
Only a chauvinist religion, clearly immoral, can punish women who rape.
ה
point
I might say it again. This time you will read - well???
"They are stoning her because she didn't shout. Why should she have shouted in your opinion??"
point
Your understanding of Hebrew is poor, or you are faking it. Go read Rashi, the Ramban or any other Parosh.
And I told you there are enough other verses that explain the attitude of Judaism (God...) to rape.
It is written immediately after what I described - that if the girl is a virgin, the perpetrator of the rape must give the girl's father 50 coins.
Learn a little about what you are defending... make an effort, understand. It's really not complicated.
Nissim and Camila, I really don't know what you are talking about. Either you are so full of hate that you don't see what is written or they just brainwashed you and distorted the story.
After all, in the next verse appears this case of rape that you are talking about. And there it is explicitly stated that the man will kill, and this act is like murder. and that the girl will not do anything (contrary to all the accepted concepts in those days).
In the first case brought by Nisim, it is not about rape at all. And the whole point of the shouting is actually to say that the girl is also guilty of sin because she also wanted to sleep with her man's boyfriend. Then they will both be stoned because she cheated on her man, and he cheated on his boyfriend.
very simple. You can argue whether this is a proper punishment. But to say that everything is fine is already a completely different concept. And in any case, this is really not about rape.
point,
Your impudence is shameful,
And if you really didn't understand what the verse was talking about, it's even sadder.
point
They stone her because she didn't shout. Why should she have shouted in your opinion?? In the following verses there is an explanation - it is written that this people was in the forest so they don't stone her, because in the forest you can't hear the shouts....
There are other very nice rules... you are welcome to read 🙂
There are many stories in the Torah that describe exactly what God's attitude is to rape...
Miracles
I read the verse over and over and I don't see any hint that this is rape at all
Unfortunately, no.
point
Rape a girl... And she is stoned for not "shouting". This is not the only place where rape is punished in the Torah.
Great morality there...
Nissim, I did not understand what you meant in the verse you brought: ... "Because there will be a virgin girl, married to a man; And she found a man in the city, and he lay with her. And you brought them both out to the gate of that city, and you stoned them with stones and they died - the boy for something that was not shouted in the city, and the man for something He who answered the wife of his neighbor; And in the heart of evil, from your presence"
I did not understand if you are against or for. Are you against "taking the evil from your midst"?
my father
Can you embed the second part?
Fascinating interview
Reminds me of an episode from Futurama:
I don't understand evolution, and I have to protect my kids from understanding it! We will not give in to the thinkers!
How, how do you manage to bring the holocaust everywhere? Is there a guidebook for when we will slander others of us and if it doesn't work we will say they are like the Nazis?
MoutHole, these are not subtitles in the old sense of the word. This is a full and complete transcription (including the advertisements...). You must click below the screen on the line "Read the Transcript", then the entire transcript will appear on a scrolling screen, which allows you to watch the interview and read at the same time.
Evolution deniers are nothing more than frauds.
Instead of telling the truth, which is that they are afraid of the conclusions of the theory of evolution, they deny it.
I care mind boggling
I have many more such quotes…. Do you want me to continue?
I care mind boggling
And when he writes... "For there will be a virgin boy, married to a man; And she found a man in the city, and he lay with her. And you brought them both out to the gate of that city, and you stoned them with stones and they died - the boy for something that was not shouted in the city, and the man for something He who answered the wife of his neighbor; And in the heart of evil, from your presence"
Isn't he disgusting?
Ehud Amir, for some reason I don't see subtitles... do you know why?
Is the biblical writer also an abomination, when he wrote:
""This is the doctrine of leprosy in the woolen garment"
"This is the law of the beast and the fowl and every living thing that moves in the water and every living thing that creeps on the earth."
"This is the law of jealousy that a woman lies under her husband and is defiled."
chatterbox.
Dear Lenisni.
Why is it necessary in a critical article to balance science with religious mumbo jumbo??
Why respect the opinions of people who don't bother to study the science and claim that it is wrong because it contradicts their fairy tales?
Science doesn't have to stop because its discoveries impair your ability to persevere with your favorite fairy tale.
Hope you stop confusing factual reporting with anti-Jewish.
The title is biased and funny
Balance is expected from the respected writer and of course respect for the opinions of others and those who bother to enter the site
Please, Mr. Blizovsky, respect yourself because readers like me respect science and want to read without offending.
Hope you don't intend to make the site anti-Jewish and anti-religious
For the hard of hearing (like me) - interview of Neil deGrasse Tyson template by Bill Moyers - with subtitles:
Part 1
http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-the-new-cosmos/
Part 2
http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-religion-and-the-universe/
Part 3
http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-literacy/
ok honey! Whatever you and your imaginary friend want…
Teddy I care.
You should submit a signed letter of complaint in two copies on the subject to Eliezer Ben Yehuda (Tanzava) who revived Hebrew, but did not bother to find words that would be equivalent to foreign words such as: Theory, Doctrine, law, etc.
Also, you can try to convince people not to speak in the Hebrew language when the topics of the discussion are uncomfortable for you.
Alternatively, you can do a little research on the Semitic origin of the word Torah and draw conclusions
Enough to seep in and distribute slander. This is not a conspiracy against religious people, secular people do not receive orders from some aerial leadership in what words to choose to annoy people of faith. The words theory and Torah are close enough in pronunciation and meaning for it to be natural for confusion and common usage to arise. In my opinion, you are just freaking out because they took away the candy that is - "it's just a theory, not final truth" which you can use on gullible people.
It is easy to dismiss the issue with the above excuse, but if the word at the door is Torah, you should shut up, lest you reveal the nakedness of the Torah as another theory, and a rather bad one.
The reality is, whether you choose the word theory or theory, "evolution" is immeasurably based on other theories, from all other theories. And certainly more grounded than the religious explanation that a magical creature created a volume of life in Homo Sapien named 'Adam', from which he removed in some surgery, without anesthesia, Eve the first woman. The theory of evolution is infinitely complex, observed on a daily basis in laboratories around the world, predictions can be based on it and results can be produced. The religious theory is ridiculous in comparison. 'Does not hold water' so called. And nothing can be done with it in science or modern reality. Apart from mindless fools who accept her, there is nothing working in her favor. But the power of fools should not be underestimated, especially when there are many of them.
For the sake of fairness, I hereby allow you to use the phrase "theory of Judaism" and "theory of creation" as you wish.
And I promise you not to seep in and not to dish out insults.
Among the more despicable things that the secular academic leadership has done is to take the word Torah, which has only one unique meaning and has been sacred to the Jews for thousands of years, and with the intention of using the word 'theory' for evolution, they use the 'theory' of evolution. Every time I see it, I cringe. Because it's just like the scene from the movie Schindler's List where the Nazis use the headstones of Jewish graves to pave the access road to the concentration camp. Call it the 'fact' or the 'truth' of evolution if you like. Leave the word Torah, you abominations.